Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Writing systems (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Naming consistency[edit]

archived at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (writing systems)

Diacritics topic structure pattern: graphs vs meanings[edit]

Initially about circumflex/caret recently, but wider. @John Maynard Friedman: about our (your) recent additions [1]. Noting this here for possible future development. First, I'm short in time so I must talk in brief statements.

I highly appreciate the addition of graphical similar symbols. Somewhow somewhere, a reader might expect these to be present (and even presented as unknown but related extras. For example, one does not want to miss hightly related caret). But we also know that placement and way of introduction of these extras is not smooth yet (aka problematic, unresolved). Maybe a more dedicated section is useful ("similar graphs"?).

In the topic diacritics & punctuation: graphs & meanings, first distinction we (wiki) must make is graph versus meaning/usage/name. Basically, this leads to two sets of articles (which could be merged while keeping this discernment). Best example is Two dots (diacritic), which is detached from "name/meaning", while serving all aspects. See Two dots (DAB), top down.

TL;DR: Proposal, thoughts: I think all caret-like graphs topics should get the same setup as two dots c.a. Somehow, this two-branch tree approach better be formalised (some MOS guideline). Alas, if there was more time in a day. DePiep (talk) 06:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes, I was one of the instigators of two dots (diacritic) article, so of course I agree with the principle. In that case, it was fairly easy to come up with a neutral name that is also self-evident as to its meaning. I'm less sure that we could use the word "circumflex" in the same way, as it has a long history of having a specific and singular meaning: the diacritic. I've previously debated the appropriate target for ^: the preponderance of US authors here has meant that it redirects to caret – which itself is another US misnomer.
TL;DR: I'm sympathetic to your argument but it will take a great deal of time with no certainty of success. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All right. But we should not be prohibited because there is no simple name for the graph "pointy hat". OR use some DAB term. Forgot to note: math usage is part of the list too. DePiep (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Per WP:NCWS, should Theban be a script or an alphabet? The same argument should presumably be applied to Shavian. (Enochian script doesn't have a separate article.) See Talk:Theban script#Requested move 3 April 2023. — kwami (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think Theban is most coherently a "script", as it is fundamentally just a substitution cipher for another script, i.e. Latin script. There is nothing inherent to its invention or usage that makes it inherently language-specific with a unique orthographic convention for that language - it just copies Latin script orthography. As far as I know, Shavian is language-specific with its own orthographic conventions, and has never been adapted or expanded to support other languages, so it is probably most consistent with the "alphabet" nomenclature. Basically the idea in NWCS was that you could add the language name to a script to talk about an alphabet, and if the language was redundant in that name, the script could be called an alphabet all by itself. So the fact that "Shavian English alphabet" is redundant and functionally identical to "Shavian script" is why "Shavian alphabet" is okay. But as just a simple cipher of the Latin script, "Theban English alphabet" isn't really all that realistically the same as the "Theban script". VanIsaac, GHTV contWpWS 19:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per WP:COMMONNAME, it's an alphabet. "Theban alphabet": About 32,900 Ghits. "Theban script": About 74 Ghits. Also see the language counterparts de:Thebanisches Alphabet, fr:Alphabet thébain, pt:Alfabeto tebano, ru:Фиванский алфавит, and books like Hexenschrift - Das Theban Alphabet: Workbook (German Edition) – and – AGENDA WICCA 2021: Fêtes Wicca, oghams celtiques, Runes, alphabet thébain, correspondances astrologiques, phases lunaires, un agenda pratique pour ... rituels, sabbats etc... (French Edition). – Raven  .talk 21:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, there's a conflict between the common name and MOS conventions. Though the same is true for the Latin, Arabic, Burmese, Bengali and Cyrillic scripts. — kwami (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting that you start your changes only here and not on any of the others, and with a WP:RMUM move war rather than seeking consensus. – Raven  .talk 02:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Project-independent quality assessments[edit]

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question: is there any consideration, in assessing policy/guideline/convention "WP:" articles, of whether the edits which set them actually followed the consensus on their talk pages, vs. the editor's own (non-consensus) ideas? Or is the status quo presumed "consensus" if no-one notices and objects to a subtly contra-consensus change until much later? The possible mischief includes mass changes to article-space based on one previously unnoticed (and unenforced) provision or loophole that bides its time until thought "stable". This is not hypothetical. – .Raven  .talk 08:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:N'Ko script#Requested move 10 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 14:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The same applies to:

Fabric and Cord Writing Systems[edit]

How would knotted cord encoded writing systems such as the Native American quipu be classified? Would they be treated more like 8-bit computer codes or put with hand gestures such as sign languages? They include features such as left-hand or right-hand angle of knot, color of cord, material of cord (cotton/hemp) and position/sequence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B04F:7A50:A197:9D35:DEFC:EDD8 (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They were appaprently more aids to memory than full linguistic writing systems in any usual sense. AnonMoos (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]