This category is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Why on earth should there be two categories 1) "Runestones, Skåne" and 2) "Runestones in Scania". What's the difference? There are categories "Runestones, Värmland", "Runestoens, Uppland" and so on. Why not the same way in this case? --Muniswede 21:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason there is a "why on earth" issue here is that someone started a big runestone article move bonanza between categories, taking articles in and out of categories and creating new categories without bothering to go through the normal procedures for renaming or deleting categories, and not even informing the creator of the categories (who is also the creator of most of the articles) of what the user was up to, nor using edit summaries when moving stuff, which led to a delay before people caught on: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Even while there was an open discussion going on at categories for discussion the user was still busy moving stuff around. He/she moved the Blekinge runestones out of the category Skåneland (which at the time contained Halland, Blekinge and Scania runestones), and when the "Runestones, Skåneland" article was not renamed "Category Runstones, Skåne", but instead "Runestones in Scania", he/she simply moved the articles out of that category into one he/she had created with the name he/she wanted, which means that we now have both "Runestones in Scania" and "Runestones, Skåne". Please be more careful in the future. I have proposed a merger of the two now, and once a decision has been taken over at categories for discussion on this issue, I will ask the people who are working on these articles what they suggest should be done in order to make sure the Skåneland runestone articles become represented in the Danish runestone category as well, where they belong culturally, although not geographically (especially since that is how the south-Scandinavian runestones are normally classified by scholars who, like the runestone articles and categories creator, are experts in this subject). There are about 50 runestones in Scania alone, and quite a lot in Blekinge as well, so although the list of runestones in Halland may be too short to have its own category, the other two categories may eventually become a lot bigger. Pia
OK, there could have been mistakes made. But in this case one runestone article was in a category with a slightly different name as all the others. Too me you can use the English name (Scania) or the Swedish (Skåne) for the province, but not have two categories with the same meaning. And all other runestones in Sweden are placed in province related categories. I am mostly dealing with municipalities and other subdivisions and I am no expert on runestones, but I like consistency and uniformity when it comes to categories. --Muniswede 08:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I just wrote on "Categories for discussion" it O.K. with me to change the category "Runestones, Skåne" into "Runestones in Scania". It looks like most of us can agree with that formula, so we can "bury the hatchet". --Muniswede (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
