|WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies||(Rated Template-class)|
|WikiProject Norse history and culture||Inactive)(|
|WikiProject Writing systems||(Rated Template-class)|
nice job with the table, but the runes are missing the ((unicode)) template, this should be fixed occasionally. dab (ᛏ) 21:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Can the Armanen runes be added to this template? FK0071a 11:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
This template is very useful, but the format could do with an update. If it is possible to fit the information into a ((Navbox)) template, it would have been a lot better. I have tried once, but it is a bit difficult. Any ideas? –Holt T•C 20:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
[outdent] That is fine, my suggestion was more of an aesthetic one. In any case, I agree that the current template is not perfect. For example the transliteration which seems to favour the Elder Futhark, while the AS and Younger variations are noted on the side. E.g. as if ᚩ is a, and kind of o. It is vague for those who are not fully familiar with the futharks. –Holt T•C 20:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I think Template:Navbox with columns could be used for this if the limit was more than 20. — CharlotteWebb 18:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Would there be a way to increase the size of the characters in the template? They're really tiny.
I can do it if it's OK, but I'm not sure how to, from a markup (I guess?) perspective. §FreeRangeFrog 08:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
These have been lacking for some time. They should be added to the template, even if the article infoboxes don't include them. LokiClock (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
On my screen, some of the Latin letters appear up among the runes, whereas I would expect to see those only in the bottom row, labeled "transliteration". Do they belong up there for some reason?
Jack Waugh (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I think what LokiClock was trying to say, is that in the main 3 rows of glyphs for Elder Furthark, Old English Furthorc, and Younger Furthark, some variations/discrepancies between the 3 periods are marked by including a transliteration to the right of that character (in black). E.g. the sixth character "torch" glyph differs in the 3 alphabets, and is transliterated as 'k' in Elder Furthark, but as 'c' in Old English Forthorc. The inclusion of the 'c' next to Old English glyph highlights this distinction. However for most readers, the intention of the added inline transliteration emphasis will probably be lost and regarded as 'display noise'.
There are always going to be numerous phonetic shifts between periods. Highlighting some of them seems inconsistent. I would simplify the table by having transliterations only on the bottom row and leave further distinctions to the academic endeavors of the reader. LarryLACa (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)