Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems/Archive 7

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Italicizing non Roman writing systems
I'm working on an infobox that provides an option to display the name of the mountain in the local language. For example if the mountain is Mount Fuji then 富士山 would be displayed on as a subheader (see test cases). So would it be good practice to display 富士山 as 富士山 {bold) or 富士山 (italic) or 富士山 (bold and italic). The question is what do those who read non Roman writing systems find readable. For example Persian فارسی, پارسی, دری {normal} or فارسی, پارسی, دری {bold) or فارسی, پارسی, دری {italic) or فارسی, پارسی, دری {bold and italic). I asked this question at the help desk but have not received an answer. – droll  &#91;chat&#93;  05:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's generally a bad idea to try to italicize non-Greco-Roman scripts, so IMO bold would be the only choice. kwami (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Chinese pipeline
Chinese pipeline has been prodded for deletion. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Parent and Sister systems sideboxes
Writing systems pages generally have a sidebox containing abbreviated information about — among other things — where a script is used, for what languages, and what its parent and sister systems are.

For several scripts of insular southeast Asia, the parent system is uniformly specified as Kawi script, and all the pre-European, pre-Arabic scripts of the region are listed as sisters. However, this gives a misleading picture of the current state of knowledge found across a wide range of sources. Palaeographers agree that Balinese-Javanese and Sundanese as well as the Sumatran script of Adityawarman's kingdom clearly developed from the Kawi script.

However, the Batak, Surat Ulu (South Sumatran), Bugis, Old Makassarese, Old Bimanese and Philippine scripts all remain a puzzle. Currently available primary sources from the 1800s to present hypothesize the following possible origins either for this second grouping of scripts as a whole, or individually: Kawi, very early Kawi, indigenous invention, pre-Nagari script from the Bengal area, Phoenician (for Batak and Surat Ulu), Bugis script (for the Philippine scripts). The most noted palaeographers working with these scripts, , point to a lack of clear evidence for establishing the kinship of these scripts with others, indeed between any of the four main groupings (Batak, Surat Ulu, Sulawesi, Philippines) and only point to Kawi as the most likely hypothesis on general grounds (i.e. geographical closeness), cautioning that further evidence is needed before any solid conclusions can be made on their synchronic or diachronic relationships.

Articles on Indonesian and Philippine scripts are uniformly Stub or Start level, and I am preparing documented revisions based on primary sources for several of these. However, I'm not sure how to go about revising the sideboxes for uncertain cases like these, where it is not certain what the parent or sister scripts are for any but the Sundanese-Adityawarman Sumatran-Javanese-Balinese-Kawi group. Any advice on how to edit the sidebox headers for unclear cases like these?

Kiwehtin (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

spurious script?
Edo script would appear to be spurious. It derives entirely from a site at Cornell, which said in 2003 it would attempt to verify the script, but never has. It seems a very unlikely script: seven colors (The oba page said it was the "ancient" script of the oba, but this is a non-native color scheme!), three shapes, and five diacritics (a dot in one of four positions, plus two dots, unless there are other unattested combos of dots) for a language with seven vowels, 25 consonants, and tone. We'd need extra diacritics even if it were to record only simple CV syllables, but the glosses have CVV, CVN, CVVN, and even CVCV! So either the script is highly defective, perhaps not even a complete script at all, or the description of it is highly defective. Anyway, any reason to believe it is real? Should the article be deleted? kwami (talk) 07:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

reassess
I removed several hundred digraph articles which were just redirects from the project. Might want to update the stats. kwami (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Names of Chinese scripts xingshu (行書) and caoshu (草書)
I wish for a change in the names of the English articles about 行書 and 草書.

The current article about 行書 is called Semi-cursive script. In March 2006, Dragonbones moved it from Running script. I believe "Running script" is a better translation, but "Cursive Chinese" is even better because Therefore, I recommend that the article be named "Cursive Chinese."
 * "Running script" or "semi-cursive" are not commonly understood terms. Dragonbones said "semi-cursive" as the preferred term in scholarly usage, but did not elaborate or cite.
 * The English word "cursive" is from Fr. cursif, from M.L. cursivus, from L. cursus "a running," from pp. of currere "to run" (see current). The notion is of "written with a running hand" (without raising the pen), as opposed to uncial., which works as a more literal translation of 行書.
 * Usage and form of 行書 are analogous to those of cursive in other writing systems, such as English. Usage and form of 草書 are not analogous to cursive in other writing systems.

The current article about 草書 is named Cursive script (East Asia). This name implies that there is one script used in East Asia and that this article is about the cursive form. The article talks about one kind of script style for Chinese characters. As far as I know, there is no cursive kana (even though hiragana was derived from 草書), no cursive Mongolian script, and Vietnamese written in cursive is cursive Latin characters. 草書 is a special case in scripts because there is no analogous script in English. It is abbreviated so much that those who can read 楷書 and 行書 cannot read 草書 without additional training, yet it is not a shorthand because it was not purposely developed to be abbreviated, and it is a full-fledged script that is recognized (but not necessarily understood) by almost all literate Chinese. Therefore, there is no avoiding using an obscure English name for 草書. One term I have seen used is "super-cursive" or "super cursive". At least "Super-cursive" would be much better than "Cursive script (East Asia)." Therefore, I recommend that the article be named "Super-cursive" or "Super-cursive Chinese." Of course, if anyone can find other names that they think are better, please post them. 174.23.200.111 (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see what the problem about it is. It is a style of calligraphy, used in Japan and China, not a particular form characters, and as for Vietnam, it used Chu Nom and Han Tu until recently, so this style also applies to Vietnamese. "cursive" is a style in Europe too, it's not English cursive script or Italian cursive script, but you ask for this. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Scope
A topic of possible interest: see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Books. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nagari for Hindi a British innovation?
I'm unclear on the history of "Hindi", and thought someone here might know.

My impression is that, prior to the British, the Devanagari script was used for Hindu standards such as Braj Bhasha, and that the only written form of Delhi dialect was Urdu, and that only in the Persian script. (I'm not sure if Hindustani was an exact synonym of Urdu, or if it included Braj as well, or maybe even Awadhi.)

Was it then the British who introduced a new register of Urdu, written in Devanagari, which became Modern Standard Hindi? Or was that a prior or postcolonial development? If Delhi/Khariboli was only written in Persian, which lects was Devanagari used for before the British?

Our Eastern Nagari article is much clearer on developments than Devanagari, which IMO should be one of our priority articles. — kwami (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

More exact location for "Latin Alphabet" tag?
I am not a registered user but I will suggest, if I may, that the "Latin alphabet" tag on the map should be closer to the exact geographic location from where it started its development and expansion, shouldn't it? Thank you. (Manuel Lago) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.37.29.180 (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Nagari for Hindi a British innovation?
I'm unclear on the history of "Hindi", and thought someone here might know.

My impression is that, prior to the British, the Devanagari script was used for Hindu standards such as Braj Bhasha, and that the only written form of Delhi dialect was Urdu, and that only in the Persian script. (I'm not sure if Hindustani was an exact synonym of Urdu, or if it included Braj as well, or maybe even Awadhi.)

Was it then the British who introduced a new register of Urdu, written in Devanagari, which became Modern Standard Hindi? Or was that a prior or postcolonial development? If Delhi/Khariboli was only written in Persian, which lects was Devanagari used for before the British?

Our Eastern Nagari article is much clearer on developments than Devanagari, which IMO should be one of our priority articles. — kwami (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Writing system related AfD
Articles for deletion/Göbekli Tepe script — Joseph Roe Tk • Cb, 06:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Script request templates
FYI, Greek and Hebrew script have been nominated for deletion. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Move NATO phonetic alphabet?
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:NATO phonetic alphabet. — Joe Kress (talk) 08:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC) (Using )

Codes for computing
I suggest the Latin letters' "codes for computing" sections be retitled to "character encodings." It a misnomer, because the sections also concern non-computerized encodings such as semaphore. It is besides that a vague term that will not allow people to identify related information. That is, it does not communicate that one should seek out character encoding if they want to learn more or talk about the subject. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been cleaning up the articles on the letters of the Cyrillic alphabet (script). A number of different headings were being used for the computing codes, but I have changed them all to "Computing Codes".
 * I think that there should be some reference to computers in the heading, and that only computer character codings should be included. Comments?
 * I haven't check many of the Latin letters yet, but I have noticed that there were some miscellaneous other representations of the letter included under the heading for computer codes.
 * I recently edited the article N, and updated the layout of the computing codes and separated out the other representations in the same way that someone else had already done in A. Any comments on this layout?
 * I think other representations should be under a separate heading, and that the template Letter should no longer float to the right. Comments?
 * —Coroboy (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Dacian language and script
Hi all! I am wondering if there are any linguists interested in reviewing and improving the articles around the Dacian language. The are many holy wars (vandalism and revert wars included unfortunately) and theories around this interesting subject. WikiProject Dacia is proposing a collaboration on this. Of special interest are the controversial Dacian script, Sinaia lead plates and Rohonc Codex. Any specialist opinions and help are greatly appreciated. Best regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

English phonetic alphabet (EPA)
Does anyone know anything about English phonetic alphabet (EPA) ? It's been nominated for deletion. 64.229.103.232 (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Kangxi radicals
We are missing dozens of entries from the List of Kangxi radicals, as captured by this template:

These are basic units of Chinese writing, and we really should have then all. If it helps, the German Wikipedia has them all (and, of course, the Chinese and Japanese Wikipedias also have all of them), so a bilingual editor might be able to just copy them all over. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Somewhat of a sidenote, but the page Radical (Chinese character) needs quite a bit of help. It seems to be somewhat ignored at the moment.The discussion page has further details. Carmelator (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Another sidenote, I've made redirects for all of the radicals by name, eg "tiger radical" &rarr; Radical 141, "tree radical" &rarr; Radical 75. I also added hatnote redirects at the top of several radical pages to distinguish between similar radical names, eg Radical 111 arrow radical has a hatnote redirect to Radical 56 arrow/shoot radical or Radical 177 leather/rawhide radical and Radical 178 tanned leather radical to each other. VIWS talk 00:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nsibidi
Seems there may be some pseudo-archeology going on at Nsibidi. Perhaps a case of pottery marks that resemble the modern symbols and are therefore assumed to have had the same function? — kwami (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You may have a point, but linguistically, it makes sense (not that this alone makes it true). There has been a lot of cross-cultural contamination over the last three centuries, and so European symbolism and connotations may very well have influenced nsibidi symbols. Of course, with it being the language mainly of secrets and esoteric cults, there'll be limits to how accesable it is - and thus how easily it is influenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.103.219.4 (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Telugu writing system
The section on the Telugu script in the Telugu language article is terrible. Could I have some help in fixing it? cntrational (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Terminology and Article Structure
There are many articles that don’t clearly distinguish between “alphabet”, “script”, “writing system”, “orthography” and even “language”, including ones where one of these terms is part of the lemma. This applies likewise to “letter”, “character”, “symbol”, “sign”, “grapheme” etc. I know it’s often hard (at times arguably even unnecessary) to make the distinction since especially minor scripts may only be associated with one writing system of one language that we only have literal (no oral) knowledge of, and sometimes even scholars don’t agree on terminology or handle it loosely. For an encyclopedia, however, it should be coherent and consistent.

I would like to get articles on writing to use a more consistent terminology and structure. To achieve this we would need consensus on terms first.

Where I come from, i.e. studied, script and character are considered independent of language, whereas writing system and grapheme are language-bound. A writing system includes at least one alphabet (or syllabary, …) consisting of letters (or syllabograms, …), which are used as graphemes, and any number of (sometimes competing) orthographies over time and space. There’s often a supplementary character inventory used for punctuation, i.e. on the syntactic and not lexemic or morphologic level. Besides those language specific writing systems the term can also be used for more abstract concepts where they are grouped by common concepts into general writing systems.

Characters can be categorized by their visual characteristics and origins either as motivated, i.e. ideographic or pictographic (even “featural”), or as arbitrary (incl. geometrically designed). It is a property of the writing system and not of the script, whether their primary or exclusive phonographic use, also in conventional interaction with adjacent or fusedcharacters, is segmental (consonants and vowels), almost segmental (moras, rimes/codas, onsets and nuclei) or more complex (syllable or morpheme and lexeme, incl. suprasegmentals like tonemes).

Many writing systems associated with the same script often tend to use symbols in rather the same way, though, and there’s some amount of correlation of course: Scripts with a large open set of ideographic or pictographic characters tend to be used for logographic or rather morphographic graphemes, whereas segmental writing systems tend to use scripts with few geometrically rather simple characters that may be realized in a wide variety of chirographic and typographic ways.

There is no ideographic or pictographic writing system and there is no logographic script! Hence if you adopt the convention that x-graphs are characters/symbols and x-grams are graphemes/letters, there are ideographs, pictographs and logograms, but no ideograms, pictograms and logographs.

Furthermore, unlike laypeople tend to believe, there’s no unidirectional dependency between written language and spoken language. Prose should always reflect that. In linguistic (though not necessarily anthropologic or historian) terms, writing really only begins when all utterances can be written down and reread producing the same lexemes and word forms by using just the visible signs and conventional rules.

The contemporary Japanese writing system, for instance, uses three scripts (domestically called kanji, kana and romaji) mixed to various degrees and purposes. Kana comes in two modern variants, hiragana and katakana, that are employed for different purposes. The originally at least partially ideographic and pictographic kanji characters are being used as lexemic morphograms (lexigrams, hardly as true logograms) and the abstract kana characters are phonograms, more specifically syllabograms that require certain orthographic rules (e.g. yoon) to support a more complete coverage of Japanese phonology. Actually only parts of the sinograms, i.e. kanji characters, can be considered non-abstract, because the combination of determinative (taxogram) and phonetic (phonogram) was done for a different language that hardly matters even for Sinohapanese reading.

So, what do I actually want? — Christoph Päper 17:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Every script gets an article of its own, usually as Foo script, especially if Foo is also the name of a language or a people (in adjective form). Unless they are featured in more detailed articles, characters (X) and character names (Bar) should redirect there.
 * A writing system is either handled in an article of its own as Foo writing system (not Foo writing) or as a section in the article on the language of the same name, i.e. Foolanguage. The same usually applies to the oral form of language, i.e. pronunciation at either Foo phonology or Phonology.
 * Orthographies are usually handled as part of the writing system article or section, but some major ones may justify an entry of their own as Foo orthography of Bar, where Bar can be a year, a country, a publisher or something else.
 * Any fixed, language-dependent character inventory may get an article of its own as Foo alphabet, Bar syllabary etc., but usually is part of either the orthography section or the writing system article or section.
 * In Foo language there should be as little reduplication of detail articles as necessary.
 * There can be other related articles, e.g. Foo calligraphy, Foo typography, …
 * Consistent usage of above terms.

What is and isn't Orthography?
I fell into these pages about orthography, and frankly find many of the ideas expressed to be quite awry.

There seems to be an implicit assumption that a 'good' writing system is necessarily phonetic, which to my mind is completely incorrect. I cannot believe that scholars in the field would make such a class error. It smacks of the sad bunch of "speling rationizers" (IMNSHO).

Hence a perfectly adequate system for expressing ideas is termed "deficient" if it is not phonetic. Balderdash! (If I may use the term on a discussion page).. So, I wonder if these articles properly reflect the state of current academic thought.

This concept would be almost completely irrelevant to a perfectly good graphemic notational system such as Chinese, where the same writing system is used by different spoken languages; or Japanese, where people often take recourse to the symbolic system to disambiguate the spoken word.

Except for primitive attempts to transcribe rare and unusual languages, it is almost universally true that written language differs from spoken in levels of formality and convention. This extends beyond issues of punctuation to differences in grammar & semantics. They are effectively different, but parallel, languages.

I would have thought therefore that an orthography could only properly apply to a written language; a "correct" way of expressing ideas rather than a transcription of grunts. The other subject is merely about phonetics.

An example would be that lexicographical work of Dr. Samuel_Johnson, undertaken in order to standardise the chaotic randomness of English spelling as it was when it was simply a primitive phonetic ("rational"?) system. This idea of authoritative "correctness" in the English language is currently not at all in fashion.

Furthermore, a formal written language is often capable of greater efficiency of precision than an inflected spoken one. This should surely be a more important distinction.

Even in the case of Latin, the formal written language is now reckoned not to reflect the spoken in very many respects.

When did anyone last hear someone pronounce punctuation, apart from the late lamented Victor_Borge? (VB's ideas on language certainly deserves mention here!) I rest my case. Memethuzla (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but the (in(ter))dependency of oral and literal (an chiral) language is actually a topic where there is no consensus among scholars. One can of course hardly deny the phylogenetic and (for first language acquired) ontogenetic sequence of first chiral then oral and finally literal competence, although chiral (gestural or “sign”) languages are often forgotten or ignored. — Christoph Päper 14:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

&pi; (pi)
The usage of &Pi; is under discussion, see Talk:Pi. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethiopic text in the article Easter
The box that says your computer needs to get the Ethiopic font for your browser to see the font instead of boxes does not explain how. Also, wikipedia seems to have templates for other languages. so maybe it could for Etheopian. somehow--Rhbsihvi (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You need a font that includes the Ethiopic block of Unicode. I don't know where to look for one ...
 * What "templates for other languages"? Do you mean the versions of Wikipedia in other languages? —Tamfang (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Danish orthography
See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Denmark. Thanks 86.28.121.200 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user
User:Tobias Conradi has been indefinitely blocked for abusive edits, incivil behavior, multiple reverts, and using alternate IPs and accounts to evade blocks. I believe he should be removed from the Wikiproject Writing Systems member list. Vanisaac (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Evertype·✆ 09:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

High and Mid importance
I'm not clear on why Runic and Ogham are assigned Mid importance but Duployan is assigned High importance. I've nothing against Duployan, but there isn't really any clear rationale given for assigning these importance tags. Might we have some discussion here on it? Personally I think that any article about a complete writing system (Ogham, Runic, Batak) should be High. Why not? -- Evertype·✆ 09:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to get Ogham, Runic, and Batak into the Highs. If Rongorongo, Nsibidi, and Cretan Heiroglyphs are high priority, then Runic is emphatically so. The mids seem to be populated by national alphabets, symbols, transliteration schemes, and scripts found only in a few archaeological finds with no descendent scripts. Vanisaac (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ though other people should look at these pages to make further corrections: Category:High-importance Writing system articles and Category:Mid-importance Writing system articles and Category:Low-importance Writing system articles -- Evertype·✆ 10:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to reiterate that call for others to analyze the classifications, especially of entire scripts. Specifically, there is a gap in the classification scheme between High, Very well-known special-use scripts: IPA, Braille and Well-known extinct scripts: Cuneiform script, Egyptian hieroglyphs, and Mid, Alphabets not in use: German Cyrillic alphabet, Ukrainian Latin alphabet and Specialized alphabets and transcription systems:Scientific transliteration, ISO 9, Romanization of Russian. When I first tried to classify Duployan, I ran into this gap, but it seems that Runic and Ogham fell through it - I don't know enough about Batak to have a solid opinion. For what it's worth, I think that scripts should be considered of Mid importance only if 1) it has not been in significant use in modern times, AND 2) it is not important to the evolution of a modern script, AND 3) its decipherment does not give broad insight to a culture not generally known through other written accounts, but only through archaeological evidence. Vanisaac (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that all scripts per se are sui generis of High Importance to this project. -- Evertype·✆ 20:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there are probably a number of shorthands that can safely be shunted into the Mids, as well as a few obscure old scripts (Tocharian?) that are really of interest only to a seriously detailed study of the field. I agree with the spirit, however. Vanisaac (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a German Cyrillic alphabet? —Tamfang (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that the East German communists attempted an ill-fated cyrillization of the German language. Vanisaac (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Letters under attack?
I came across what I can only assume was stale vandalism by Cool Å2 at Ø. Looking at the user's Talk page, it appears that several other letters had been vandalized. You may wish to check that no other pages were harmed. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How many acts of vandalism does it take before someone like that gets banned? -- Evertype·✆ 09:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the editor is active anymore; if you see more vandalism from that user please notify me or some admin so we can take action. But my concern is for stale vandalism: there may be letters that were edited months ago but which have not been checked so the modifications remained.  That was the case with Ø. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Assessments
There are currently six pages assessed for importance, but awaiting quality assessment. Seeing as I authored one of those pages, I feel I am unable to make an impartial assessment. I'm going to start going through the 136 pages assessed for quality, but lacking an importance assessment.Vanisaac (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Have assessed for importance all unassessed non-stub, non-list entries. Vanisaac (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking for a neutral observer to reassess Aramaic alphabet re: importance. Please read and comment at Talk:Aramaic alphabetVanisaac (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been going through the backlog of page assessments and inputting values for most pages. I'll solicit reassesses here for any articles that seem iffy to me.


 * Looking for a reassess on importance=mid for Iroha. VIWS talk 00:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Assessment Progress
WikiProject Writing Systems is now 75% assessed. We have 1540 articles assessed for both importance and quality, 506 that are unassessed for both importance and quality, and 6 that are assessed for importance, but not quality. There are no articles assessed for quality but not importance. I got a large chunk done yesterday once I was approved for WP:AutoWikiBrowser and was able to get all 214 of the individual KangXi radicals bulk assessed - that was almost 30% of the unassessed articles, done at once! Almost all articles on individual letters (in Latin, Greek, Semitic, and Kana) have been tackled as well. Large swaths of national alphabets, braille/semaphore/radio alphabets/telegraph codes/etc., and historical figures still remain. Assistance would be appreciated in regards to confirming importance assessments for caligraphic styles. If there is are particular styles that are deemed to be unusually important to the development of a major script (eg Carolignian miniscules), then those may need to be bumped up in importance. VIWS talk 11:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Genealogy of sinitic scripts
Genealogy of sinitic scripts has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Shorthands infobox
I have created an adaptation of the writing systems infobox for shorthands and stenographies. It contains additional fields for light/heavy line and letterform class in addition to the regular script type, and a field for adaptations, as well as altering the titles of fields to reflect that shorthands are definitely invented. I'd like to get feedback before rolling-out the new infobox, although it is currently tested on Duployan shorthand, so please comment. The syntax follows: Vanisaac (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Seriously, folks. Please post a comment on the Template:Infobox shorthand, even if it's just "Hey, I looked at it." Vanisaac (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I just looked at it. Very pretty. -- Evertype·✆ 21:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Will there be a guide to its use? It's complicated. -- Evertype·✆ 21:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fundamentally the same as the Writing System infobox, being just an adaptation of it with a few extra fields needed to classify shorthands properly. What do you think needs to be documented that isn't already? Vanisaac (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So you want Shorthands not to use the Writing System infobox? Why not merge the extra fields into the WS infobox? If they're not used, it would just be blank. Hm. Discuss at WP:WS? -- Evertype·✆ 07:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I had intended to have this discussion AT WP:WS, and I've been copying this text over to that talk page each time I edit. ** Note that all comments to Template talk:Infobox shorthand are now automatically shown at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems. Vanisaac (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure all of the changes I've made will port over - eg in order for the shorthand type to read correctly, the script type needs to be in the adjective, rather than the nominal. Maybe I could prefix all of the fields that are treated differently with SH to indicate the difference. I'll work on it. Vanisaac (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

New integrated Writing System/Shorthand infobox syntax: Vanisaac (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've uploaded an integrated Writing Systems / Shorthand infobox to Template:Infobox shorthand. You can try it out on any script page and see if it runs into any trouble. Vanisaac (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tested (preview only) the new template on Latin alphabet, Nushu script, Runic, Chinese characters, Devanagari, and Tocharian script. - no problems. Please try it out if you get a chance on other script pages: just change "{{infobox Writing system" to "{{infobox shorthand" and preview to see if the content is both identical and identically presented. Thanks, Vanisaac (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Implementation It's been five days, including a weekend, and I've received no error reports on the revised Writing Systems infobox, so I am going to roll it out. Vanisaac (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification: Writing systems sidebar change
I have added a link to Shorthand under Types on the Template:Writing systems sidebar. If anyone objects, please revert and discuss at Template talk:Writing systems sidebar. Vanisaac (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Text direction template
I'm working on a template for text direction that produces a simple graphic and several optional descriptions of standard script directions. Please have a look and comment. Vanisaac (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: There are some tables of the arguments you can pass to the function - those with an en-dash are impossible, unless you can think of a counter example. If you know of any other text directions, please comment here. If you take a look at it, also, please comment and let me know if there are any improvements that can be made. Vanisaac (talk)

We're having a conversation about what abbreviations/verbiage should call a given directional template (eg. RTL, right-to-left, RL-TB, Western, etc). Please add your ideas at the Infobox Writing System talk page. Yeah, I know, but it started as a question about why the infobox doesn't have script direction as one of its fields, and has grown from there. Vanisaac (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Category: alphabetic writing system, abugida writing system, etc.
Does anyone know how scripts are assigned to the general writing system categories, eg category:alphabetic writing systems, category:abjad writing systems, category:abugida writing systems? It's nowhere in the code for template:infobox writing system, and I can't figure out if someone does it as a janitorial task. Any help would be appreciated. VIWS talk 08:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's not automatically tackled by a bot or some other mechanism, do we want the writing system infobox template to start auto-categorizing scripts? It would be fairly easy to do, I'd just like some feedback from someone in the know. VIWS talk
 * Humans should decide. I think too much is made of it anyway. I never use the term abjad because alphabet does just as well, and then both Arabic and Hebrew scripts are used alphabetically for Uighur and Yiddish respectively. -- Evertype·✆ 07:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked, banned, and inactive participants
I deleted the following members from the participants' list because they have an indefinite ban or block:

banned Alastair Haines

blocked ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ

blocked Tanzeel

blocked Tyciol

I have also moved participants into a separate listing for inactive participants. This list contains their usernames and date of last edit:

2009-02-01 User:Atura

2010-03-11 User:BalkanFever

2007-04-18 User:Ephraim6888

2008-01-06 User:K.A.David

2010-05-18 User:Nightsky

2008-01-02 User:Mbrutus

2008-08-07 User:MinYinChao

2006-07-11 User:Nofate

2008-03-31 User:Pieandcheeseandcereal

2008-01-18 User:Randfan

2009-08-09 User:Reliableforever

2010-06-02 User:Selethryth

2010-05-20 User:Stammer

User:GSMR - lists him/herself as retired from Wikipedia just recently, and confirmed his retirement. User:Vanisaac|VI]]WS talk 07:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

article deleted from project
I removed the Writing Systems template from the article Technical Writing, as I believe it does not fall within the scope of the project. If you disagree and wish to restore the template, it was assessed as class=start, with no importance attribute. VIWS talk 20:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been going through and doing assessments of all the backlogged unassessed Writing System articles, and I've run into an issue that I'd like to hear other voices before I make a unilateral decision. Specifically, I'd like to know if people think Delayed stroke belongs in the Writing Systems WikiProject. I personally feel that articles like this don't really belong in the project, but I want to get consensus before proceding. What do you think? VIWS talk 12:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Poll on the future of WikiProject Writing Systems
I'd like to get a feeling for where members of this WikiProject want to see it go. Essentially, this is an RfC for the future of WikiProject Writing Systems. I believe there are a limited number of goals that could be accomplished, but if you want feedback on other ideas, please start a new subsection with ===idea===. To invite someone, just add to their talk page. I've already invited everyone in category:WikiProject Writing systems members and posted an invite at WikiProject Linguistics.

Support

 * 1) Doing this has an indirect benefit of settling on a proper structure for script-related articles, like WikiProject Ethnic groups/Template. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 16:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) 1st opposer's comments

Discussion

 * 1st comment

Support

 * 1) This is one that I feel is both doable in a reasonable time, and also would seriously further the coverage of Writing Systems on Wikipedia. There are currently 73 stub class mid importance and 144 stub/start/C class high and top importance articles currently in the project, with probably another 40 or so left to be assessed. That's about 200 articles that need work, and 75 that simply need a bit of attention. I think that can be accomplished within a year or so. VIWS talk 02:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) 1st opposer's comments

Discussion

 * 1st comment

Support

 * 1) This should even include harmonized terms, e.g. clear distinction between (script, writing system, orthography, language, alphabet, syllabary, …), (grapheme, letter, sign, symbol, character, graph, glyph, mark, diacritic, accent, syllabo-, sino-, tetra-, taxo-, phono-, morpho-, glotto-, logo-, ideo-, picto-, sem(a|o|io|asio|ato)- … -gram or -graph, phonetive, determinative, radical, even lexeme, morpheme, phoneme …), (transliteration, transcription, translation, transformation, transposition, romanization, identification, representation), although even scholars of the highest reputation often don’t follow any terminology consistently and disagree among each other about some of them. — Christoph Päper 13:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm a fan of templates and infoboxes, and think that tackling this issue would make some of these other goals a lot more achievable. VIWS talk 02:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Standardisation of the presentation  of encyclopedic pages of the same family is essential. Our system of  templates and infoboxes lends itself  particularly  well  to  harminising  common features of the articles of a reference work. Nevertheless, consensus from  the broad community is needed for site-wide issues, especially  from  readers, rather than from individual editors or very small groups of editors.  The narrow views expressed by some Wikipedia editors on subject matter and page presentation  would sometimes suggest that they might  unconsciously be writing  to  demonstrate their own knowledge, rather than making informative articles for the use of the global community. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) 1st opposer's comments

Discussion

 * 1st comment

Support

 * 1) All claims in Wikipedia, especially those in articles about linguistics, broadly construed,  are required to be sourced. Period. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. But in practice, a lot of leeway is given to stubs, and in-line citations of some facts are oftentimes missing from articles. The question is whether we want to make a systematic, concerted effort to bring every article into full and current compliance as a project. The other option is the status quo of updating citations as we come across them. VIWS talk

Oppose

 * 1) 1st opposer's comments

Discussion

 * 1st comment

VIWS talk 11:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Arwi language
Kwamigami moved the article and deleted the language infobox. See Talk:Arwi. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk:Arwi_language - Discussion about whether Arwi language is a language. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 02:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Per our (and your) sources, it's only a 'language' in the generic sense, like 'Victorian language'. — kwami (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

ISO 15924 redirects
This can be deleted ISO 15924:Thaana, doesn't fit into Category:Redirects from ISO 15924. The code is Thaa. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the catch. I put it up for a speedy deletion under the Technical Deletions-Uncontroversial maintenance criteria. VanIsaacWS 16:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles on the medium of writing
I've been tagging articles with their appropriate WikiProjects and I've noticed that many of the articles on the modern medium of writing, such as pen, paper, pencil, writing implement, stationery, etc. are not tagged with this WikiProject, while others such as stylus, slate and stylus, clay tablet, etc. are. I was wondering if articles concerning the actual act of writing should be considered as under the scope of this WikiProject or if a new one should be formed to cover this (as most are not under the scope of any other project). --Zzyxzaa26 (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Category names for all ISO 15924 codes (you can help)
Currently, we have all 160 ISO codes defined in the ISO 15924 templates. About 50% of them do not have a correct wp Category-name (red link). You can help turning those red links into blue ones. See here. -DePiep (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wanted: a good Redirect
Currently, of the 160 ISO script names, two are a red link at Wikipedia: Palmyrene script and Old South Arabian script. Does anyone know a good redirect for them (a close WS name maybe), so that at least they are linked? -DePiep (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Isn't the latter the South Arabian alphabet? — kwami (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As asked: if that is a good idea, then create the redirect. I don't know. They are red links Template:ISO 15924/footer. -DePiep (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

ideographies
Having a dispute with Nsibidi, an ideographic system of Cameroon & Nigeria. The question is whether it counts as a writing system, and if it should be listed under the 'script' parameter in a language's infobox. Daniels & Bright do not count such systems as writing; in fact, the specifically exclude them. But that's one source. Of course, if we include nsibidi, we would need to include many other such systems, including international signs ('no smoking' etc.) as "writing", and it would mean that writing is far older than Sumeria/Egypt, but it is probably a good idea to get some agreement here. — kwami (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ideographs are considered writing by wikipedia. Whatever opinion an author has is not supported by wikipedia if the majority describe nsibidi as writing or a script. The 'no smoking' sign is a pictogram that is not part of any writing system, just like a made up doodle or symbol is not a writing system of itself. Wikipedia defines writing as "the representation of language in a textual medium through the use of a set of signs or symbols (known as a writing system)." There is no indication that ideograms are not writing, neither is there indication that writing is the representation of morphemes and sounds only by symbols. Nsibidi is clearly used in a textual medium on palm stems, leaves and as tattoos, as well as other things, if that is not writing, then what is it? The reference to Sumer and Egypt does not make any difference, because cuneiform and hieroglyphs developed from ideograms and a set of pictographs and still had these elements till they died. If nsibidi is not a writing system, then neither are early cuneiform, Chinese, or Aztec writing. If an ideogram is not writing, then in what point in time did these systems become writing? When they started representing sounds and words? So what if nsibidi has symbols that represent words and morphemes (as documented)? Does it now become half writing and half 'not writing'? How can a writing system not be writing? Ukabia - talk 21:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ideogram
 * Writing


 * According to the source I gave above, ideographies are not scripts. Cuneiform is not an ideography, as I've already explained to you. — kwami (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You gave one source, with an authors opinion that negates all dictionary entries for "writing", how practical is that? "cuneiform writing began as a system of pictographs." Apparently, there's a lot of editing to do with all these claims because Cuneiform clearly started as pictograms. You, and others supporting that ideographs (described as a written characters) are not writing, are going to have to explain when cuneiform became "true writing". There's a difference between pictographs and illustration, by the way. Ukabia - talk 22:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Linguists (e.g. DeFrancis 1989) tend to equate writing with glottography, i.e. only if a set of symbols and rules is able to record any and every human language completely it is truly writing. A system that is restricted (not only in practice, but also in theory) to a limited set of languages, e.g. just one, is sometimes also considered writing. Also, since the line is often hard to draw, many scholars include pictographic or ideographic symbols under the notion of writing, if (and only if) they’re retained in a later writing system, e.g. Sumerian cuneiform was only used for labeling in the beginning.
 * Scientists from other disciplines, including paleography, typography, philosophy and more, as well as laypeople often have a laxer interpretation of the term writing. Famous cases of “semasiography” in question are, for instance, the Yukaghir love letter and the 53$ money order from Turtle-Following-His-Wife (cf. Sampson 198x). Rogers (2005) mentions Bliss as the only semantic writing system and IPA etc. as phonetic writing systems, but others would disagree.
 * Sometimes a linear sequence of symbols is considered necessary for writing, so no complex 2D structures. — Christoph Päper 18:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank's for the detailed reply. Blissymbols were one of the ideographs I checked on wikipedia to see whether they were considered a writing system here or not, and they were, which was not a surprise at all. Bliss is even described as a language and world writing. One of the points in this debate was that nsibidi can be used for any language, therefore it is not writing, but here we see not only Blissymbols doing the same thing as nsibidi, but we see that some linguists consider writing to be symbols that can record every human language. This is not considering nsibidi's obvious logographic qualities.


 * Here's a link to the Cheynne letter.


 * From your reply, would I be right in saying that linguists generally consider ideographs as writing? Ukabia - talk 18:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny how a reliable source is just an author's "opinion" when you disagree with it.

Ukabia, you have not demonstrated that nsibidi has logographic qualities. From the samples I've seen, it would appear that it does not. That is, it appears to be ideographic, not logographic.

To all, Ukabia started dispute resolution here.

Ukabia is correct about one thing: whatever we decide for nsibidi, we should be consistent with other ideographies in our writing-systems template:

Also, besides the numerous indigenous alphabets and syllabaries across West Africa, there are many many more systems like nsibidi. Volumes on writing systems do not bother with this, as they do not meet their definition of writing. However, if they do count, we should cover them. We also need to count the Vinca script as writing, meaning that (according to its proponents) writing was invented in Europe, not in Sumeria or Egypt. — kwami (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It saves time to read through the sources you post.


 * "The so-called Old European script[...] The nature and purpose of the symbols is a mystery. It is dubious that they constitute a writing system. If they do, it is not known whether they represent an alphabet, syllabary, ideograms or some other form of writing. — Old_European_script"


 * This old European script's article is obviously implying that its status as a writing system is up for debate. Also, if we want to look at the Wikipedia defined development of writing:


 * A conventional "proto-writing to true writing" system follows a general series of developmental stages:
 * Picture writing system: glyphs directly represent objects and ideas or objective and ideational situations. In connection with this the following substages may be distinguished:
 * [...]
 * [...]
 * The ideographic (ideography): glyphs represent directly an idea or an ideational situation.
 * Transitional system: glyphs refer not only to the object or idea which it represents but to its name as well.
 * Phonetic system: glyphs refer to sounds or spoken symbols irrespective of their meanings. This resolves itself into the following substages:
 * The verbal: glyph (logogram) represents a whole word;
 * The syllabic[...];
 * The alphabetic[...]. — History_of_writing


 * There's a symbol on the nsibidi page that is described as "Etak Ntaña", a symbol for a bunch of plantains that was sent to people to fetch, which is this sign Nsibidi_plantain.jpg. The symbol itself does not imply a bunch of plantains and is abstract, it also is indifferent from sending a logographic symbol of 'food' to a person to order food. This symbol for 'bunch of plantains' does not describe an idea, but a specific named object, so it is a logogram.


 * The History of writing page on Wikipedia goes on to say:


 * The best known picture writing system of ideographic and/or early mnemonic symbols are:
 * Jiahu symbols, carved on tortoise shells in Jiahu, ca. 6600 BC
 * Vinča signs [...] In the Old World, true writing systems developed from neolithic writing in the Early Bronze Age (4th millennium BC). ::The Sumerian archaic cuneiform script and the Egyptian hieroglyphs are generally considered the earliest true writing systems, both emerging out of their ancestral proto-literate symbol systems from 3400–3200 BC with earliest coherent texts from about 2600 BC.


 * It is unclear what the article means by "true writing", but if it means a writing system that has evolved into the "phonetic system", then nsibidi, as I've described it now and save for the logographic characters would not be true writing. But then there's this:




 * "Already the effect of Europe is being felt on nsibidi, and it is urgent that as speedily as possible the collection of the signs should be completed. It came as a painful surprise to me one day when Onuaha brought me this sign and told me that a boy of his own name had given him it that day (I was in Umon at the time) and said that it was the nsibidi for Onuaha. The first two signs are corruptions of the English capital letters N and A whilst the third sign is distinctly reminiscent of more than one nsibidi character.' — J. K. Macgregor (1909)"


 * The script had evolved (with influence) which ticks the boxes that Christoph Päper noted that some linguistics laid out as the conditions for writing: "Also, since the line is often hard to draw, many scholars include pictographic or ideographic symbols under the notion of writing, if (and only if) they’re retained in a later writing system".
 * Wholly ideographic scripts do not write peoples names. Ukabia - talk 00:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh, Ukabia, you do understand that Macgregor's fear was that this was *not* nsibidi, don't you? That is was a corruption caused by the influence of the English alphabet? As you say, wholly ideographic scripts do not write peoples' names: and it appears nsibidi requires an external alphabet to manage this. — kwami (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What Macgregor said was that nsibidi is being corrupted, not that this is not nsibidi. Macgregor said two out of the three signs were corruptions of English letters. What is the last sign which he described as "distinctly reminiscent of more than one nsibidi character", an ideograph, for a name? By the way, did you note the use of the word character which you removed from the nsibidi article because, in your opinion, nsibidi isn't writing and therefore can't use the word?


 * The (supposed) influence of European text itself doesn't explain how somebody who is literate in nsibidi and not fully in English letters would understand the concept of using symbols to write their name; if they are just mistaking English letters for nsibidi, how can this be when:


 * "nsibidi is not writing" and cannot be mistaken, because that would be like mistaking road signs for Latin.
 * nsibidi is completely ideographic so who told the boy he could write his name in nsibidi if the third symbol is uncorrupted nsibidi?
 * on another note, why would Elphinstone Dayrell (Further Notes on 'Nsibidi Signs with Their Meanings from the Ikom District, Southern Nigeria., 1911, pg. 528) call the sign for nsibidi "Nsibidi name written"? Again, complete ideographs cannot write names, and a name for a writing system is certainly not ideographic. Ukabia - talk 02:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. Ukabia - talk 19:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

question about Category:Uncommon Latin letters
Please read and comment on Category talk:Uncommon Latin letters. —Coroboy (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for Advice (an undeciphered writing?)
Hey everybody! I'd like to ask for your kind advice. I got a few samples of an allegedly undeciphered hieroglyphic script from a friend of mine. He claims the script was received through automatic writing by a woman who tuned to a channeling stream of information. I'd like some expert to kindly give opinion on whether this seems to be a hoax, maybe imitation of some of the existing hieroglyphic scripts, or it might really be something new. I uploaded 2 of the images of the manually recorded script here: ,.

There are allegedly over 25 hand-written pages of such text. There's also a video-recording of the process of writing them down. It all goes rather quick and automatic, not like one would expect from an artist who could possibly invent this... My own analysis, though, shows that some symbols occur a bit too often, which would not usually be expected from a natural hieroglyphic text. But there may be other explanations for the existing pattern and frequency of symbols as well... In any case, my impression is that even if it's a hoax, it would require quite a lot of imagination and artistic proficiency to forge this kind of text. It deserves a bit of analysis and verification at least...

Could you also possibly direct me to someone or some forum, or group, where I could ask for an expert advice on this topic? Much appreciate your kind prompt reply.

-- Nazar (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks too repetitive to even be an alphabet if you ask me, let alone logographic. Unless maybe it's a pop song with an extremely repetitive chorus? (ooh baby baby, yeah baby baby ...) Seriously, some people *do* have artistic ability, and these all look like variations on a few basic themes, rather like I'd expect from writing down long strings with no meaning from glyphs that had been worked out ahead of time. Looks like the graphic equivalent of scat singing. Given a bit of practice, I'm not sure I couldn't do something similar. Certainly I know people who could. — kwami (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thx for evaluation. As per my above message, I'd certainly agree on the repetitiveness point. Though this observation may be interpreted in different ways as well... Simon Ager (from omniglot.com) says: "[18:41:16] Nazar: The script look a bit like the Ancient Egyptian Demotic script, though the characters are arranged in different ways." -- Nazar (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, scat uses riffs and themes from existing music, so it wouldn't be surprising if the graphic equivalent involved elements of existing scripts. — kwami (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of German characters in English language articles
There is a discussion at Talk:Michael Groß which may be of interest to members of your project, on which you may be able to share your knowledge and expertise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)