Talk:Viking runestones

Cleanup of the stone?

Pieter Kuiper replaced a higher resolution image with an apparently miscoloured one of lesser resolution with the motivation change of image after a clean-up of the stone. I am very curious about this cleanup since it did not appear to need any cleaning in the higher resolution picture, nor can I see that anything has been done to the painting of the runes. There appears however to be a notable miscolouring in the lower resolution picture - the wall of the church is supposed to be falu red. Maybe Pieter Kuiper or someone else could indicate when the cleanup has taken place and how?--Berig (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

PS, I need a reliable source for this.--Berig (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the resolution of the new picture that I made. More efficient compression gave a somewhat smaller file size, but in pixels (2,592 × 3,872) it is even slightly larger than Berig's. Image:Växjö domkyrka 2007.jpg shows that the cathedral is not falu red. Probably people urinating on the runestone in the niche behind the cathedral explains why it had become so green with algae. Asking for a source for routine cleanup of this particularly stone just ridiculous, as the images speak for themselves. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I still find your picture oddly miscoloured, and as for the actual colour of the church I hope that you are able to see the striking contrast between the colour of the church in your picture (rather cardinal red) and the orange colour of the church in the picture (Image:Växjö domkyrka 2007.jpg) that you cite as evidence of its actual colour.--Berig (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious, this is Berig's article, and Berig wants it illustrated with his/her own photos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't care who made the pics, only about the quality (see [1]). There are several pictures of mine that I don't add simply because there are already better pictures that others have taken.--Berig (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

text discussion

i wonder what would be the place to discuss the interpretation of runic texts. personally i often wonder what causes many easy interpretations are overlooked, and i am thoroughly fascinated by the liguistic connotations of the words used . In general i think it should be tried to stay closests to the linguistic roots used, for example when penna is used, "thinking of" is the probably better interpretation then 'in memory of' if you care about understanding the 'viking culture' the mentality of the period. usually the examples are simple, folkmar being of german/frysian decent also shows in his sun being named folks sun, indicating how the name folke or fokke on its own would be enough to identify a person of his family (and him as a foreigner). another such question is why sunnvatr is not translated as either sun of this father or sunwater, and the list is quite long, han doesn't mean "he" but means 'has'(has died, not: he died), etc. i dont see how mangling the original texts so unnecessary would contribute to their understanding.(tried to find a life theat after reading the greece runestones article). I also would think soekla 's translation as attacked is the least plausible as the use of the stem to seek for acts of violence is the rarest, would usually not go without an indication of the history and is actually a completely literary reference with little to do with the rune age. You might as well pose he was a demon there then. visited is the best translation (bezoeken in dutch) that his visit may well have been professional is another matter and not quite sure, where in many (most?) cases it is specifically noted when vikings performed as soldiers or as merchants. I think it says visited because he did just that, went on a "visit" or "new country to see" .in all 3 examples staying closests to the linguistical root is instrumental in understanding the inscription and making the most of it, I couldn't do without the transcriptions tho. I do wonder why runestones don't inspire this respect for interpretation in others ? isn't it obvious runes were developed to be readible through different dialects? i would extend that to: writeen to be easily understood in many languages. Wich explains their focus on inheritances a bit, they had a legislative value because they where a witness plain for *evryone* to see. 24.132.170.97 (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Map

I've created Template:Viking runestones which can be used as a basis once there is an equirectangular projection map including Lolland. The main chunk of the code would remain the same. /Lokal_Profil 14:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oslo

Copenhagen

Stockholm

class=notpageimage|

Clickable map of the geographic distribution of the Viking runestones in southern Scandinavia (modern administrative borders and cities are shown)

Sö 173

Sö 173 is listed here and in the Ingvar runestones at Sö 173. The inscription clearly refers to the Ingvar expedition and the Viking runestones article discusses this, so the Sö 173 on this article should be deleted. Deanlaw (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Viking runestones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070912040659/http://skaldic.arts.usyd.edu.au/db.php?table=verses&id=10056 to http://www.skaldic.arts.usyd.edu.au/db.php?table=verses&id=10056
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930035621/http://www.raa.se/cms/extern/kulturarv/arkeologi_och_fornlamningar/tystberga_runstenar_i_sverige.html to http://www.raa.se/cms/extern/kulturarv/arkeologi_och_fornlamningar/tystberga_runstenar_i_sverige.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110225031159/http://www.sofi.se/servlet/GetDoc?meta_id=1472 to http://www.sofi.se/servlet/GetDoc?meta_id=1472
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/60rCZt33c to http://www.nordiska.uu.se/forskn/samnord.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060519222104/http://web.telia.com:80/~u58110628/so106kjula.html to http://web.telia.com/~u58110628/so106kjula.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

Hi, I arrived here through a Random Article click. Having little else to do, I added (as suggested) {{lang|non|...}} for all the Old Norse transcriptions. However, there appears to be no ISO-639 code for Runic, although ISO 15924 has Runr, 211. So I used {{lang|Lat|...}} for "Runic trans/lated/literated into Latin script" although there is no differentiation between 'Latin language' and 'Latin-script'. Hope all seems OK. MinorProphet (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)