This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the NorthGermanic 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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
Rune is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about uncited theories on the runic alphabet. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about uncited theories on the runic alphabet at the Reference desk.
On 6 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Rune. The result of the discussion was not moved.
The new Norwegian find is from the period AD 150-250. It does not push the starting date of the runes themselves back. But it may be the oldest inscription on a stone known to date. Note that it is not a runestone in the sense of a standing above-ground memorial. It is a slab used to line the inside of a cremation grave pit. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose Pretty sure this qualifies as an article on groups or classes of specific things as the runes are collectively treated together here. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The section on scholarly work on runes is rather brief and gave me the impression that the study of runes finished long ago. However, when searching for rune frequencies (n-grams), I found that linguistic research is actually ongoing. There is an active scholarly journal, The International Journal of Runic Studies with current articles . There is an ever growingdatabase of runes. I understand that Runic Studies deserves its own entry, but the section here should say a little bit more. B9 (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Variety of English in the article: Bold, revert, discuss
Thread started as a result of edits by a block-evading user, in any case their last post directly contradicts the first and says they do not and have never insisted on envar-b 74.73.224.126 (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have moved this ongoing discussion from my talk page to here at the article talk page, where it may continue more visibly. See WP:BRD
On 7 July, User:156.61.250.251 changed multiple instances of en.us spelling to the en.us alternative. I reverted, citing MOS:ENGVAR and wrote to them on their talk page Please do not attempt to change spelling or dating conventions in existing articles without first inviting comment and advice at the talk page of the articles concerned. See MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:ERA. Nevertheless, they reinstated their edit, which was reverted again by user:Notrealname1234 again citing ENVAR. They also began a discussion at my talk page, which I have now transferred here. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(stalking) At a spot check -our appears before -or, and -ize appears before -ise so engvar-c is most likely but a more thorough investigation would be needed to confirm so. Regardless you should start a discussion on the talk page. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this article, the ENGVAR was set when the word "mediaeval" was introduced on 24 August 2004. As there were no competing spellings, there is no need to open a talk page discussion. 156.61.250.251 (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect mediaeval is valid in several English varieties, and is also a minority usage in engvar-c and admittedly -ize is also a valid minority usage in commonwealth varieties, even if the only people who tend to use it went to Oxford. If this really matters to you, post an explanation of the article's natural evolution on Talk:Runes, and I'll look it over to see what's most likely, but I'd rather just leave it alone. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, we can resolve the imponderables. The edit in question was made from Zurich, Switzerland by a Zurich University academic named Dieter Bachman. Such people invariably study and express themselves in the Queen's English. If you think the editor was using Canadian English the onus is on you to prove it. All the evidence indicates he was not using American English, and you have not suggested he was, therefore there can be no objection to the removal of American spellings. 156.61.250.251 (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is just speculation, not even worthy of a WP:OR tag. The spelling "mediaeval" is archaic, seen mainly in academia. We have no idea why a Swiss-German native (making a massive assumption from his name) chose to use that spelling and we cannot infer. You will have to do better than that. Most readers don't care but we have MOS:ENGVAR precisely to minimise such pointless big-endian/little-endian edit wars. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Next you'll be saying that the spelling Encyclopaedia Britannica is "archaic". I don't intend to follow you down this rabbit hole. "Mediaeval" is not an American spelling, and neither is "encyclopaedia". Compare:
Chambers's Encyclopaedia
Chandler's Encyclopedia (New York)
Collier's Encyclopedia (New York)
Collins Encyclopaedia
Encyclopedia Americana
Everyman's Encyclopaedia, (published in the U S as Everyman's Encyclopedia)
Oracle Encyclopaedia
Tanks Encyclopedia (which refers to "armored vehicles")
As for the supposed re-revert at 13:22 on Friday, the 13:21 revert introduced "specialized" in the third paragraph of the lead, leaving "specialised" in the first paragraph, and no subsequent change was made. 156.61.250.251 (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, mediaeval is perfectly valid American English even if less common. See merriam-webster's entry, and note that it says less commonly not or in British English. Secondly, who cares? One single word is almost never enough to establish a distinct variant. The question is either what variant did the first non-stub revision use, and if that offers no clarity and it often doesn't, then what did the article naturally evolve to over time. Instead of this weird ferrago re mediaeval and which orthography Swiss-Germans are likely to use, what you need to do is provide diffs documenting the article's natural evolution to a point that a distinct variety is established, understanding that just one word is very rarely enough to make a determination. See Help:Diff if you don't know how to provide this documentation. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can always come up with the exception that proves the rule. Americans are overwhelmingly unlikely to employ the spelling "mediaeval". There is a Centre Street in New York which runs from Broome Street in Manhattan south to Park Row. That doesn't mean that when we see the word "centre" we cannot assume that the article does not use British spelling. Policy is not about evolution, it's about quick and simple assessment. Your approach will lead to endless argument, as we have seen here. 156.61.250.251 (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect and irrelevant. and even if it were true would still not establish a distinct variety contrary to your assertion, in the same way that centre would do no such thing en-AU? en-CA? en-IN? en-NZ? who knows. If we were to follow a quick and simple assessment we could as easily state that the page creator was from the United States and therefore... In fact however what you need to do is provide diffs showing the evolution to a distinct variant. Until you do so, I can't help you. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason I omitted the first sentence of my draft, which was 'Then we move to the edit of 12 September 2004, where the word "categorisation" is introduced.' Picking up on your final point, I suppose it's a bit like quantum physics, where you don't know which slit the particle went through till you observe it. With no telltale spellings the waveform only collapsed on 24 August 2004, and having collapsed the 12 September spelling became an inevitability. 156.61.250.251 (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not precisely though this is better than before in the future please link the diffs for convenience. As I stated earlier, we need more than one datum to make an assessment, this is why even in my earliest glance over I stated probably in relation to where the article is likely to go.
What you should provide is the first-post stub revision with a distinct variant, around a half-dozen indicators is preferable though there's no hard and fast rule, for example crore/lakh is rather distinctively South Asian, or fiord is very distinctively New Zealand and might be weighted more in an analysis. Conversely something like mediaeval counts for very little since it's usage is somewhat broad while being shallow everywhere even in en-GB it's a minority usage. Understanding that with some closely related variants our determination may be a bit arbitrary e.g. there's essentially no functional difference between Irish and British English in encyclopedic register but we need enough data to do at least some narrowing.
Along with the diff of a distinct variant, we need to look at two other things. First, was the evolution natural, and not a case where a page was trending one way for some time before being abruptly overwritten. Second, was it sticky, which is to say did it last for some significant period of time. If the answers to both are yes, then we can endorse a change. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is all very interesting, but policy was carefully designed to avoid this wrangling. It states:
Within a given article the conventions of one particular variety of English should be followed consistently.
That begs the question "which variety?" The answer is given:
...use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety.
This ensures that everyone is singing from the same songsheet. If you wish to introduce a discordant note the way to go about it is to set out your proposals in an RfC and see if you can get consensus for them. 156.61.250.251 (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're being argumentative and trying to flex, but it won't work here. An identifiable variety is key, if you're going to keep insisting that use of mediaeval or even categorisation by itself allows the identification of a distinct variety I really don't know what to tell you. Again please provide a post-stub revision diff with an identifiable variety and not just something that could as easily pass for a dozen or more equally, I'm trying to patiently walk you through long-standing community practice here, but do not expect me to do your work for you because I won't. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When American spelling was standardized during the 19th century (mainly through the efforts of the great American lexicographer Noah Webster), the consistent use of -ize was one of the conventions that became established. However, since then, the -ise spellings have become more popular in Britain (and in other English-speaking countries such as Australia), perhaps partly as a reaction against the American custom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.61.250.251 (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the irrelevancies. If you do not provide a diff with an identifiable variant as opposed to something that your gut thinks might just might be en-AU or something based on a single datum, then we have nothing to discuss as has been repeatedly explained. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be editing from Brooklyn, New York, which really says it all. I am quite satisfied from reliable sources that the introduction of the word "categorisation" on 12 September 2004 coupled with the previously introduced "mediaeval" spelling which an American would be very unlikely to use indicates that the intention was for the article to use ENGVAR-B. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but the 64,000-dollar question is, can you get anyone to agree with you? 156.61.250.251 (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've offered no firm assessment as to the appropriate style for this article. My location and yours is yet more irrelevancy. See also WP:CIVIL and review the concept of ad hominem circumstantial. Additionally, there is no country in the entire world where mediaeval has appeared more in print than medieval this century. To the extent that we are counting heads, and that's a tricky topic since all assessments are !votes two people have reverted you, and one has asked for you to provide evidence on the talk page in the form of a diff with a distinct variant which you have repeatedly declined to provide.
Granted, it may well be that the appropriate style is is say en-AU, but again no one is going to do your work for you. Had you spent as much time looking over diffs as you have on fatuous discursions we might have the data we are seeking by now. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of engaging in discussion which has so far lasted six days you could simply have done whatever analysis you deemed appropriate and announced that the ENGVAR is "whatever". Instead you have said (without explaining your reasoning) that the most likely variant is ENGVAR-AU. I am going to give the rationale for my conclusion:
Although some British speakers may write "mediaeval", American speakers don't (you say they do but have adduced no evidence in support).
Although some British speakers may write "categorization" American speakers don't write "categorisation". You haven't admitted it but you have not denied the truth of the statement. 156.61.250.251 (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is how it works. You sought to change the spelling form in use. You asserted that the article began as en-gb. So the WP:ONUS is on you to provide the evidential diffs that support that assertion. That is all you have to do. Afaik, nobody but you really cares which dialect is used but we do get annoyed by articles being flip-flopped by nationalists, so there is a blanket ban on doing so without solid evidence. So instead of engaging in discussion which has so far lasted six days you could simply have done [the] analysis that you have been told that you have to do. Nobody is going to do your work for you. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All lies. There is no "spelling form in use." It's a mixture. You would think that two grown men could agree on a consistent ENGVAR but it seems this is not to be. To resolve the matter it's made easy for us - we just use the first ENGVAR adopted. Since it is the first, by definition there are no inconsistencies. You admit to living in Milton Keynes (my brother used to live there) and the word "archaeological" appears in the fourth section of your userpage. Allowing the spelling of a Wikipedia article to remain inconsistent just makes us look unprofessional. The word "medieval" appears in "Program in Medieval Studies, Yale University" (and a myriad others). Webster's Dictionary has been cited, but that covers the corpus of American literature and makes no claim that any American today would use the spelling "mediaeval". 156.61.250.251 (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mediaeval is quite unusual in the 21st century in every variety en-CA, en-GB, en-IN, en-SA, en-US, take your pick it doesn't matter but can be found in all of them, and establishes nothing, this has been explained. The idea that definitionally there can be no inconsistencies is absurd on its face, and you know this already because of a related discussion involving DATEVAR where you pursued a tendentious claim that two uses vs one use sets things for all time. And once again all the forgoing is largely irrelevant.
I never claimed that the most likely style is en-AU, I just used it as an example of one possibility, substitute en-HK, en-PK, or en-NZ into that spot and the substantive meaning of that sentence wouldn't change. I've added a word to make that clearer.
Globally diverse vocabulary and orthography perturbs no one except style pedants. Our readers want articles that are informative and well-written, the rest is secondary.
Anyway this is becoming repetitious. You haven't provided the diff requested, and I'm busy IRL starting next week, so I'm disinclined to continue this tail-chasing exercise. It's unclear whether your recent posts are intended to instigate for the sake of instigating, reflect a lack of capacity, or a lack of desire for collaboration, but the result is the same.
I'll make you an offer however. Get this article through WP:FAC and I will IAR support whatever variant you want Singaporean with Oxford endings, sure why not. Otherwise if you're uninterested in going through diffs here, maybe find some content work or maintenance tasks to do; those far better serve our readers then having people go through trying to find a reason to change pages to their preferred style. WP:BACKLOG is as good a place as any to start. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're twisting my words again. All I said was that if the editor wanted to be "consistent", instead of changing two BCs to match one CE (s)he should have changed the one CE to match the two BCs. I find it incredible that editors cannot agree on consistent spelling without putting an article up for GA. Your argument stands or falls on whether any American still uses the spelling "mediaeval". You say they do, but adduce no evidence. Having done some research, I can tell you that the practice died out entirely in 2000 with the publication of The Hymn, volume 51, no. 1, (January 2000) by the Hymn Society of America. I can also tell you that the Mediaeval Academy of America, at 1430 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Mass. 02138 has changed its name to "The Medieval Academy of America." Needless to say the "mediaeval" spelling remains vibrant in the UK in, for example, Mediaeval inscriptions: the epigraphy of the City of Oxford (2020). 156.61.250.251 (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can use ngrams if you want to check how common mediaeval is in print, and you'll see it isn't common anywhere. No one's argument stands or fails on that point anyway have you been reading? Please produce a diff showing a distinct variant, thank you. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being formal here, specialised is not an accepted usage in en-US but is accepted in over a dozen other variants. Which of course isn't quite the same thing as saying no American ever uses; when on business it's quite common to set your spellchecker to whatever the local variety is, not that any of this information is really relevant anyway.
Anyway, I'm not sure where you're going with this, simplified your argument is thus
In 2004 mediaeval was used only in en-GB and not any other variety of English whatsoever
Therefore the article must be written in en-GB
The problem is that not only is the first point false, but the conclusion wouldn't follow even if it were true. As explained one or even two points of data is not sufficient. Early usage of fiord would be a strong indicator for en-NZ, early usage of crore would be a strong indicator for en-IN/PK/BD. However in the face of multiple contrary indicators we would likely end up concluding otherwise, especially if the word did not last long.
So again, no one is going to do your work for you, you're the one proposing a change, so your the one who needs to do the work. Please produce a diff showing a distinct variant, thank you. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So if I get your drift, what you're saying is that if a usage appears to be ENGVAR-B, we can't actually say that, because it might be ENGVAR-POGOPOGOLAND, and there is no way of establishing how (if at all) the two variants differ. Right? 156.61.250.251 (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, and again it's clear you haven't been reading since this was discussed previously. I explicitly noted the example of en-IE vs en-GB as one where our determination would be ultimately arbitrary it's similar for en-IN vs en-PK vs en-BD the differences in encyclopedic register matter only to nationalists community practice has long understood this as I previously explained and much of what we do is governed by WP:COMMONSENSE the best we can do in those circumstances is to be aware of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS and try to periodically select the lesser used variant.
However, given a half-dozen indicators we usually can do enough narrowing to satisfy due diligence, and again this has been explained. en-AU and en-GB may seem similar, but there are a large number of differences, truck vs lorry, program vs programme, etc. This is similarly true for every major variety.
Anyway, reread this post, reread it twice if you have too, where I previously explained how community practice uses common sense to resolve these determinations.
Addendum: Sometimes an article will not reach an identifiable variant. I remember running across a new singly authored page that used both organise; and organize within the same paragraph, and only got more mixed as time went on. Rather than trying to force through your preferred variant in those cases, just back off and let the article continue to naturally evolve, Wikipedia doesn't have any deadlines. Better yet, help the article naturally evolve, but not by changing existing content to your preferred style, instead expand and elucidate, get it to GA or even FA, when you've authored 90% of the content the article will have naturally evolved to prefer your style, but more importantly whenever an FA is written it actually benefits readers, and not just some squabbling nationalists. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Re we need more than one datum to make an assessment. Please explain why. You have just said that from time to time we may select a lesser-used variety (without evidence) just to show inclusiveness. You seem to be turning the five pillars on their head - without a reliable source, on the altar of WOKEness saying "Let's do it this way." [note the time on the above signature is not accurate]. 156.61.250.251 (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additions to ones own comments are allowed until responded to so long as the time period is not excessive. Wokeness has nothing to do with anything, Wikipedia is not the place for your politics, avoiding WP:SYSTEMICBIAS as best we can is an outgrowth of WP:NWP:NPOV one of our oldest policies, which was listed as part of the WP:TRIFECTA before the Five Pillars was even a quirky essay and neutrality is part of that too.
Regardless, if a revision is too generic to have any kind of identifiable variant then it can't be used as a basis for a retain argument. It's fully plausible that a revision exists with a reasonably clear variant in the page history somewhere preferably not as something forced through and immediately reverted but you have not provided it despite repeated requests, and prefer to squabble over politics rather than doing the research that is incumbent on you. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see that the GNG has any relevance to this discussion whatsoever. It is shocking enough that you have no regard for reliable sources try to periodically select the lesser used variant but you now seem to be relying on strawmen. You also show that you have no understanding of how verification works and I get the impression you are a schoolkid. Imagine you have 100 sources, 99 of which say one thing and 1 something else. We consider the 99 sources to be reliable, but it's theoretically possible that 99 people are lying and 1 person is telling the truth. In sourcing we have regard to the balance of probabilities because even if you give an eyewitness account we don't know that you aren't lying because we weren't there. Thus when we see the spelling "specialised" for example, on the balance of probabilities the text is written in ENGVAR-B, although there is a one-in-a-million chance it's actually written in ENGVAR-POGOPOGOLAND.156.61.250.251 (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that was a typo, I'll fix it.
As for the rest of your rant it's again both wrong and irrelevant. Source analysis is far more complex than a mere counting game, in many cases errors propagate including from Wikipedia, new research shows them, but the lack of splashiness results in far less repeats. 10 eyewitnesses picking someone out of a line up will be overwritten by a single DNA test. Probability analysis is difficult and even people who know what Bayes' theorem is often misemploy it. I could for example assert that because there are far more writers of en-IN than en-GB, or any other variant, that therefore any use of specialised is most likely by an en-IN writer that assertion is flawed for several reasons, but if we are going to employ your logic.
All the foregoing is irrelevant anyway because your assertion is flatly contrary to community consensus. If you don't believe me, feel free to go to every article where specialised was first used, change their tags to en-GB, and get back to me actually scratch that last part, you won't be able to get back to me because you'll be blocked. Wikipedia is governed by consensus. Being neutral is core to how we do business, so we seek to avoid WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. If you do not wish to work in a collaborative environment, I suggest you find a different hobby, thanks for your understanding. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one policy you need to read is WP:AGF. You shouldn't assume that an editor wants to change ENGVAR tags unless (s)he has either (1) actually done it or (2) said (s)he is going to do it. In fact, you are piling up so many strawmen you'd better get the fire brigade on call for the next hot spell (over 120 degrees Fahrenheit are predicted in southern Europe in the coming days). Who suggested that what appears to be ENGVAR-B should be considered ENGVAR-IN because the population of India is so much greater than the population of England? You. Who suggested that the use of the word "specialised" merits an ENGVAR-B tag? You. Who accused me of tag-bombing either expressly or by implication without diffs? Why this line of attack anyway when this article is not tagged and never has been? All I have done is make the spelling internally consistent and, in line with policy, consistent with the spelling as it was immediately before the first inconsistency was created. If you have some objection to consistency Wikipedia isn't the place for you. Try quantum physics and relativity - you'll find plenty of inconsistency there.
As for thinking that DNA tests will solve crimes, these have no relevance to the classic considerations of means, motive and opportunity. If the crime is committed in one country and the alleged perpetrator lives in another, what then? (See the discussion which has started up on the Humanities reference desk and the link to pages and pages of legal argument and citations). Example: Simon Charles Dorante-Day lives in Queensland and for the last five years has been in and out of court trying to get an order for DNA testing of Camilla and Charles to prove he is their illegitimate son (so far without success). 156.61.250.251 (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The word alphabet refers to a sequence of letters that begin with the letters α and β (alpha and beta, hence alphabet.) Therefore the futhark cannot be an alphabet since it does not begin with these symbols (and this is why it's called the futhark.) 2601:1C0:577F:BFD0:E8CD:A69F:56A:AF75 (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look up alphabet in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
That explains the etymology of the word "alphabet", but not its current meaning where those antecedents have been left far behind. See definitions 1 and 2 at Wiktionary:alphabet. As our article Alphabet explains:
The title of this article should be singular: "Rune". Here are the relevant definitions from the Oxford Dictionary packaged with macOS:
(rune) a letter of an ancient Germanic alphabet, related to the Roman alphabet
(runes) small stones, pieces of bone, etc., bearing symbols with mysterious or magic significance, and used in divination
Obviously you can pluralize "rune" in the first sense above, but plurals shouldn't be used as the title for an encyclopedia entry without good reason. Here's Britannica's entry. They use the singular, "rune":
Agree. I don't know of any other case where the article is in the plural form and I've always wondered what makes this one special and never found a reason. I support moving it. But I think you will need admin support because a redirect article for the singular form also exists, so some gymnastics are required to swap them. Ask at the WP:Teahouse? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bueller 007, Lovecel, and JMF: All of you are right. Wikipedia's naming conventions require the singular. Looking at the logs, I see the article was moved from "Runes" to "Rune" in 2015, and the next day an editor moved it back, saying that the move had been requested as "uncontroversial", though I can't imagine how anyone could say that, in view of the earlier move in the previous direction. Anyway, both Wikipedia's naming convention and consensus in this discussion say it should be "Rune", so I've moved it back to that title. JBW (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Moved from User talk:John Maynard Friedman