Talk:Runestone

Runestone was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 16, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Writing systems Mid‑importance

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Norse history and culture Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

inscription articles[edit]

seeing that Category:Runic inscriptions is getting a little bit out of hand, what about merging articles on inscriptions into larger categories, like Elder Futhark rune stones, Younger Futhark rune stones (with only the most notable examples keeping separate articles). If other material accumulates, we could also go for Runic bracteate inscriptions and Runic fibulae inscriptions or similar. I would also discourage double categorization as "Runestone" and "Runic inscription" - it clutters the category, and Runestones is already a subcategory of Runic inscriptions. The Runestone template seems to take for granted the Younger Futhark, but since there are 65 known Elder Futhark runestones, these should maybe be categorized seperately. dab (ᛏ) 13:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that perhaps the division of type of runes used will not divy up these articles enough. the majority were done during the same 100 year period when the vi-Kings were really busy bragging about themselves.. .. I do definitely agree this is getting out of hand and must be divided up into smaller articles, and feel at the same time the information is somewhat relevant and useful.

Perhaps a division of Countries / Districts? The lists in this article will get silly, but they could link to another page with all the un-nonenoteworthy (uuuh...) stones. For example, an entry in the list of Rune Stones for Sweden, then a sublisting for Uppland which sends you to the article "List of Rune Stones in Uppland", which would look something like this: User:Mceder/RuneDistrictTest . Perhaps? Mceder 00:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also removed the double category out of the template. Good point. Mceder 00:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your test pages looks pretty good, except that IMHO there is too much colors & graphics. I proposed quite a long time ago to merge the articles into some kind of lists. IMHO best approach would be to merge according to names: Uppland Rune Inscriptions, Medelpad Rune Inscriptions, Östergötland Rune Inscriptions, etc. If say one page gets too long, divide into two: eg Uppland Rune Inscriptions (1-25) & Uppland Rune Inscriptions (26-50) or something like this. Renata3 23:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well finally had some more time to work on this. I just added List of Rune Inscriptions in Östergötland and I plan to request removing the articles I added, at least the ones that have no other information then this list does. Comments and recommendations very welcome! I will start adding the other districts, but if there is something that is really dumb and needs to change it is not a big deal - the top part is template driven and the data itself is auto-generated. Mceder 04:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cut redlinks[edit]

to be re-added as the articles are created:

dab (ᛏ) 13:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective - Encyclopedic Style[edit]

It seems like much of the writing in this article is more in the style of a term paper, or a discussion in a book, than an encyclopedia article. I think the personal perspective that is used (primarily in the Tradition and Locations sections) detracts from the quality of the article (Style Manual - Avoid first-person pronouns and one) - Not a big deal, but after reading through pages and pages of wiki encyclopedic articles on a subject, coming across lines like these (below) almost makes me want to question the quality of the material.

"One may ask why ..."

"...we can assume that..."

"These inscriptions tell us..."

"Keep in mind that...</>"

"It may sound strange to hear that..."

Just a suggestion :-) KYJustin 19:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I changed "One may ask why these particular Christian rune stones are so prominent in this specific area and they will discover that the region near modern day Stockholm was one of the last pagan strongholds." to "Christian rune stones are prominent in this specific area because the region near modern day Stockholm was one of the last pagan strongholds." -CaptainJae 14:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds a lot better, I rewrote the section some more. Please check. mceder (u t c) 18:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GA Failed[edit]
As of [1], the article during this review, I failed this article for Good Article status, per WP:WIAGA:
There is embedded list in the article. Please rewrite them as textual writing or create a new separate list article.
Fixed. mceder (u t c) 18:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is undercited. Tradition, Types and Colorization sections are completely unsourced. I found also an external link inside the main article.
When all the above issues are resolved, this article can be renominated back. As always when editors disagree about this review, you can submit this article to WP:GA/R. — Indon (reply) — 13:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV Issues[edit]
There's still a couple POV issues in this article, one that caught my eye was this statement:
"Their inscriptions are the oldest written texts created in the Nordic countries and some give a few clues about mythology and the society in Scandinavia before the tragic conversion into a foreign religion."
tragic conversion? Agharo (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an obvious POV issue. Not that I disagree with the point. :) LokiClock (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lingsberg runestone image[edit]
What has happened to the image of the Lingsberg runestone? I need it for an academic paper. How do I find it in Wikipedia commons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.232.130.45 (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just do a search for "Lingsberg" by using the search function as if you would search for an article here on Wikipedia. I get three image results. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inspiration to Runescape?[edit]
I think that I'll ad, in ==Modern Culture==, a bit saying that runestones inspired the runes from Runescape. Lol.Zheliel (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a Runescape expert, but isn't it more likely that the name was inspired by Runes rather than runestones? Dront (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pictish Stones[edit]
These bear a remarkable similarity to Pictish stones, this might deserve a mention. I also believe some Pictish stones were translated using Old Norse, written in Ogham script. The inscriptions were names and dates, most likely commemorating fallen warriors and kings, similar to the runestones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.200.243 (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Runic songs redirect[edit]
I'm sorry but the person who made this redirect obviously knew nothing about either and decided to act only on the similarity of names. Runic stones are widespread historical artifacts in mostly Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, and people usually don't make new ones; runic songs are a living tradition in mostly Finland, Karelia and Estonia, and these two have very little in common (mostly artificial similarities). To make things personal, I can't draw more than two or three runes and I have studied all these from a book translated from English; I can start singing a runic song in midday and end by midnight (and I'm definitely not the only one amongst the admins of Estonian Wikipedia). I suppose this might explain the difference a little bit. --Oop (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incomple map of Runestones[edit]
The map doesn't include one of the oldest runestones in Sweden, the one called Järsbergsrunstenen or as in older time Varnumstenen in Kristinehamn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.171.212 (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]