Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies/Archive

Scope

Since the date of the first sound shift is mainly scholarly guesswork, I suggest that we start with the Nordic Bronze Age. It would align the project with both Template:Germanic peoples and the daughter project Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture.--Berig (talk) 06:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following WP:UCS, I would say that's fine. The folks as WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome cover the Minoan civilization and things seems to roll on quietly and productively. Unfortunately, we're talking about Ancient Germanic culture, so all bets are off...

Archaeologically, I think its justifiable. Linguistically, however, everything before the First Sound Shift (FSS) is Pre-Germanic. Indeed, the reasoning behind the absolute chronology of the FSS primarily consists of a string of conditional arguments surrounding the word "hemp", which are not all that convincing, IMO. However, I have not found anyone willing put the FSS earlier than ca. 500 BCE, and some go so far as to suggest that the causes of the FSS are probably directly connected with the start of the Pre-Roman Iron Age.

I don't have a problem with including NBA as a closely related topic. But I worry that explicit inclusion as part of the scope will draw some heavy fire from various quarters, as - though commonly agreed upon as a no-brainer - when pushed, the connection becomes difficult to substantiate.

For the same reasons, I think the Germanic peoples template suffers from similar problems. I'm surprised no one has tried deleting it entirely, to be honest. As recent discussion on List of Germanic peoples shows, people require that Ancient Germanic be clearly delineated from Germanic (i.e. "modern" or "contemporary" Germanic) before they can think straight and edit productively.

Forgive my ramblings. I think it would be best to hear the opinions of others on this. —Aryaman (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right. One thing I've often ran into problems here with is people seeing the word "Germanic" and instantly thinking Deutsch rather than Germania, sending them into a frenzy. A project like this will help! :bloodofox: (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Task force proposal: Runic studies

I would like to propose the creation of a task force dedicated to runic studies. The details of my proposal are as follows:

Scope: This task force will focus upon the improvement of any and all articles related to runes and runic inscriptions as part of the Ancient Germanic Studies WikiProject.

Specific Goals:

To apply and/or create standards for the transcription, transliteration and translation of runic inscriptions in Wikipedia articles.
To establish a uniform, MoS-compliant method of citation and referencing in all relevant articles.
To widen the research base for credible resources in runic studies and incorporate them into the appropriate articles.
To establish a 'standard' method of treatment (e.g. outline structure) for particular 'species' of articles, such as those on individual runes and those on inscriptions found on artefacts, etc.
To establish and maintain proper categorization of all relevant articles.
To maintain/continue proper categorization of related media, i.e. images used in runic articles.

Possible partner WikiProjects:

WikiProject Writing systems

If created, this task force would have its own page, and would be responsible for developing its own MoS-compliant standards and for generating its own to-do list.

Comments are encouraged. —Aryaman (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sooner such standards are established, the better. Would you like me to start it?--Berig (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't think of a more appropriate person to do the honours. :) —Aryaman (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well needed. Sounds great to me! :bloodofox: (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] Thanks for you support. I'll think it over and I hope to finish a version before the end of this month.--Berig (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Count me in! --Holt (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have started it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies/Runes.--Berig (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Assessment will eventually play a significant role in this WikiProject, and it is typical for WikiProjects to have an Assessment page detailing any topic-specific requirements for rating articles within that WikiProject. Although many WikiProjects do not take advantage of the potential offered by a project-specific rating system, we are free to do so, provided that our criteria meet or surpass those otherwise universal to Wikipedia.

Personally, I find the Wikipedia requirements for Start- and B-Class rather indefinite. I also feel that before an article can earn the 'Start-Class' rating, it should represent the results of a thorough research phase, and all the pertinent information should already be present. (In this sense, 'Start' should mean that the article contains all the necessary citable information and is now ready to be edited with a view towards presenting that information in a coherent, MoS-compliant manner.) These, however, are my personal views, and I would appreciate it if others would voice their opinions regarding the possibility of creating a clearer, and perhaps more stringent list of assessment criteria for this WikiProject. —Aryaman (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. No one seems to be volunteering here, so I will present what I propose for our project-internal quality rankings. I hope others will have things to add and/or correct here, as I do not want to attempt determining these things on my own. (Please compare the following with: WP:ASSESS) —Aryaman (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stub: The article is a rough collection of information.

Start: The article is a collection of all pertinent information related to the topic, representing the results of a thorough research phase, and all cited information has been noted with proper (Harvard) references. Further, the information has been organized according to a coherent outline, and the article has an appropriate lead.

B-Class: The article is well-developed, with a good lead, multiple headings, one or more images, and includes any relevant templates. The article discusses the topic in a neutral and balanced manner, and provides proper context to the average reader, being sufficiently wiki-linked and dab-linked where appropriate.

GA-Class: The article exhibits uniformity in style and voice, both in itself as well as in comparison with other GA-Class articles. It is composed in error-free (British) English, and attention has been paid to details such as units of weight and measurement, dates, etc. Footnotes appear at the end of their respective sentences, and give additional information to interested readers where appropriate. Overall, an excellent article which could only be improved in terms of style by editors outside our WikiProject.

Just as a comment, I am not a fan of British spelling and, as it relates to this project, sticking to the older "American" spelling may be more appropriate rather than the Anglo-French (See:American and British English spelling differences) preferred when "British English" was standardized. I recommend either we stick with "American English" or we just treat it article-by-article - that is to say whatever is there first ought to be the standard of the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..Otherwise, I am perfectly fine with these standards! :bloodofox: (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think British English is more appropriate in articles on European matters. The standards look fine to me too.--Berig (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree to go either way depending upon precedent, as suggested by Bloodofox. It might be helpful to add a hidden comment to an article indicating preferences to avoid unnecessary edit conflicts in the future. —Aryaman (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting citations, footnotes, etc.

References

I think it is very important that we establish what style of reference/footnote formatting this project is to use. The WP:MoS describes several possible methods, and leaves it up to editors to choose one appropriate to their field.

In my experience, most theses, articles and books treating our subject use Harvard referencing. I have been using a slightly modified version of this style in my articles (where no other format is given): an in-line (end of sentence) footnote containing a standard Harvard reference and a References section giving full citation of the work. I find this to be a superior method of referencing, not least of all because it enables editors to include valuable information in the form of footnotes which might not be considered directly relevant to the article itself. (See, for example, the notes section on Ring of Pietroassa.)

I would like to hear from other editors on this subject. —Aryaman (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. I am also fine with converting articles we collaborate on into this style as well, such as the articles I've recently requested collaboration on here as well (Alu (runic), Tuisto). :bloodofox: (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was just looking at Tuisto, which prompted me to post the above. Granting that the other members agree, I would like to write up a section for inclusion on the project page specifying our use of Harvard standard. I think it is within out "right" to request that editors outside the group contributing to AGS-related articles use the same format. Citations without page numbers, etc. are quite tiresome to track down and should not be added in the first place, really. And I find citations with "^abcdefghi Johnson, J (1978)" to be rather unsightly. Adding {{refbegin|2}} ... {{refend}} is enough to ensure a compact references section. —Aryaman (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have always used Harvard referencing when writing IRL, I think giving references in notes is more versatile and appropriate in WP articles. If I want to move down a great deal of information in a note, I simply use Harvard referencing in the note to show my sources.--Berig (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, on WP it is important to give sources for information that is so mainstream and common knowledge in scholarly circles that no scholar would source them in real life articles. In such cases, I think Harvard referencing could be undue since it could make the particular referenced source look like the ultimate originator of the information.--Berig (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your premise, Berig. And this is where the mighty Cf. comes in handy, e.g. cf. Mitchell (2001:13). Also, Harvard does not prevent us from adding clarification in the footnote itself. —Aryaman (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] Yes, you're right that the cf. annotation can be used for that purpose. Still, using notes conscientiously makes paragraphs look cluttered, but using Harvard referencing they would make them look even more cluttered. Moreover, even if we went over completely to Harvard referencing, I'd prefer using notes for references such as newspaper articles.--Berig (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, another reason for objecting to making Harvard referencing the standard is the fact that I have written and expanded between 200 and 300 articles by using notes for references. The vast majority of these articles are theoretically covered by this Wikiproject. If we applied Harvard referencing, there would be a huge workload trying to make the articles consistent in style.--Berig (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a firm believer in "one sentence, one footnote". If a sentence has more than one citation connected with it, they are to be included in the same footnote and separated by a semicolon at the very least, if not addressed outright as separate notes within the same footnote. There is no need to clutter a sentence with a footnote every other word. And I don't consider one footnote at the end of a sentence "clutter". As far as newspaper articles are concerned, that's fine by me.

As for the workload of reworking old articles: this is not to happen tomorrow or anything. But uniformity is, eventually, going to come to Wikipedia - especially if it is going to release print versions of the encyclopaedia. Articles need to be worked through one at a time as it is. And I don't mind reformatting references, provided all the required information is present. —Aryaman (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The use of notes appears to be the most common way of referencing on WP. However, although I am reluctant, I'm ready to agree on Harvard referencing as a standard. But, it's on condition that the other members of this Wikiproject, Holt and Bloodofox, support it. This is a decision that everyone has to agree on for it to work.--Berig (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mistaken, we (Bloodofox, Holt and I) just came to a similar conclusion during a recent discussion of additions to Alu (runic). So, I think we're good to go on this. —Aryaman (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmative. –Holt T•C 20:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dating

If it has not been mentioned yet, I think we should state our method of dating for the sake of clarity. I am pretty sure most here generally use the Common Era terms instead of Anno Domini. This is something that should be very consistent. –Holt T•C 01:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely prefer CE and when I edit an article where AD isn't already standard, I use this system. If there are no objections, I propose that we do the same. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I was implying :) The reason I put up the comment was so that newcomers or Anno Domini users can be informed, by making it clear on the main page of this project. As a result of such a decision, I suppose we are all legitimated to change between AD to CE of any article falling under our scope, if nothing else is stated. –Holt T•C 20:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions

I'm familiar with WP:NAME. Especially the part which says:

The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

Fair enough. But aren't we - by which I mean those of us interested enough in this topic to look up articles relating to it on Wikipedia, let alone edit them - by virtue of the very fact beyond the general audience? Can a person looking up a rune from the Elder Futhark or a pre-Christian Heathen deity really be considered general audience? In my eyes, they've already crossed that line. And, as far as this topic is concerned, we have crossed the line in as much as we treat a subject which is simply not "readily accessible to a general audience". Some specialist interest, and foreknowledge, can be assumed on the part of our reader. The key question is: how much?

What are our peers doing? I, for one, take Rudolf Simek's Lexikon der germanischen Mythology to be a great example of how to get naming conventions right. The book is directed at a general audience, though assuming a bit of advanced interest on the part of the reader, and yet remains interesting and useful to those who have advanced knowledge of the subject. The Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde is another great example.

Sadly, we, the Wikipedia community, are far from attaining these standards. In terms of naming, I'm afraid articles like Týr would be laughably sophomoric if viewed by the likes of Simek or Hoops.

I'm not saying Simek and Hoops are the final authorities on the question of naming conventions (and, by extension, the split/merge issues that arise as a consequence). I'm sure there are others that are equally skilled, and I would be happy to hear what the other members of this project think. But I do think that, if we are going to get serious about increasing and improving our coverage of Ancient Germanic culture, we need to open our eyes to similar work already accomplished in the field and, to some degree at least, follow suit. —Aryaman (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea to be as accessible as possible but without compromising anything at the same time. A few internal links and explanations can solve many of the problems associated with technical terms and symbols. I'm not a fan of abbreviations at all though and I think we, as a project, should actively avoid them as much as possible. Perhaps I misunderstand - is there anything in specific you are referring to? Can you give me an example? :bloodofox: (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to stick with the previous example: Týr. If you compare this entry with a reference work like Simek's, the discrepancy becomes apparent. His entries:

Tīw or Tīg (Anglo-Saxon): (1 paragraph)
*Tīwaz: (1 paragraph)
Týr: (Old Norse) (5 paragraphs)
*Ziu: (Old High German) (2 paragraphs)

These are four different entries in Simek, all with content specific to each, all with clear "links" (Simek uses the inline arrow →) to the other entries in the series. (This, in opposition to the practice of simple "redirecting", e.g. "Tuisco: → Tuisto") The reason is clear: anyone working with source texts or other literature is going to look up a specific form of the term and expect to find detailed information on that form. Simek does not attempt to write an entry on the figure Tīw/Tīg/*Tīwaz/Týr/*Ziu, but instead one on each form. To do otherwise is to make an assumption which, strictly speaking, is synthetic in nature. I see no good reason for us to press all these together in one article. Dablinks and See also were invented to deal with exactly this kind of thing. —Aryaman (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point and I agree with it. I think most of these problems can be solved by simply sticking directly to the sources and purging what isn't sourced in favor of what solidly is. The Týr page is a good example of an article just asking for a complete rework and it's be a solid target for this project. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heathen prayer

At WikiProject Mythology, a request for Germanic heathen prayers to be listed at the prayer article has been made. I can think of two accounts off hand, the Anglo-Saxon Æcerbot (which I just quickly created) and Sigrdrífumál plus there's that Varoon uploaded and the beautiful image by Arthur Rackham (the one on the right). Can anyone else think of anything? :bloodofox: (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know that a long-time point of contention among scholars was whether or not the first half of the Wessobrunn Prayer was Heathen in origin (pointing to parallels with the Völuspa) - a position which appears to be categorically (and with little to no good reason, IMO) refuted by modern Germanisten (though some thoughtful theologists view it as the result of Heathen-Christian syncresis). Maybe that article needs to be worked over as well - it flatly states: "The concept of creation from nothing (creatio ex nihilo) described here is however genuinely Christian." Seeing as the same thing has been repeatedly claimed regarding the creation in the Völuspa, I find the whole argument highly suspicious. Anyway, I'll keep looking for possible inclusions here. —Aryaman (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should begin by collating the obvious sources for material which could be of use here, such as Grimm's Teutonic Mythology (Vol. I, Ch. III) and Grönbech's Culture of the Teutons (Vol II, Ch. X Prayer and Sacrifice), both of which deal with heathen prayer in the greatest detail the material allows. (Both of these works are available in English on-line and I'm pretty sure everyone in this group has already found and downloaded them. If not, get them now. If you need links, drop me a note.) If I'm overlooking a major work here, feel free to leave a reminder. Also, we need to mention any contributions we can make from our own private collections. For my part, I have a (German language) copy of Derolez' Götter und Mythen der Germanen (1963) which contains (Book III, Ch IV) a chapter on prayer. Not much substance to get out of it, but some interesting discussion nonetheless. There is a mention in Simek (2003) regarding Víga-Glúms saga (9) and the possibility of a "prayer to Freyr", but I have not followed up on that yet. Others are invited to mention what resources they have at their disposal below. —Aryaman (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A solid approach as usual, Varoon. While a full treatment is ideal, we can also just give a basic overview of the subject matter for now and then fill it out. I think we can start by listing potential prayers here outside of the two obvious ones I've mentioned before. Here's a basic draft of what we've mentioned so far:

Accounts of prayers to the gods in Germanic paganism survived Christianization though only a single prayer has survived without the interjection of Christian references. These references include the Valkyrie Sigrdrífa's prayer to the gods and the earth in stanzas 2 and 3 of the poem Sigrdrífumál compiled in the Poetic Edda in the 13th century from earlier traditional sources. The 11th century manuscript for the Anglo-Saxon charm Æcerbot presents what is thought to be an originally pagan prayer for the fertility of the speaker's crops and land, though Christianization is apparent throughout the charm. One of the Sagas of Icelanders, the Víga-Glúms saga might contain a prayer to the god Freyr. The 8th century Wessobrunn Prayer has been proposed as a Christianized pagan prayer and compared to the pagan Merseburg Incantations, the latter recorded in the 9th or 10th century.

(Of course, without the references.) Do you think the "Thor Hallow These Runes" (as presented on various runestones) counts as well? :bloodofox: (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is something Grimm specifically addresses in one of the later sections (somewhere in Vol. III, I believe) of Teutonic Mythology: in ancient Germanic religion, there appears to have been no strict division between prayers, blessings and curses, and three three often blend into one another. This, argues Grimm (if I recall correctly), is not to be seen as a "shortcoming" of the religion; simply as one of its defining characteristics. I will have to do some more re-reading, but I would leave it out for now, as its inclusion without some kind of clarification would invite a whole slew of additional material, as I'm sure you easily recognize. But we should definitely keep it in mind for a future, more thoroughly researched version of our contribution here. —Aryaman (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through volume III today and didn't find anything. However, I did find a section regarding prayer in volume IV, chapter III ("Worship") - is this the section you were referring to or is there more that you can recall? To summarize, Grimm states that one prays to the east for Odin and to the north for Ulf, that prayer is directed at the sun, and no sacrifices occur after sunset. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, a prayer to Odin is mentioned in chapter 2 of the Volsunga saga where King Rerir is granted a child after Frigg sends him an apple, which is dropped on his lap by Frigg's servant while Rerir is sitting on a mound. Rerir's wife eats the apple and is then pregnant with Volsung (after Rerir dies of sickness and after six years of pregnancy, yikes) but dies soon thereafter. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Ancient Germanic studies

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:47, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT

WP:NOT#PLOT: There is an RfC discussing if our policy on plot, WP:PLOT, should be removed from what Wikipedia is not. Please feel free to comment on the discussion and straw poll.

Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. Hiding T 13:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment of Merseburg Incantations

I have done a GA Reassessment of Merseburg Incantations as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to be fine except for the lack of references in a couple of sections. I have put ^{[citation needed]} templates where I feel at least one in-line citation would be needed. My review is here. I have put the article on hold for a week pending work on the references. I am notifying the interested projects of this. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. H1nkles (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note to the talk page which should be helpful in clearing up the outstanding issues. Aryaman (talk) 10:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project assessments

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies/Assessment states that the project has no A-Class or FA-Class and does not use the standard quality scale, but the project banner has always supported these classes, and despite what that page says, the project does indeed (to all intents and purposes) use the same scale as at WP:ASSESS. This is rather confusing. PC78 (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original idea was that the project does not intend to advance articles within its scope beyond GA status. That they can have either A- of FA-status is, of course, a possibility, but that status is best determined by people outside the project. Also, there have been some changes made to the criteria which are not entirely free of error and need to be looked into/corrected.

One reason why the project banner is in a somewhat jumbled state is that RL forced me to take a prolonged wikibreak just as I was setting things up. I have more free time now, and I hope to give this project more attention very soon. --Aryaman (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda get what you're saying, but both GA-Class and FA-Class are only given when an article is passed at either WP:GAN or WP:FAC, so on the one hand I could understand if you wanted to exclude them, but on the other hand it's not necessary and goes against the norm. Also, perhaps you are confusing GA and A-Class? GA status is determined by an external review process just like FA, whereas A-Class is determined at WikiProject level. Anyhow, don't mind me too much, I'm just passing through and offering my 2¢. :) PC78 (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind at all. In fact, I'm glad to be reminded of this, as it's something I want to get back to anyway. Several other members expressed willingness to help articles get through GA review as part of the project, but were not concerned with either A or FA status. Either am I, to be honest. But I don't rightly remember the context in which the project scale was decided, so it will take a bit of research to find out what caused it and see if any of those concerns still apply. Thanks again for bumping this up on my watch list. --Aryaman (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major problem articles

Odin. Thor. Freyja. Frigg. These are some of our most-viewed and influential articles, yet they are some of the worst articles that fall under this Wikiproject. They are poorly referenced, sometimes present theory as fact, and are just all around shoddy. Yet why haven't they been rewritten and GA-ified yet? The reason is evident: they require rewrites, very big rewrites, and this requires time and effort, lots of time and effort.

Of all of these articles our article for Odin is probably the most difficult to approach. Currently, we actually have three Odin articles: Odin, Wōden, and Wōdanaz. This makes for not one, but three rewrites and then there's the question of whether or not this division is appropriate. Maybe an overview page at Odin would be most appropriate, with summaries and {{main|...}} tags for each of the three sections. I propose that we section Odin out into Odin in Norse mythology, Odin in continental and Anglo-Saxon sources, and *Wodanaz. Any suggestions?

Frigg and Freyja have an additional problem: theories surrounding their etymology. This means they require a third page, ideally titled Freyja and Frigg origin hypothesis, that would handle the theories surrounding either mutual or separate origins of the deities. Right now we have an utterly terrible article at Frijjō that needs to go.

The Thor article is more straightforward and perhaps I should start here. There's just the sheer amount of information to bring into the article, but that can certainly be reigned in.

Getting these articles right should be a priority. I intend to rewrite each of these articles and bring them up to GA status Doing so will be easier with help from other members of this project. Any ideas or comments? :bloodofox: (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thor seems like the best one to begin with. We should be able to get that up to GA status with little difficulty, though it will requite some straightforward work. I really don't know what to do with the Odin/Wōden/Wōdanaz thing right now. The division seems somewhat problematic, but merging would create a positively huge article. Let's get the Thor article in shape and then see what we can do with Frigg/Freyja/Frijjō. We might learn something there which will help us tackle Odin. --Aryaman (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only now finding this response, and I agree. I have since rewritten Freyja (and am not done with it), and I am now producing a rewrite of the Thor article. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Suicide of Teuton women

A very interesting claim is made here. After being defeated by a Roman army "The captured women committed mass suicide, which passed into Roman legends of Germanic heroism: by the conditions of the surrender three hundred of their married women were to be handed over to the Romans. When the Teuton matrons heard of this stipulation, they first begged the consul that they might be set apart to minister in the temples of Ceres and Venus; then, when they failed to obtain their request and were removed by the lictors, they slew their children and next morning were all found dead in each other's arms having strangled themselves in the night.". Can anyone verify this? Should this be added to the Teutons page? - Schrandit (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucius Annaeus Florus, Epitome 1.38.16-17 and Valerius Maximus, Factorum et Dictorum Memorabilium 6.1.ext.3 are the passages in question, where it is related that the women vowed chastity and requested to be sent to the Vestal Virgins. --Aryaman (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! I'll plan on adding that into the Teutons page when I get a chance. - Schrandit (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Germanic studies articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Ancient Germanic studies articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at Talk:History of Vojvodina

Your attention is drawn to Talk:History_of_Vojvodina#Request_For_Comment_re:_WikiProject_Banners_on_this_page. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some more input on Teutons move request

Hi folks, the move request over at Talk:Teutons needs some love. Currently there doesn't seem to be consensus. Chipping in is probably appreciated. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FAC of Heathenry (new religious movement)

Just to let folks interested in Germanic society know that Heathenry (new religious movement) is currently up for FAC. It would be great if some of those reading this could come, take a look, and offer their thoughts at the FAC page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies/Archive/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC CPAC stage Odal shape - at Odal_(rune) article

A RfC has been opened at Talk:Odal_(rune)#RfC_CPAC_stage_Odal_shape. The question is, "Should the article mention the that some sources noted the CPAC stage had an appearance similar to a Odal?". –dlthewave ☎ 03:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]