WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies (Rated Template-class)
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Germanic studies 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Norse history and culture  (Inactive)
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject Writing systems (Rated Template-class)
This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


nice job with the table, but the runes are missing the ((unicode)) template, this should be fixed occasionally. dab () 21:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Armanen runes

Can the Armanen runes be added to this template? FK0071a 11:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

no. they are not historical. dab (𒁳) 11:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Format change

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 TC 20:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the current template -- quite some thought went into its design. You won't be able to imitate the current tabular arrangement by transcluding ((Navbox)). --dab (𒁳) 15:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The current template is good, the way it is worked out shows that it has not been made in a flash. However, the ideal would be to have that arrangement in a navbox template, because of the upsides with navbox. Collapsing, right placement, greater flexibility in settings, streamlining the templates used in the topics etc. What I am saying is that if arranging the characters as in the current template is possible in a navbox template, we should go for the latter. The format change is just a suggestion. If it is not possible at all - that is fine, but at least we tried. –Holt TC 15:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be more important to fix some issues in the old template, such as the algiz rune which appears in two places (in the second place as the Yr-rune). It should be presented in the same way as the Jera rune.--Berig (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean. The Yr rune may have developed out of the Algiz rune, but they are not identical. We happen to discuss them together, in a single article, but that's just a matter of organizing content, not of "identity". dab (𒁳) 18:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
strike that, we now even have two separate articles, at Algiz and at Yr rune. dab (𒁳) 18:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone doubts that the Yr rune is derived from the Algiz rune. Fact is that it was only turned upside down and continued to denote the same phoneme in Old East Norse (although it evolved from z to an r sound). It is interesting to note that the only sources for the Norse name of the rune (the rune poems) are from Old West Norse where the rune was superfluous (and not used). When it also became superfluous in East Norse it found a new role in the medieval runes to denote the y phoneme.--Berig (talk) 20:22, 5 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 TC 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)

Size of characters

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)

Medieval runes

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)

Position of Transliterations - Inline Emphasis

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)

Latin is used for discrepancies with the Elder Futhark (bottom) transcriptions & system-exclusive runes. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 09:16, 5 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)