Hello, Birdofadozentides, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Moonraker ( talk) 02:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, Birdofadozentides, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for taking an interest in entries about Old English :-) I see you've been working through entries replacing the graph <w> with <ƿ>. I can see why this might seem a good idea, but there are some problems here. Wikipedia entries cite (or should cite) the sources for their quotations of Old English texts, and the text in the Wikipedia entry should be the same as in the source cited. Since these sources probably all use <w>, changing <w>s to <ƿ>s makes Wikipedia less accurate. If you were really keen to replace <w>s with <ƿ>s, you'd have to find editions to cite that use <ƿ>. But that gives rise to another issue, which is that almost no modern editors do use <ƿ>, so your edits are also leading Wikipedia to diverge from the scholarly norms in editing Old English. I really appreciate you wanting to work on Wikipedia: that's great! But I think on this detail it would be better to undo your edits -- how does that sound? Thanks! Alarichall ( talk) 10:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Alarichall, thanks for talking so friendly to me. Answering your last question, well, it sounds awfull.
"...almost no modern editors do use <ƿ>, so your edits are also leading Wikipedia to diverge from the scholarly norms in editing Old English".
And these norms are wrong, Ƿynn was the main letter for this sound in Old English, yes, sometimes it was also written as u or uu, but Ƿynn was in the alphabet, so why not to pubslish Old English texts with Ƿynn?
They say it's to prevent confusion with p, but P and Ƿynn are writen differently, perhaps in the beginning there can be problems, but later learners will get used to it. This confusion it overrated, especially for printed texts, where all letters are shown in the same way unlike manuscripts.
However, the norms don't give it a chance, people are just running in circles publishing Old English texts only with w. I know only two books that used Ƿynn, they're very old. In modern editons they only mention Ƿynn or even don't speak about it. Why so? Ƿynn never deserved to be treated like that.
And I don't think changing w to ƿ makes Wikipedia less accurate, on the contary. In original these texts were written with Ƿynn, it were the publishes who changed the orthography, and now the texts just look like they're supposed to. Why the sourse's orthography is more important than the original manuscripts'?
I undertand the copryrights are the evil, and even change of orthography would not be tolerated, though it could stay this way, I don't think that all the sourse's owners would check it out, and even if they would, would they want to bring you in trouble for this? I'm sadly sure that my edits will be reverted anyway. Birdofadozentides ( talk) 11:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Who is Ealdgyth? I didn't have a discussion with her. Birdofadozentides ( talk) 11:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, now I see things are even more darker than I imagined. What can I say, the world we're living in is a broken place and it'll never be fine. You want me to revert my edits, you'll get what you wanted.
P.S. Yes, I've really forgotten, it was a minor conversation, that's why.
And I do hope you don't mind I've changed the orthography of topic's name
Birdofadozentides (
talk) 14:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
How could I be dissiapointed in you, you were nice to me, and you were just following these Wikipedia rules, 99% of people would do the same, and most of them not so friendly. Thank you for conversation. Birdofadozentides ( talk) 17:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
"At the moment, if someone looks at the text of, say, Exeter Book Riddle 60, they will be led to believe that Krapp and Dobbie's edition uses ƿynn, which it doesn't".
Why can't something like this be done:
"*This sourse uses w instead of ƿynn, but we changed the orthography due to historical reasons".
And then to put this phase to the end of the sourse's reference. Then there will be no lie.
I'm sorry for bothering you, I feel like nothing will be changed anyway, but it seemes like not such a bad idea for me. Birdofadozentides ( talk) 05:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Birdofadozentides, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Moonraker ( talk) 02:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, Birdofadozentides, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for taking an interest in entries about Old English :-) I see you've been working through entries replacing the graph <w> with <ƿ>. I can see why this might seem a good idea, but there are some problems here. Wikipedia entries cite (or should cite) the sources for their quotations of Old English texts, and the text in the Wikipedia entry should be the same as in the source cited. Since these sources probably all use <w>, changing <w>s to <ƿ>s makes Wikipedia less accurate. If you were really keen to replace <w>s with <ƿ>s, you'd have to find editions to cite that use <ƿ>. But that gives rise to another issue, which is that almost no modern editors do use <ƿ>, so your edits are also leading Wikipedia to diverge from the scholarly norms in editing Old English. I really appreciate you wanting to work on Wikipedia: that's great! But I think on this detail it would be better to undo your edits -- how does that sound? Thanks! Alarichall ( talk) 10:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Alarichall, thanks for talking so friendly to me. Answering your last question, well, it sounds awfull.
"...almost no modern editors do use <ƿ>, so your edits are also leading Wikipedia to diverge from the scholarly norms in editing Old English".
And these norms are wrong, Ƿynn was the main letter for this sound in Old English, yes, sometimes it was also written as u or uu, but Ƿynn was in the alphabet, so why not to pubslish Old English texts with Ƿynn?
They say it's to prevent confusion with p, but P and Ƿynn are writen differently, perhaps in the beginning there can be problems, but later learners will get used to it. This confusion it overrated, especially for printed texts, where all letters are shown in the same way unlike manuscripts.
However, the norms don't give it a chance, people are just running in circles publishing Old English texts only with w. I know only two books that used Ƿynn, they're very old. In modern editons they only mention Ƿynn or even don't speak about it. Why so? Ƿynn never deserved to be treated like that.
And I don't think changing w to ƿ makes Wikipedia less accurate, on the contary. In original these texts were written with Ƿynn, it were the publishes who changed the orthography, and now the texts just look like they're supposed to. Why the sourse's orthography is more important than the original manuscripts'?
I undertand the copryrights are the evil, and even change of orthography would not be tolerated, though it could stay this way, I don't think that all the sourse's owners would check it out, and even if they would, would they want to bring you in trouble for this? I'm sadly sure that my edits will be reverted anyway. Birdofadozentides ( talk) 11:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Who is Ealdgyth? I didn't have a discussion with her. Birdofadozentides ( talk) 11:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, now I see things are even more darker than I imagined. What can I say, the world we're living in is a broken place and it'll never be fine. You want me to revert my edits, you'll get what you wanted.
P.S. Yes, I've really forgotten, it was a minor conversation, that's why.
And I do hope you don't mind I've changed the orthography of topic's name
Birdofadozentides (
talk) 14:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
How could I be dissiapointed in you, you were nice to me, and you were just following these Wikipedia rules, 99% of people would do the same, and most of them not so friendly. Thank you for conversation. Birdofadozentides ( talk) 17:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
"At the moment, if someone looks at the text of, say, Exeter Book Riddle 60, they will be led to believe that Krapp and Dobbie's edition uses ƿynn, which it doesn't".
Why can't something like this be done:
"*This sourse uses w instead of ƿynn, but we changed the orthography due to historical reasons".
And then to put this phase to the end of the sourse's reference. Then there will be no lie.
I'm sorry for bothering you, I feel like nothing will be changed anyway, but it seemes like not such a bad idea for me. Birdofadozentides ( talk) 05:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)