Talk:Runic calendar

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 18:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Image suggestions

I have an image that could be used but I don't know how to add them or if it is fair use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.49.67 (talk • contribs)

• http://www.thebookofdays.com/misc/images/log_a.jpg
• http://www.nb.no/baser/schoyen/5/5.7/ms2913.jpg

What about the image used for Perpetual calendar? SiGarb | Talk 22:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Aun Cycle and number of days in a month on which golden numbers fall

Removed this text, but does anyone have clarification or a source?

Even though the synodic month has about 29 days, according to the calendar, the full moon would ever only fall on 19 of them. The situation changed after the Aun cycle of about 300 years, when the calendar had to be adjusted by one day.

Bencoland 01:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Runic calendar/CommentsTalk:Runic calendar/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Lacks reliable sources, and is relatively messy in its style. Start-class. –Holt T•C 11:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 05:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

An older artifact?

This article claims that the oldest artifacts that have to do with the Metonic cycle in northern Europe, are from 13th century. This seems to contradict the article on Berlin Gold Hat, which dates back to late bronze age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasha.cohn (talk • contribs) 14:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Sirvikalender into Runic calendar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Sirvikalender into Runic calendar for context and overlap. Klbrain (talk) 08:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

---

Proposed merge of Sirvikalender into Runic calendar

"sirvikalender" should be mentioned and redirected to main article Estopedist1 (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Estopedist1. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and for the time you have spent reviewing this article. Your perspective and extensive experience is appreciated!

I was wondering if you might suggest some benefits you feel a redirect might offer that would outweigh maintaining this as a standalone entry? I am concerned that a redirect might result in a loss of nuance as the Estonian versions are quite distinct.

The article Sirvikalender has received a favourable peer review, and I am committed to continue to work on the article to try to raise it to GA status. Your advice on any areas where you feel the article could be refined to better support its status if it were to stand as a specialised entry would be very helpful. Mustleib (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mustleib: I don't know the topic in deep, but currently both articles are not long. Etwiki even haven't standalone article for et:ruunikalender. And I am not sure that every minor nuance of Estonian sirvikalender should be added to enwiki article Estopedist1 (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply @Estopedist1. I agree with you that including this level of detail about the types of sirvikalender might not fit the parent Runic calendar page, which is why I suggested a separate entry. I am happy to update and expand the parent and child article alongside other notable examples like the primstav and clog calendars. I suggest that using child articles for details on specific calendars might be a more effective way to maintain a neutral point of view in the main entry while still allowing for the specific cultural nuances important to regional traditions and folklore. Currently the explanation of runes on the parent page is not true for some runic calendars. As the sirvikalender page has already been reviewed and granted a B-class rating, I hope it can stand as a specialised entry rather than being condensed. I actually joined Wikipedia through the Women in Red project and first encountered some of the references on sirvikalender while researching a biography on Estonian woman, Kongla Ann, so I am quite keen to see these specific cultural histories preserved. I would appreciate the chance to work on these further, though I respect your judgement on the best path forward. Mustleib (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mustleib: could you solve the mess at etwiki, see et:Arutelu:Sirvikalender? Currently several Estonian dictionaries says that we are dealing with synonyms (see https://sonaveeb.ee/search/unif/dlall/dsall/ruunikalender/1/est). If concepts in etwiki are clear, I would be more inclined for two standalone articles in enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Estopedist1 apologies for my slow reply here. I took a look at et-wiki and you are right, there are a number of different pages there. Since I am a newer user, I am happy to help out, but defer to you on what might be the best path forward there as well. Mustleib (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mustleib: I checked "Eesti rahvakultuuri leksikon" (2007). It says "Eesti ruunikalender oli enamasti kantud väikestele kimpu seotud lauakestele (sirvikalender)". So, fron now on, I am quite sure that "runic calendar" should be primary topic and sirvikalender to be redirected there Estopedist1 (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

No problem, @Estopedist1! Thanks for checking. Mustleib (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2026 (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.

  Y Merge completed Klbrain (talk) 08:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Ole Switched the Golden Numbers

Figure explaining how runes were used for counting to higher numbers

The Golden Number runes appear to be bind runes for compound numbers. According to Olaf Strandwold's observations on runestone dates:
ᛦ (16) + ᛘ (1 space to left) = ᛯ (17†)
ᛚ (14) + ᛅ (4 spaces left) = ᛮ (18†), and
ᚦ (3) + ᚦ (16 spaces left) = ᛰ (19).
I double-checked Worm's Runir seu Danica, and the article's order is indeed the order he has them in, but clearly that's not what the symbols add up to. I'm trying to look through images of runic calendars for use of golden numbers but I'm coming up short. Do we know for sure that this was the sequence?
Galtinn (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)