Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems/Archive 2

Still active?
Doesn't seem to be much in the way of recent activity here - is anyone still active or monitoring this, who would be interested in firing this up again? --cjllw | TALK  03:36, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
 * I am no linguist. However, I'll contribute in whatever way I can and also give some inputs on Tamil script and related scripts. Perhaps, I can help bring that article to a model article state. -- 07:17, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

na - wikiprojects tend to be dust-gatherers. I can thing of a few efforts. The Old Italic alphabets need loving attention, for example, with articles on individual scripts, such as the Alphabet of Lugano (see Gaulish). Also, lots of articles need images of the actual script. Iberian scripts for example. dab (&#5839;) 09:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ah, and most of the stuff on this talk page should be promoted to the project page! dab (&#5839;) 09:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

plus, nobody addressed my transliteration questions above... Maybe we should spam some alphabet articles' talk pages drawing attention to this page? dab (&#5839;) 09:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I saw your question above. I personally feel that it can be a part of this wiki project itself. -- Sundar 09:15, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Project page re-org
I've taken the liberty of making a start to reorganise the project page, scope and outline. It is by no means definitive. Hope no-one minds. Further comments, suggestions, expansions etc gratefully received. Cheers. --cjllw | TALK  09:18, 2005 July 14 (UTC)

Proposal for article structure and format
I see that you guys haven't come up with anything for the "Article structure and format" section. Here is my idea of what any article about a writing system should contain:

Articles on individual writing systems - proposed coverage and structure
 * Introduction. Opening para summarising key points for the script. Include a common infobox, which (very briefly) gives quick reference to pertinent info (eg., script classification, language(s) reflected, whether in current use or not (perhaps date range of use, est. No of graphemes, precursor scripts if any, etc).
 * History of writing system. Origins, earliest texts, which other scripts it may be related or derived from. In the case of a conscript (would this fall within the scope?), this will provide an account of the development of the alphabet, the motives behind it, etc.
 * Decipherment of writing system. Where appropriate, for historical scripts which have been (or are yet to be) re-interpreted; some account of the history, efforts and results.
 * Overview of writing system. Discuss usage, correspondance to language(s), region(s) where used; notable features (eg alphabetic, syllabic, logographic, etc); Historical & current literacy;
 * Table of characters. Present the graphemes of the script (where feasible, all "main" phonetic & non-phonetic graphemes to be shown; if there are too many such signs (eg Chinese scripts), some representative sample will have to do).This perhaps goes without saying. The question is whether to have an image, a Unicode table, or both. For many scripts, both an image and unicode chars will be appropriate, since we would need to cater for various browsers which may not be set up to view the chars.
 * Script Orthography. Summary of main rules of writing; punctuation, references to spelling where appropriate; standard(s) of transliteration into (Latin-) characters, if and where appropriate.
 * Application(s) of the writing system. Languages in which the alphabet is used, differences between usage in different languages (e.g., the differences between the use of Devanāgarī in writing Sanskrit and writing Hindi).
 * See also. links to related systems & topics.
 * References, academic or otherwise notable resources dealing with the script and used in the exposition of the script to be given.
 * External links. Almost every page dealing with a writing system will have a link to Omniglot, though this need not necessarily be the case. Omniglot is a good resource, but others also should be given. Also, perhaps links to free downloadable fonts for the script, if any.

This is all off the top of my head, mind you. Please feel free to make suggestions, but (please!) do not put it up on the project page until a final version is decided upon by all participants.

Oh, and sometime in the future, I'll busy myself with making an infobox for writing systems. (The Alphabets template just won't do.)--Siva 22:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Nice work, Siva. I have made some alterations and additions to the scope and structure, above. Note that, it would be ideal if the structure could accommodate all kinds of writing systems, not just alphabetic ones (I have amended some of your points accordingly). Again, just initial proposals at this stage, needs further work & discussion. --cjllw |  TALK  07:06, 2005 August 1 (UTC)


 * As an addendum, re the current Alphabet infobox - this serves a different purpose, and if we do develop an infobox for writing systems in general, it should not replace, but rather complement, the alphabet infobox- I would see that a general writing systems infobox could be used for all scripts, not just alphabetic ones - also see my comments above.--cjllw | TALK  07:12, 2005 August 1 (UTC)

I'm mostly happy with your suggestion. The only thing is, not all of the sections that you suggest will be relevant for all writing systems. For example, it would be simply ridiculous to talk of the decipherment of the Latin alphabet (especially on a website that actually uses the Latin alphabet). Also, I am not quite sure to what extent the "script orthography" section would be relevant to different scripts; there is not much to say about the orthography of an alphabetic writing system (for example), and punctuation, if it exists for the script in question, is at any rate more closely associated with the language than with the writing system. One more thing: Is it really necessary to have a separate section for an overwiew of the writing system, or would the Introduction suffice?--Siva 22:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Siva, indeed, as I had noted above some of the topics for coverage (eg decipherment) will be applicable only to some writing systems; however where this features (eg Maya hieroglyphics) such an account would be useful. Also, "orthography" may not be the best term, what is meant is some exposition on the general rules of the writing system, and again may not be appropriate or even useful for particular examples. I have inserted one thing which I overlooked earlier, namely an annotation of any transliteration or transcription standards which may apply (again, only applicable to a subset of scripts). "Overview" also may not be the best term; the way I see it, the intro should ideally be only a few sentences summarising the most notable features of the script, and a subsequent "overview" or similarly-named section can be used to go into more detail, not appropriate for the opening paragraph. At least, that seems to be a fairly widely-observed practice for articles in general.
 * Whatever the section headings, an "ideal" article on a given writing system should give the reader information which covers (not necessarily in this order):
 * what is the article about (opening para)
 * how and when did the script originate
 * what are the historical contexts of its development
 * who uses/used it
 * how widely is it used / was it used
 * literacy amongst user population - widespread, or restricted?
 * where is it used
 * what language(s) does it relate to
 * what other script(s) is it related to, derived from, the precursor to
 * what "type" of script is it, what are its notable characteristics (syllabic, alphabetic, etc)
 * what are its main constituents (graphemes- both phonetic and non-phonetic elements)
 * what is the common "ordering" of the elements (eg. alpha-sort)
 * what do they look like, what are the variations - current and historical
 * what are the main rules for writing (orthography, spelling, etc)
 * how may it be transcribed/transliterated into Latin chars (not applicable to all scripts)
 * what are the notable texts/documents in the script (mainly for "historical" scripts)
 * what notable tools/methods are used for inscription (mainly historical, eg cuneiform)
 * if the use of the script is specialised, what kind of information is recorded (again, mainly historical examples)
 * what progress, if any, has been made in decipherment (for "historical" scripts)
 * what external notable references have been used so the reader may refer to them for further information
 * how is the script represented in Unicode (or other electronic format)
 * what fonts may be available for the script
 * The above not an exhaustive listing. Further comments welcomed.--cjllw | TALK  09:04, 2005 August 3 (UTC)

How about for articles that describe several writing systems, e.g. Tajik alphabet. (Incidentally yes I have been working on it a lot, and would welcome suggestions for further improvement). - FrancisTyers · 23:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

UPA draft help requested
I have a draft up on User:Cassowary/Uralic phonetic alphabet about the Uralic phonetic alphabet, to replace Uralic Phonetic Alphabet and Finno-Ugric transcription. I don’t know much about it though, and would appreciate any help. If you can, please dive in. —Felix the Cassowary 11:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Cassowary. Whilst I'm mostly unfamiliar with UPA, I've taken a look at your draft and made a few copyedits and suggestions over there for your consideration- looks like some very neat work in progress there, will be quite an improvement on the current entry - well done!--cjllw |  TALK  01:34, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

Articles for the wikipedia 1.0 project
Hi, I'm a member of the Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any articles on writing systems? We are looking for FAs as well. Please post your suggestions here. Cheers!--Shanel 03:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)