User talk:Biltvätt

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Biltvätt!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Audio of runic texts[edit]

Hi, should your files be in Category:Runic inscriptions in Britain or in Category:Runestones in Britain? It feels they are more stones (Englands runinskrifter med signum) than inscriptions (runblek eller dylikt utan signum)? Macuser (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Of the files that have been uploaded so far, only two are from Britain, and neither of those are runestones. E 4 is an inscription on a comb case. Or Barnes9 is graffiti on the inside of the Maeshowe chambered cairn. But they both have signa (signums?). On that basis I would say that they should be in Category:Runic inscriptions in Britain but not in Category:Runestones in Britain. Biltvätt (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • That is not the point, point of categorization is finding. If an inscriptions X 1, X 2, ... X 34 are in one place, and X 35 in the other nobody will be able to find the right one. So it is agreed that all signumed inscriptions are sorted into same category, where one can search for X 34 and X 35 on equal right. This category is given some recognizable and standard name (NOT Audio files from the Swedish National Heritage Board), and this name happens to be Runestones, because it is analogues to Uppland, etc. I found that E is a valid signum, however O is, according to this not. Macuser (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I am unconvinced. The point of categorisation is, as you say, findability. In which case, I would expect Category:Runestones in Britain to be a strict subset of Category:Runic inscriptions in Britain and to contain only those inscriptions which are runestones. If I understand correctly, you're saying that inscriptions without signums go in Category:Runic inscriptions and its children, while those with signums go in Category:Runestones and its children, irrespective of whether they're actually runestones or indeed made of stone at all. Is that correct? A counterexample, then, is runic bracteates, which are correctly categorised under Category:Runic inscriptions rather than Category:Runestones, despite the fact that they all have signums - because they are clearly not runestones. Putting inscriptions which are clearly not runestones into a category called "Runestones" seems to me to be rather misleading, wouldn't you agree? If you want to have a category for signumed inscriptions and another for unsignumed, then by all means do so; but call them something suggestive of their content, rather than something which suggests altogether different groupings. You write that "...it is agreed..." that these categories should function as you describe; where was this consensus reached, and by whom? I would be grateful if you could provide a link to an old discussion page that will explain this for me. Nothing, for example, in Category:Runestones in the Orkney Islands is a runestone! If this really is the accepted practice then I will of course be happy to oblige and move the recordings as you suggest, but it seems extremely counterintuitive and goes against your own argument of findability. A stone with a runic inscription on it does not a runestone make; much less so an antler comb-case!
      • Regarding Category:Audio files from the Swedish National Heritage Board, I'm not sure what the problem is here. It is a logical grouping that has existed for some time, and does not detract from the files also belonging to other categories. Please clarify.
      • As for signums, these are derived from the canonical signa in Samnordisk runtextdatabas. It is misleading to suggest that "Or" is not a valid signum for Orcadian inscriptions by referencing the Skaldic Project, as their import of data from SRDB occurred around 2009 using an older version of the database. Since 2014 at the latest, Orcadian inscriptions have been grouped under the "Or" signum rather than the now-deprecated "Br", and SRDB's entry for "Br Barnes9" is simply a pointer to the entry for "Or Barnes9".
      • Do you have any other compelling reasons why the recordings of E 4 and Or Barnes9 should be in Category:Runestones in Britain and not simply Category:Runic inscriptions in Britain? Biltvätt (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)