Talk:Proto-Germanic folklore

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ancient Germanic studies Top‑importance This article 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.Ancient Germanic studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studiesTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studiesAncient Germanic studies articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Folklore Mid‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Top‑importance Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

@Alcaios:, @Berig:, @Ermenrich:, @Haukurth:, @Yngvadottir:—as you can see, the draft we were working on is now live. Please modify it here and interlink wherever possible on related articles. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were right to merge the columns 'translation' and 'etymology'. There's a bug in the section 'Entities' though. Best regards, Alcaios (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch—zapped it! :bloodofox: (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In at least one instance we're listing Langobardic as an East Germanic language here (namely Gautaz). However, Langobardic is generally seen as a West Germanic language closely connected to OHG: it shows evidence of the

@Pfold:, as a Germanic linguist, you might have citations readily available if anyone should wish them.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to de Vries 2000 for *Gautaz is to an item not listed in the reflist, so it is in any case a flawed citation (one of 4 to this volume). The Lgb form is correct (it occurs in the Edictus Rothari), but I don't imagine de Vries himself thinks Lgb is EGmc. --Pfold (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping a close eye on this, all. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Berig:, is that de Vries you added the same as "de Vries 2000"?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--Berig (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The way to do this is to have the actual reprint year with year= and use orig-date= for the date of the 1st edition. That automatically fixes the linking. I'd do it myself but am a bit swamped at the moment. --Pfold (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It worked, thanks for the tip, Pfold!--Ermenrich (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source was already there, but with a different edition. I replaced the refs and assumed that the 1977 edition (the one I have at hand) has the same pagination as the 2000 edition (is it a reprint?). Simek's Lexikon der germanischen Mythologie is also duplicated by the English edition. This is not vital, obviously, but it would be better if we had only one edition per source. Alcaios (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked Worldcat: the 1977 and 2000 editions do have the same number of pages. 1977 / 2000. Regards, Alcaios (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alcaios, The current title (“Proto-Germanic paganism”) is extremely close to the article Germanic paganism. Since this article is mostly a list wouldn’t something like “List of reconstructed concepts in Germanic paganism” be more appropriate?—Ermenrich (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

Proto-Celtic folklore), and the freshly-created Proto-Indo-Iranian paganism in a consistent way. Alcaios (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

pinging previous contributors to this talk page: Pfold, Berig, Bloodofox.

Sorry, just saw this. I went with folklore because this encompasses reconstructions of elements of folklore, like mythology, legend, and folk belief. I think folklore is most appropriate with this in mind. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to move it back.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]