Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of languages by writing system


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  23:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

List of languages by writing system

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:OR WP:SYNTH WP:UNSOURCED. Any language can be written in any writing system, many languages have in fact historically been written in multiple scripts, and even today – as we speak (or, I guess, as we write) – some languages are currently being written in multiple scripts (Serbo-Croatian, Kazakh language, Uzbek language, Japanese language, Berber languages; it looks like Ukrainian language will also transition from Cyrillic to Latin after having approved an official transcription standard in April 2022 etc.). The only difference is that some scripts have been officially approved and used, while others have been unofficially used, each all to varying degrees. There is no way for writing systems to "claim" particular languages, nor the other way around. These are constantly changing, dynamic interrelationships. You can categorise Berber Latin alphabet as a Latin writing system (so a List of Latin-script alphabets is perfectly legitimate), but you cannot claim the Berber languages for any particular writing system. That's just not how it works. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete; content exists only through contrived synthesis. The converse would potentially be a valid article subject. Iseult   Δx parlez moi 23:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * List of writing systems by language? Perhaps. If we apply WP:CSC #1, that is: Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete “writing system” is poorly defined (is the Esperanto alphabet a writing system because it has unique letters even though it’s overwhelmingly based on the Latin alphabet?) and some languages have no (native) writing system or multiple writing systems (Korean and Japanese for starters) Dronebogus (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. To answer your question: the Esperanto alphabet counts as a Latin-script alphabet. The Latin script is a writing system. 'Script' and 'writing system' can usually be used interchangeably. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete strictly inferior to List of writing systems. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Strongly Keep With respect, the complaint that Any language can be written in any writing system seems utterly specious. The fact is that in the real world specific languages do get written in specific writing systems, and this is information that can be useful to know. Many languages are national, and the nations have officially recognized scripts. For example, I recently wanted to check which writing system is used to write Slovok nowadays: is it Latin or Cyrillic. And I don't see how the statement There is no way for writing systems to "claim" particular languages, nor the other way around. makes sense: there is no implication in the article that the connection between a language and a script is set in stone: it just reflects reality. I note that the argument that some languages are written in multiple systems or change system is built into the article: entries note where this occurs. Also, I disagree with the claim that "writing system" is poorly defined: there is a link to a Wikipedia page that provides a very clear definition; whether you agree with that definition or not is hardly the point: it is the definition used by this page. (While I am at it, I disagree with the claim that Any language can be written in any writing system: it ignores the problems of homophones, tones, stress which may not have adequate apparatus in a given writing system: for example, pinyin has five tone markers which is good enough for Mandarin, but not adequate for the 9 tones of Chinese.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Jelliffe (talk • contribs) 01:59 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * With respect, the complaint that Any language can be written in any writing system seems utterly specious Иф со, ыоу wоулд нот бе абле то реад wхат Иьм wритинг хере. Θερε ἰς νο ῥυλε ωιχ σαις θατ θε ᾽Ενγλισ λανγυαγε, φορ ἐξαμπλε, νεεδς το βε ωριττεν ἰν θε Λατιν σκριπτ. Kidding aside, if we're talking about officially recognized scripts, that is an entirely different scope, see for example Official scripts of the Republic of India. Without 'official' in this article's title, it's a free-for-all catch-all. I'm inclined to agree Walt Yoder's point that List of writing systems does a much better job at this, and am open to Iseult's suggestion of perhaps reframing this article to List of writing systems by language, but perhaps both these points need to be accompanied with official status in order to prevent the same problem of arbitrary lists of writing sytems arbitrarily connected to languages.
 * it just reflects reality How do we know that if it's completely WP:UNSOURCED? Anyone can claim anything without needing to provide evidence.
 * I disagree with the claim that "writing system" is poorly defined: there is a link to a Wikipedia page that provides a very clear definition WP:CIRC. One article cannot rely on another article to do all its defining and sourcing, it still needs its own WP:OR for WP:V. As it stands, this whole article remains completely WP:UNSOURCED.
 * it ignores the problems of XYZ I'm not denying that it may be more difficult to express language Foo in script A than in script B, or that it may be more difficult to express language Foo in script A than it is for language Bar to be expressed in script A. That is not the point. The fact is, it's possible (and my Cyrillic and Greek-script joke at the beginning illustrates that). Even if in the case of, say, the Vietnamese language, you'll need to invent lots of extra letters and diacritics in order to preserve the proper pronunciation etc. Or, in the case of the supposed "Montenegrin language", you feel the need to invent extra letters to distinguish yourself from the supposed "Serbian language" for political reasons, even though pronunciation is nearly identical, and linguists may make fun of you. Where there is a will, there is a way. The Kazakhstanis struggled for a bit in the late 2010s (due to the overus'e of apos'troph'es ev'erywh'ere in the pres'iden't's propos'ed alph'abet), but seem to have settled on a Latin alphabet to write the Kazakh language in henceforth. You can always make it work. No writing system "owns" any language, no language can only be written in one or certain writing systems alone, and Wikipedia shouldn't claim or imply such nonexistant static relationships between them. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete nearly unsourced WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.