Talk:Runes

Older runes found?

CNN reports that runes dating back to about year 0 have been found. It's not a scholarly source so, so I'm not adding it. But assuming it's true, we should put the earliest runes further back. Herostratus (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The new Norwegian find is from the period AD 150-250. It does not push the starting date of the runes themselves back. But it may be the oldest inscription on a stone known to date. Note that it is not a runestone in the sense of a standing above-ground memorial. It is a slab used to line the inside of a cremation grave pit. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, in the BC/AD system, there is no year zero. "Around the beginning of the Christian Era (or Common Era)" is what historians typically say. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Why is the title of this article pluralized?

The title of this article should be singular: "Rune". Here are the relevant definitions from the Oxford Dictionary packaged with macOS:

(rune) a letter of an ancient Germanic alphabet, related to the Roman alphabet

(runes) small stones, pieces of bone, etc., bearing symbols with mysterious or magic significance, and used in divination

Obviously you can pluralize "rune" in the first sense above, but plurals shouldn't be used as the title for an encyclopedia entry without good reason. Here's Britannica's entry. They use the singular, "rune":

https://www.britannica.com/topic/rune

Bueller 007 (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Rune singular seems right to me. LOVECEL ^🎔 02:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. I don't know of any other case where the article is in the plural form and I've always wondered what makes this one special and never found a reason. I support moving it. But I think you will need admin support because a redirect article for the singular form also exists, so some gymnastics are required to swap them. Ask at the WP:Teahouse? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bueller 007, Lovecel, and JMF: All of you are right. Wikipedia's naming conventions require the singular. Looking at the logs, I see the article was moved from "Runes" to "Rune" in 2015, and the next day an editor moved it back, saying that the move had been requested as "uncontroversial", though I can't imagine how anyone could say that, in view of the earlier move in the previous direction. Anyway, both Wikipedia's naming convention and consensus in this discussion say it should be "Rune", so I've moved it back to that title. JBW (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@JBW, Bueller 007, Lovecel, and JMF: Ummm ... have you seen the RM section above? Policy doesn't seem to be as clear on this point as you think. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Nicht-Muttersprachler sagt was LOVECEL ^🤍 13:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Might as well pluralize this one too, while you're at it: Letter_(alphabet) Bueller 007 (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Sigh... Why is life so full of things which aren't as straightforward as they seem? To answer your question, Florian Blaschke, I must not have noticed the move discussion above when I posted my comment here; if I had, I would certainly not have said what I did. I always thought "Runes" was more natural, but I accepted what I thought (mistakenly, as it now turns out) was supported both by policy & by consensus on this page. In view of the other information you have now pointed out, I think returning to "Runes" would be better, but it's not something I can get excited about, either way. JBW (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Having thought carefully about this, I don't think my move can be justified. To overturn the outcome of the requested move discussion in February 2023 would require another formal move discussion, and I don't think the few comments here from July 2024 were enough. I shall therefore revert my move. If anyone chooses to start a new requested move discussion, I suggest that they inform everyone who took place in either discussion. JBW (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

After posting my message immediately above, I went to move the article, but found Florian Blaschke had already moved it. In light of what I said above, obviously I am perfectly happy with his moving it, but I can't agree with his edit aummary, which says "Revert undiscussed move"; it certainly was discussed. JBW (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 10 May 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

---

Runes → RuneRune – singular, se discussion above Blockhaj (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Analog examples: Letter (alphabet), Phoneme, Diacritic, etc.--Blockhaj (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - As in 2023, this still meets the first exception of WP:PLURAL. The article is not about a rune or a singular rune as a concept, but rather the systems of runes, which is plural. - Aoidh (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. The reasons given in the discussion above in February 2023 are still valid. JBW (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PLURAL and prior (2023) RM. Nothing has changed since 2023 and "runes" is the correct, plural, collective name for this topic. As raised in prior RM, Chinese characters and Arabic numerals are similar cases. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above. This article's subject is indeed analogous to Chinese characters, which is also plural. It describes a system of writing named "the runes". It does not simply answer the question "What is a rune?". Martin Rundkvist (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, usually discussed in plural. DankJae 22:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Row vs alphabet vs futhark

I do not think the distinctions this article is making between runic rows, runic alphabets or futharks are backed up by scholarship. Pinging some Germanicists: @Bloodofox, Berig, and Ermenrich:. The article was changed in January 2025 by Blockhaj. —Srnec (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

To aid the discussion, the distinction might be more common in Swedish runology by proxy. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 21:56, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

By proxy? Srnec (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd have to look into this as runes are far from my specialty. I believe "futhark" is just the order of letters in the Runic alphabet rather than a separate term, however.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Srnec by proxy since runic tradition continued in Sweden until early modern times, greatly overlapping with the start of runology, thus Swedish precedence in runology is quite massive (edit, what im really trying to say is that there is historical precedence for specifying the alphabetic order in Sweden, since the order (ABC/FUÞARK) carries various significance in the work) ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 06:50, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I think they're all alphabets, no matter the order. The futharks are alphabets. In fact, a futhorc example is given at the top of the page abecedarium. I think this notion of a 'runic row' as somehow distinct from an alphabet has got to go. Srnec (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Here's R.I. Page "Reading the Runes" (British Museum Press, 1987) on the subject: The alphabet has twenty-four letters, and is arranged in a peculiar order which, from the values of its first six letters, is known as the futhark. (p. 9). On p. 8 he has an image that's labeled The Germanic rune-row or futhark. From this, I gather simply that "rune-row" and "futhark" are proper names for the Runic alphabet (which is how I had always taken them).--Ermenrich (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

That regards the 24-type Elder Futhark. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 01:18, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

It predates any runic rows ordered ABCD.--ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 01:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

They are alphabets yes, but "runic alphabet vs futhark" is context sensetive. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 01:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Alphabet does not refer to the order of letters in English. See our page alphabet - it refers to a type of system of writing. Page above is referring to the Elder Futhark when he calls it the Runic alphabet.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The distinction also appears to be unsourced in the article.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I could easily supply Swedish sources, but i dont have English examples at hand. Looking around on the surface, alternative terms are also "Latin-order" vs "Futhark-order" runic alphabet. I'l do a deeper dive in the future, as im busy atm. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 18:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I have seen the term 'rune-row', but always understood it to refer to a runic abecedary in any order (futhark, ABC)—i.e., a literal row of runes. In any case, it is certainly more common than 'runic row'. I have removed the alphabet/futhark distinction from the article as unsupported but tentatively left 'rune-row' in the lead. Even if the distinction exists in Swedish, any more restricted use of the term 'alphabet' needs to come from an English source. Srnec (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Big Deletions?

Hello Editors, it looks like some large pieces of text have been deleted without explanation and I'm concerned that they shouldn't have been. One was 19:06, 29 March 2025 by Blockhaj but without an edit explanation. The other is the removal of all sections except Elder Futhark from the Runic Alphabets section. There was useful info there that shouldn't have been deleted! Info that I can't find anymore on their respective runic alphabet pages. But it was too long ago for me to find the edit that deleted them. I request for the Runic Alphabets section to be restored. ~~ ~2026-16672-20 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2026 (UTC)