Talk:Main Page

    About this board

    Not editable

    Jan (talkcontribs)

    I noticed that in Google Chrome the flags do not show. They do in Firefox and LibreWolf.

    Pax (talkcontribs)

    Strange. I can see them using Brave, which is a more private version of Chrome (in other words, 99% similar). I will look into it...

    I should note I only added the flags because I thought it looked nice, and visual icons usually help people navigate more quickly, as opposed to text only.

    Jan (talkcontribs)

    I tried to add a Spanish flag, but it doesn't show. Pax or Henk, do you know how to fix that?

    'did you know' section

    3
    Jan (talkcontribs)

    Though I much appreciate the effort, I'm not quite satisfied with this section.

    I will add some notes here to the existing points:

    • According to the book, the ancient Northwestern Europeans called themselves Frya's Children/Folk (or simply Fryas) and spoke only one language, which they called Fryas — and even “God's language.”

    → "ancient Northwestern Europeans" may be too vague: what time is meant and what part of NWE? Even in some of the OL texts, parts of NWE were lost to other folk. Also, they (esp. the traders) may have also spoken other languages besides Fryas (even though Gosa advised against this). We recently decided to translate as "Fryas or God's language", but they may have meant "Frya's or ..."

    • According to the book, the ancient Northwestern Europeans were not heathens, but believed in only one God, whom they called Wralda (“the Primordial One,” or lit. “the Overoldest”).

    → 'Heathens' is a vague, derogatory term, something like 'racists' in our time. Wralda would rather translate as 'over-old-one' than 'overoldest' (even though Wralda is defined as THET ALDER​.ALDESTA JEFTHA OVER​.ALDESTA, that's not the literal meaning of the word.

    • The book was quickly attacked and ridiculed in newspapers before the first translation was published in 1872.

    Would this be well understood by someone completely new to the topic?

    • The book is called invented by some (e.g. Wikipedia), but it describes events and places confirmed by modern archaeology; so the supposed 1800's forgers would have to be psychics. The motive makes no sense either, as it would have required a huge amount of time, effort and money with no hope of any gain.

    If there are concrete examples of these events and places, these could be fitting for the did-you-know section. OL-'skeptics' will reply that the creators guessed right with some things but that there is still too much nonsense (in their view) in the book to be authentic. 'Motive' would have to be specified. What motive, from what theory? How would it have required a huge amount of money? What if the intention had been to fool or confuse people?

    I may think of some clear and strong point of discussion, similar to the statements made by a doctoral candidate, which are usually supplied on a separate sheet with the thesis and which the doctoral candidate is to defend against opponents during the doctoral defense ceremony.

    Ideas are still welcome. Until we have something good enough we can keep this section open.

    Pax (talkcontribs)

    I added the did-you-know section as a suggestion long ago to improve the experience for new visitors. The points were meant as icebreakers to stimulate interest in the reader, especially a new reader who is only is only broadly acquainted with the OLB and only knows the official narrative of heathen/pagan Germanic tribes. Obviously the bullet points were not complete on their own; that is impossible. They were intentionally short, broadly worded and pertained to central topics in the OLB. They were never meant to be bulletproof factoids that can withstand attacks from any angle.

    The current did-you-know (theses?) list is confusing to me, because it requires background knowledge about OLB research, which does not belong on a front page. I think it misses the point of what the did-you-know section was meant for. Admittedly I touched on the ridicule/hoax subject in my last two bullet points, but I only wanted to give the broad strokes.

    Jan (talkcontribs)

    The draft theses section is not meant as a did you know section. These can exist side by side. I had not earlier taken a proper look at the DYK's. If such a section is included, which I think is a great idea, it should contain clear, unambiguous, exact facts.

    switching from visual to source editor

    3
    Jan (talkcontribs)

    Unable to transfer content: Error contacting the server for conversion between wikitext and HTML. Please check your Internet connection or try again later if the problem persists. If you still get this error please file a bug

    Pax (talkcontribs)

    This problem seems only to happen when switching from visual to source code in threaded discussions. Sadly, the plug-in that provides threaded discussions is provided as-is; it has numerous flaws (for example, no searching), but is nonetheless good enough. It is best only to use visual or source editor (in threaded discussions) and not switch between them.

    Jan (talkcontribs)

    Thanks. I'll try to remember to always copy my text to a clipboard before switching. The tricky thing is that sometimes switching is possible and unlike on normal pages, there is no warning when things will get lost.

    There are no older topics