Talk:Modi script

Move?
Should this be moved to Modi (script) or Modi script? I think it should unless it is really much more common to call it Script Modi in English. - Taxman Talk 14:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added a picture showing Modi script glyphs to make the subject more explicable. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be moved to MoDi script. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshkhilari (talk • contribs) 19:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Modi Unicode font
MarathiCursiveG — free Modi Unicode font --Jugydmort (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Does anyone here have any ideas how to install the font? --Apisite (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * On Windows 10: I clicked on the link shown on the download page at "...is available here" to get to Google Drive. I downloaded MarathiCursive-1.2.7z and extracted it.  Then I double-clicked on MarathiCursiveG.ttf and clicked the Install button.  (Note that MarathiCursive.ttf and MarathiCursiveT.ttf aren't really Modi Unicode fonts but instead map Modi glyphs over the Devanagari range.  Only MarathiCursiveG.ttf has glyphs defined for the Modi Unicode range.)  Hope this helps. DRMcCreedy (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 2018

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 00:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Modi alphabet → Modi script – Modi is an abugida script Anish Viswa  09:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment -- you did not explain what is wrong with the current title. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Indic scripts are abugidas, meaning they are alphasyllabary, not alphabetic. Indic writing systems contains not only letters but also other written signs. So the term script is correct, alphabet is not. Anish Viswa  05:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, per explanations. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. Nom doesn't really give any valid rationale, but two quick Googles  gave me more than twice as many ghits for Modi script. Nom has explained why this is to be expected. Andrewa (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I note this would reverse and overwrite a previous move  02:57, 11 September 2011‎ Kwamikagami (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (27 bytes) (+27)‎ . . (moved Modi script to Modi alphabet over redirect: naming conventions now established; this article is primarily about the alphabet)., have you any comment on this? Andrewa (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That should apply to abjads, not adugidas. Such a change is not done for major Indic scripts. See naming of othe Indic scripts - Tamil script, Brahmi script, Grantha script, Eastern Nagari script, Nagari script, Gujarati script, Gurumukhi script, Śāradā script, Malayalam script Anish Viswa  11:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
From previous move, cited above: this article is primarily about the alphabet.

From discussion above: That should apply to abjads, not adugidas.

I think adugida may be another spelling (perhaps a misspelling) of abugida, is that correct? Andrewa (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Misspelling; see the nomination line. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. I did see that, and I see that you've now wikilinked it there. Thank you!
 * So the point seems to be, this article is about Modi script, which is not an alphabet. So is there any such a thing as a Modi alphabet? The term does get some thousands of ghits, but not as many as Modi script. Andrewa (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * some thousands of ghits -- Not really :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, really!
 * But that's very interesting... I assume you noticed that your search on "Modi alphabet" -wikipedia -wikipe gives about 5,000 (yes, thousands} fewer ghits than "Modi alphabet" -wikipedia. What made you choose that particular search string?
 * Did you check to see what is causing the difference? Andrewa (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Google books gives 350 hits for alphabet and 2810 for script  so I'm still in favour of the move, but the rather strange search string above (adding -wikipe while keeping -wikipedia) does make me wonder what is going on here. There are many political consequences of linguistic terminology. http://ex515.wikia.com/wiki/Modi_alphabet is an interesting site, and not a reliable source (and sites like it may account for the difference when you specify -wikipe, or it may be a Google glitch... they happen!).

So, what's the background to this controversy? We don't want to promote either view. Andrewa (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really think there is a "holy-wars"-type controversy. IMO "alphabet" just an informal/sloppy reference here. E.g. Hiragana is routinely called "Japanese alphabet". Staszek Lem (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Then why are you so keen to dismiss the evidence (even when it's favourable to your cause)? I'm trying to understand, and it makes little sense, so far.
 * The search I did was the natural one. The search you offered as a counter was quite peculiar, and you have offered no explanation despite being asked for it. Why?
 * I suspect it's a personal view of yours that informal references are sloppy and academic ones should be preferred. This is a perennial proposal, but it has never gathered support, and Wikipedia generally prefers a common name to the formally or academically correct one in article titles. In the article of course we should make it clear what the correct technical terms are, but we're a general encyclopedia. Our bottom line is that general readers are informed, and the first step is to get them to the right article when they use the terms that are most familiar to them.
 * Or it may be that there are implications to Indian politics of which I am unaware. That has turned out to be the case in many perhaps most discussions concerning naming of Indian cinema articles in which I have participated. India is a vast and complex place!
 * My main concern here is that if your arguments are accepted, it may mislead others to argue similarly.
 * I'm also interested in knowing whether the phrase Modi alphabet may have a correct technical meaning that is different to Modi script. Is there a second, valid topic hiding here? That would explain a lot.
 * But just to repeat, the evidence that I'm trying to present supports the move proposal. Andrewa (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to dismiss anything. I did not say that informal are sloppy. I see nothing invalid in the opinion that rigorous term is preferable to  informal, unless rigorous term is rather outlandish. From WP:COMMON: ... or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources And I !voted accordingly. There is nothing peculiar in my google search; it is a standard way to weed out fluff from google search results. Why is your concern that my argument is accepted has any relevance? This is !vote, not democracy. Finally, please bug off with insulting wikilinks to wp:soap. As seasoned Wikipedian as you is supposed to at least read and understand essays brandished into the OP's face.   Staszek Lem (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree with most (not all) of this but I think it would be foolish to escalate this any further. I have made my points and you yours. Andrewa (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW, Google books gives 89 hits for alphabet and 2770 for script. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Such variations are normal. Andrewa (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.