Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing systems. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Due to the issues shown at this thread, I think it would be a good idea for this project to automatically file a bugzilla report whenever a new Unicode version is released to update case mapping for the new version. Which brings up the point that we should probably have a standard procedure for Unicode updates on the project page. So I've come up with the following to add to the project page, and if anyone has other maintenance that should occur with new Unicode versions, or wants to change the timing of any tasks, please change the subsection below. VanIsaac_WS^cont 01:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Seriously folks, any thoughts, criticisms or additions? VanIsaac_WS^cont 21:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Why update {{Infobox Unicode block}} and {{ISO 15924}} before the release? Gorobay (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Unicode block needs to be able to handle the input value, eg | 7_1 = before this gets added to the block articles. Since the announcement of the beta is the time at which the new version number is set (we know the next version won't be 8.0, or that there isn't going to be a currency symbol taking up a minor version in the meantime, for example), and ISO 15924 will have its new values by that time (some Unicode data files necessary for beta feedback are dependent on 15924 values), it seemed like the time to check on those things when the lack of functioning won't interfere with articles undergoing revision, like it would if we wait for the updates associated with the final release. VanIsaac_WS^cont 22:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

When a beta version of Unicode is released, the following maintenance should be performed:

1. Update template:Infobox Unicode block to accept additions from the new Unicode version.
2. Update all ISO 15924 templates to support all scripts to be added in the new Unicode version.

When the a new Unicode version is released, the following maintenance should be performed:

1. All Unicode chart templates should be updated for any added characters, and new Unicode chart templates created for new blocks and added to Template:Unicode chart templates.
2. Unicode block articles should be updated for any added characters, and new Unicode block articles created for new blocks.
3. {{Category TOC Unicode}} should be updated for new blocks.
4. Unicode, Unicode#Versions, Unicode block, (any others?) should be updated to the new character repertoire and any changes to the standard.
5. All script articles should be updated to include appropriate Unicode chart templates.
6. File a report with bugzilla to update case matching.

This image, which appears only on Irish orthography, is a low-quality image. The edges of the letters are not smooth, and the letter "names" use some sort of quasi-phonetic spelling. It looks it was put together in an old version of Microsoft Paint. It would be nice if someone redid it (I don't have the necessary typeface). pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 19:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

This old revision of Yot (letter)Yot (letter) looks reasonably accurate, even though Wikinger wrote it. Is there any reason not to revert it to that (or a similar) state? Gorobay (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be reverted, but it would be best if an actual image of Yot could be found, instead of substituting Latin j. VanIsaac_WS^cont 01:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to revert. That version of the article is so badly written it's almost incomprehensible, and really there is no letter "yot" of the Greek alphabet; it's just a bog-standard Latin letter j used in reconstructions of Greek. It's absurd that it has its own Unicode character, but the mere fact that it does, doesn't make it important enough for a Wikipedia article. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the Unicode proposal document? I can speak from extensive experience that letters don't get encoded without considerable documentation of its use. The fact that the article wasn't very well written has never been a compelling argument for deletion, only that the article should be improved. This ended up being a back-door deletion when it got converted to a redirect to a page that doesn't contain content on the article subject. VanIsaac_WS^cont 00:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, which Unicode proposal document? Gorobay (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know off the top of my head, but the first place I would look is at an old version of the page. If it's not there, character proposal documents are archived by the WG2 (the host is st.dkuug.dk) - they all have the form of "N" + four digit number .pdf, and are almost all titled something along the lines of "Proposal to include X in Unicode/ISO-10646" or "Proposal to include X in the UCS". Google should be able to handle it. VanIsaac_WS^cont 22:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Those methods do work, but seldom for characters originating in Unicode 1.1. Many characters have been encoded without documentation of use, for compatibility. Gorobay (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The font links have disappeared from International Phonetic Alphabet; see Talk:International Phonetic Alphabet#Font links gone. Please take any discussion to that Talk section, as I am also posting this note to another project's Talk page. Thnidu (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I study Japanese at Aarhus University, and when translating works, I frequently make use of the "List of Kanji by Stroke Count" article/list. It claims to follow the Jōyō kanji system, however I noticed that there are quite a few missing. Specifically the 196 added in 2010 listed here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jōyō_kanji (under "History").

The list's talk page categorizes it as a low priority list, so if nobody else wants to, I wouldn't mind updating it myself. I was led to believe (from the WikiProject Writing Systems banner on the talk page of the outdated article), that this was the place to go ask permission for that. I'm sorry if that was incorrect; I am quite inexperienced both finding my way, and editing. That's also why I wouldn't feel comfortable updating the list without permission.

Either way, best regards. Keep up the good work!

90.184.6.41 (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. You are certainly welcome to edit the article to include the 2010 additions. You don't actually need this wikiproj″ect's permission, but I'm happy to encourage you to be bold. You may want to add a short note to the talk page to let folks know what you are doing. Cheers, --Mark viking (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Bolded it up. Added the missing kanji, and removed some 200 obscure kanji as per the talk page discussions. Thanks for the introduction! 90.184.6.41 (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Ad look's like this ض — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.118.42.226 (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Are letter names proper nouns? Should they be capitalized? Gorobay (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There's some stuff around that says that Phi comes from Koppa that is floating around on the Phi and Q articles. Only one source states this claim. All the other sources I could find imply that the Greeks invented the phi symbol from scratch. I'm not sure if other people have evidence of the two letters' relation. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 03:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Z § Variant and derived forms includes the following text and graphic+caption:

Z in an Antiqua typeface may be identical with the character representing 3 in other fonts.

z in a sans serif typeface

I find this quite dubious, and I am about to delete these. Naming this glyph as a form of Z is unreferenced, both here and on the graphic file. Dejavu Sans lists this character right after Ƶ and ƶ, and nowhere else as far as I can tell; this assignment is in complete agreement with Unicode Latin Extended-B, which lists

01B5 Ƶ LATIN CAPITAL LETTER Z WITH STROKE

01B6 ƶ LATIN SMALL LETTER Z WITH STROKE

01B7 Ʒ LATIN CAPITAL LETTER EZH

• African, Skolt Sami
• lowercase is 0292 ʒ

→ 021C Ȝ latin capital letter yogh

→ 04E0 Ӡ cyrillic capital letter abkhasian dze

I am posting a link to this comment from Talk:Z.

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

A request has been made for a proper translation of this complaint letter. If you can read it, please visit and comment at:

• Talk:Complaint tablet to Ea-nasir#Can someone transcribe the original letter for the article?

Many thanks.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to add to the article pertaining to scriptio continua and am looking for some guidance. The article it is in the "start" category, meaning it needs quite a bit of information before it can be deemed more complete. The Wikiproject Writing system guidlines suggest adding a section about the decline of the previous writing system, but I'm wondering whether a section on the decline of scriptio continua itself could be advantageous as well. Please comment if this seems like a logical section to add, or if it sounds superfluous.

128.239.204.18 (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I have added article alerts to this WikiProject under Resources and references. I am not sure if this the optimal spot for it? I hope someone finds it useful? Ottawahitech (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me

At Tongyong_Pinyin#cite_ref-13 somebody added text arguing that this source from the Taipei Times is a non-expert opinion and is not credible.

Is this the case, or did someone just add original research that should be removed from the citation? What is happening? WhisperToMe (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I started the latest RM discussion. I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to write more sections like this one, but would like experienced editors to opine on this one before I replicate it. I don't think that every letter needs a typography section, mind, but there are some letters that have many different typographic forms and long typographic histories. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Please, check Talk:Block Elements#Example. I created an example, would someone add it to the article?--200.223.199.146 (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello 200.223.199.146. I responded to you on that talk page. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing systems/Archive 10/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Writing systems, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Writing_systems

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 20:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I can handle a few. Inatan (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks that's great.— Rod ^talk 08:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd like some wider input on this. A new {{Infobox grapheme}} was recently developed by Учхљёная (talk · contribs) and added to a number of articles, mostly basic Latin letters A through L (but also e.g. Ampersand, Baṛī ye, the Zhuang letter Ƽ and others). I find these boxes problematic for a number of reasons. On the one hand, the individual data filled in them on individual articles are riddled with problematic claims and errors. On the other hand, I find the general idea and design of this box quite problematic too, so much so that I find myself doubting whether it's worth trying to improve them by fixing the individual mistakes, rather than getting rid of the boxes completely. Personally, I have to say that at the moment I would much prefer the latter.

Here are some of the general conceptual and design issues:

• These boxes are competing with the existing navboxes for alphabetic sets, such as {{Latin alphabet sidebar}}. Both are now displayed side by side, leading to an extremely crammed visual impression of the page layout.
• The header area of the box itself is also crammed with a bewildering variety of repetitions of the letter in question: First, there's the infobox titlebar giving the title of the page (which in most cases is just the letter itself), then there's a huge big text representation of the same letter, then there's a small-print line that sometimes contains the same letter yet again, but sometime is filled with a whole row of variant representations, while in yet other cases it contains a cryptic link to "See below, Typographic", whatever that is supposed to mean. Then there's space for yet more images containing yet more visual representations of the same letter, chosen according to no apparent criterion. The net effect is just a big blob of graphics sprinkled with random "G"s, or "A"s, or whatever the topic may be.
• For the Latin letters especially, this image field has been used for a very large representation of some style of cursive handwriting (English 20th-century cursive as taught in schools? It's not any cursive style I recognize from actual historic writing practice). Why the emphasis on this particular style, among the multitude of forms the Latin letters have had in print and handwriting over the centuries? And why, of all things, in an animated gif format?
• Further down, there are several large lists of related symbols, meant to represent the historical development ("ancestors", "descendents" and "sisters") of the symbol in question. These lists are all vertical, taking up a huge amount of space with little information in each line. In fact, each individual symbol in these lists is an Easter egg link – you can't figure out what each of them stands for, without actually clicking on them. Plus, many of the links go to the raw image files, not to the articles describing the symbols in question. While the information as such is certainly of interest (at least if it's correct, which often it isn't, see below), most of this repeats information that is (or could be) presented better and in a more readable/succinct way in the article body.
• There is also a list of "phonetic usage", again as a vertical list taking up far more space than needed. For many Latin letters, this list is practically endless (J has 16(!) sounds listed.)

There are more details of design I have issues with, but I'll leave it at this for now.

But now to some examples of individual problems and apparent mistakes in the chosen data:

• Ƽ contains the claim that the western numeral "5" is derived from a Khmer numeral. Really? (But you can only figure that out with a lot of searching, as the image in question isn't linked to anything informative)
• A contains two near-identical representations of the same Phoenician letter in its list of ancestors, and then claims that the Latin letter "A" is a descendant of the "Latin cursive" A. Huh?
• A also contains a list "letters commonly used with": "ae", "ah", "an". Why these three, of all things?
• B contains redundant entries for the Greek letters in its ancestor list.
• H contains not just Phoenician but also Hebrew Heth in its ancestor list, and another set of irrelevant Greek duplicates
• G used to claim that Greek Gamma was derived from Arabic jim (!) (this has been corrected in the meantime).

What should be done with this? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

H's infobox can simply be reflected by re-classifying Hebrew cheth as a sibling rather than an ancestor.

For A, we can simply remove one of the identical Phoenician letters. For the Latin cursive A, you can just fix it if possible.

Georgia guy (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Any opinion about the general design issues? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I would support removing these infoboxes entirely. They do not really add anything useful that is not already in the articles, and it seems to me that they reflect the idiosyncratic views of one particular editor rather than providing a neutral summary of key information. BabelStone (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Are there any letters whose origin is disputed that makes this user so idiosyncratic?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It's undisputed that Zhuang letters are based on Cyrillic script, but the infobox for Ƽ links it to Khmer ... that is what I mean by idiosyncratic. BabelStone (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

In his defense, he probably got the idea from a mis-cited bit in the main numeral 5 article, which I removed the other day [1]. But as I keep saying, the main issue that I think we ought to discuss here is not the individual errors, but the general design problems. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

A merge proposal between Assamese alphabet and Assamese consonant clusters is stuck because of some differences between the two pages; expert views at Talk:Assamese consonant clusters#Not about consonant clusters would be helpful. Klbrain (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I’m a bit confused about an aspect of a group of articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_1 thru https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_214 .

    Though very well put together, parts of the articles are inconsistent:

    1)	The major part of the confusion: in the right hand box (showing the radical, its name in several languages, and it’s stroke order), the "Hiragana" area often shows both Hiragana and Katakana.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_73 for the radical meaning “say” ( 曰 ) shows Katakana/Romaji ( エツ etsu ) on the 1st line then Hiragana/Romaji ( いわく iwaku ) on the 2nd line.

    This happens throughout the 214 articles.

    There is an outside chance the author meant to use Katakana for the original Chinese pronunciation of the radical and Hiragana for the Japanese version.

However, considering Hiragana & Katakana are strictly Japanese this doesn't really shed light on the subject. (Hiragana is used for phonetic spelling and particles of speech where Katakana is used for foreign words and emphasis.)

    (In many translation texts the difference between the 2 languages is handled by making the Chinese to Romaji translation in all capitals and the Japanese to Romaji translation in all lower case.)

   Either way there are many Katakana symbols under the Hiragana heading in these articles.

    2) The other issue, though minor, is an inconsistency with the positions of the Symbols and their Romaji translation.

i.e.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_2 has different Hiragana separated with commas followed by Romaji, separated by commas ( ぼう, コン bō, kon )

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_10 has a Hiragana followed by Romaji, then another Hiragana followed by its Romaji. ( にんにょう ninnyō ひとあし hitoashi )
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_42 has Romaji followed by Hiragana: (commashou (seu), chiisai ショウ (セウ), ちいさい )

(Here again, the articles for radical 2 & 42 show both Hiragana ( ぼう, ちいさい ) and Katakana ( コン, ショウ (セウ) ).

    Also, the author is using the Katakana that is pronounced "uu" (ウ) to indicate long vowels: (ユウ yū).  This is incorrect.  The correct Katakana character for a long vowel resembles a dash: (ユ yu, ユ- yū).  

Hiragana uses whichever character continues the vowel sound: hā = はあ (ha+a), hī = ひい, fu (hū) = ふう, hē = へえ, hō = ほお or ほう. ^{[1] [2]}

   There doesn’t seem to be rhyme nor reason for different positioning making it difficult for someone not already versed in Hiragana to follow.

    I would be happy to correct the errors as encountered but would like to know the authors original intent in issue 1.  Procadman (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   11:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Can we check the use or not of gaelach picture in Irish language? when it was included when it was deleted ※ Sobreira ◣◥ ፧ (parlez)⁇﹖ 08:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey everyone. Is there a template in the style of Template:Contains special characters that shows information about the Thaana script? Maldives is currently on the front page, so it might be important for those who want to see the characters properly rendered. (Like me.) Loooke (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

wru qwertyuióp eo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.101.49.126 (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I’m a bit confused about an aspect of a group of articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_1 thru https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_214 .

    Though very well put together, parts of the articles are inconsistent:

    1)	The major part of the confusion: in the right hand box (showing the radical, its name in several languages, and it’s stroke order), the "Hiragana" area often shows both Hiragana and Katakana.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_73 for the radical meaning “say” ( 曰 ) shows Katakana/Romaji ( エツ etsu ) on the 1st line then Hiragana/Romaji ( いわく iwaku ) on the 2nd line.

    This happens throughout the 214 articles.

    There is an outside chance the author meant to use Katakana for the original Chinese pronunciation of the radical and Hiragana for the Japanese version.

However, considering Hiragana & Katakana are strictly Japanese this doesn't really shed light on the subject. (Hiragana is used for phonetic spelling and particles of speech where Katakana is used for foreign words and emphasis.)

    (In many translation texts the difference between the 2 languages is handled by making the Chinese to Romaji translation in all capitals and the Japanese to Romaji translation in all lower case.)

   Either way there are many Katakana symbols under the Hiragana heading in these articles.

    2) The other issue, though minor, is an inconsistency with the positions of the Symbols and their Romaji translation.

i.e.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_2 has different Hiragana separated with commas followed by Romaji, separated by commas ( ぼう, コン bō, kon )

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_10 has a Hiragana followed by Romaji, then another Hiragana followed by its Romaji. ( にんにょう ninnyō ひとあし hitoashi )
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_42 has Romaji followed by Hiragana: (commashou (seu), chiisai ショウ (セウ), ちいさい )

(Here again, the articles for radical 2 & 42 show both Hiragana ( ぼう, ちいさい ) and Katakana ( コン, ショウ (セウ) ).

    Also, the author is using the Katakana that is pronounced "uu" (ウ) to indicate long vowels: (ユウ yū).  This is incorrect.  The correct Katakana character for a long vowel resembles a dash: (ユ yu, ユ- yū).  

Hiragana uses whichever character continues the vowel sound: hā = はあ (ha+a), hī = ひい, fu (hū) = ふう, hē = へえ, hō = ほお or ほう. ^{[3] [4]}

   There doesn’t seem to be rhyme nor reason for different positioning making it difficult for someone not already versed in Hiragana to follow.

    I would be happy to correct the errors as encountered but would like to know the authors original intent in issue 1.  Procadman (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• These are not erroneous. Traditionally, On readings are written in katakana, while Kun readings are cited in hiragana.VanIsaac_WS^cont 09:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Letter (alphabet), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

I have begun a discussion at Talk:Kirshenbaum because following the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirshenbaum and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 29 discussions a redirect has been created which seems to me not consistent with the results of those discussions. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I would like to put my name down to take part in editing this project for the use of other Wikipedians. Ajesmond3 (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

See WP:FTN#WP:UNDUE issue at Gradeshnitsa tablets - claim that they are similar to Egyptian script and the earliest evidence of written language. Doug Weller talk 16:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Members of the project might be interested in this discussion: Talk:Capital ẞ#Does this symbol need it's own article?.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Back in 2018 when it was new, I once brought up the topic of the hideously ill-designed {{Infobox grapheme}} at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems/Archive 10#New "Infobox grapheme"?. Unfortunately no action was taken back then. In hindsight, I'm hardly surprised to find that the person who created it in 2018 turned out to be a ban-evading troll sock a short time later. I'm now planning to cut the template down to reduce the clutter. Current drafts at Template:Infobox grapheme/testcases and Template:Infobox grapheme/sandbox. Input welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• I feel like the "phonetic usage", "descendants" and "sisters" are badly laid out at one per line instead of something like a comma delimited listing. There's just lot of wasted real estate that could be better used. And I would suggest that the most useful part of the infobox beyond the topline info is actually the development section, which the sandbox version has eliminated. I'm thinking that could be spruced up quite a bit as well with script names as well as the images of the glyphs. VanIsaac_WS^cont 16:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, indeed, the vertical layout is horrible. But that was hard-coded in the individual parameter values inserted on the articles (lots of literal "<br>"), so it's not really a feature of the box design as such (either old or new version). As for the historical lineage, I removed it mostly because in the existing use cases the values were quite chaotic and riddled with errors. Also, the lineage section was hard-coded and obligatory (it would always display at least one entry, the article topic, as its final element, even if you didn't actually fill anything in). We can certainly talk about bringing a sane version of such a list back, once we have a clear idea what should actually go in it, and in a way that's no longer just a list of easter-egg links to individual images. Until then, my idea was to reduce it just to a single entry giving the immediately ancestor (e.g. Greek letters for Latin or Cyrillic ones, or Phoenician for Greek, etc.), where such a relation can be safely enough established. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Atthe moment, there is a discussion at CfD to delete Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode, Category:Scripts not encoded in Unicode (now 240 articles, no subcategories).

Once the categories are deleted, we are not sure if and how these articles are apearing in top Category:Writing systems. They might be buried deep, or in an unhelpful way only. To check for this, here is a list of these articles:

-DePiep (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• The CfD I linked to in OP has some more script article to check (for being present in partent category:WS). -DePiep (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Several foreign character warning box templates, some of which are tagged with WikiProject Writing systems, have been nominated for deletion here. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Kindly analysis this article if it is okay and also the talk page? I think there's wrong. thank you -- ᜰᜲᜫᜲᜨ᜴ ᜢᜩᜲᜰᜳᜧ᜴ (Talk) 17:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have been working on articles for the letters with shared descent among the Indic scripts (see A (Indic) - Ha (Indic)) and a large part of this effort so far has been through building the content for the template:Indic glyph infobox. But it is becoming unwieldy with so many scripts, and I have a bunch more scripts in the list with their information added to the infobox, even though it isn't currently displayed. I am looking to rebuild the template to better organize the content, but I don't have a good enough background on those scripts to do this. So what I'm looking for is your ideas for a classification system so that I can have sections of related scripts that would be hidden unless expanded, and only have some of the more common/important scripts by default displayed on page load. So here's what I'm looking for your ideas on:

1) What (up to) ten scripts would be best for representing the whole of the Indic scripts in terms of geographic diversity, historic importance, cultural identities, and visual form? Right now, I only have the Ashoka Brahmi, Devanagari and Thai on my no-brainer list, so any help would be appreciated.

2) If you were to break the Indic scripts into around a half-dozen or so groups on the basis of related visual form, geography, cultures, and/or function, what groupings would be most salient and useful to the reader, and which scripts would go into the groups you propose? These groups should include historic scripts with the related modern script groupings, and it's okay if especially those historic scripts get put in more than one grouping as well.

The Indic scripts I have in my list include:

Modern scripts: Balinese, Batak, Bengali, Chakma, Cham, Devanagari, Gujarati, Gunjala, Gondi, Gurmukhi, Javanese, Kannada, Kayah Li, Khmer, Khudawadi, Lao, Lepcha, Limbu, Malayalam, Masaram, Gondi, Meetei Mayek, Myanmar, New Tai Lü, Newa, Oriya, Rejang, Saurashtra, Sharada, Sinhala, Sundanese, Syloti, Nagri, Tai Le, Tai Tham, Tai Viet, Takri, Tamil, Telugu, Thai, Tibetan, and Tirhuta.

Ancient/Historic scripts: Ahom, Bhaiksuki, Brahmi (Ashoka, Kushana and Gupta forms), Dives Akuru, Dogra, Grantha, Kaithi, Kharoshthi, Khojki, Mahajani, Makasar, Marchen, Modi, Multani, Nandinagari, Phags-pa, Siddham, Soyombo, Tocharian and Zanabazar Square.

Except for Tocharian, all these scripts are currently encoded in Unicode. Thanks for any help. VanIsaac_WS^cont 04:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Well, I gave it a week, and didn't get any input, so I just did the best I could. If you'd like to see the information I gathered and how I split everything up, you can take a look at template:Indic glyph/sandbox. If you see anything that should be changed, you can add it here or at the talk page at Indic glyph. VanIsaac_WS^cont 01:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

See Amshpatten (talk · contribs) - making numerous changes to Tamil etc languages, many of which delete sourced details. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 6 § Template:Char. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 06:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Greetings. There has been discussion as to redirecting Paleo-Hebrew alphabet to Phoenician alphabet. Insight and input from members of this WikiProject may help decide the matter. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a minor discrepancy for naming the articles of writing systems of Punjabi. There are two: Gurumukhi and Shahmuki. The article on Gurumukhi is titled only with the name of the writing system. While, for Shahmukhi, it is titled as Shahmukhi alphabet. A recent edit to move the Shahmukhi alphabet article to just Shahmukhi was reverted by another editor who inquired the rationale behind this.

I suggest both use similar titles for consistency as for other languages with multiples writing systems have done, eg : Mongolian.

The articles must be name Gurumukhi / Shahmukhi •OR• Gurumukhi alphabet / Shahmukhi alphabet.

Pinging, Eostrix and Maligbro1223. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 21:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• You can take a look at the Writing Systems naming conventions from 9 years ago, but the basics are that because Shahmukhi is a localized adaptation of a much more broadly used script (Perso-Arabic), a local instantiation like Shahmukhi is properly the "Shahmukhi alphabet". Gurmukhi, on the other hand, is a localized script, used primarily for a single language (Punjabi), and is properly "Gur(u)mukhi script". Because of the conventional usage and lack of competing meeting, the article name of "Gurmukhi" is more than adequate, and variants of "Gur(u)mukhi script" are simply redirects. Now, if there were several languages prominently using the Gurumukhi script, then you might also have articles on the "Punjabi Gurumukhi alphabet", etc. And if Gurmukhi were a way of using the Devanagari script to write Punjabi, it would be the "Gurmukhi alphabet". But in the absence of a legitimate fork in content from the overall Gurumukhi script, the "Punjabi Gurmukhi alphabet" content is just part of the more comprehensive "script" article. This is very much not the case with Shahmukhi and its relation with the Perso-Arabic script, and the only question is whether "Shahmukhi" by itself is conventionally well-enough known that it doesn't need "alphabet" appended. But I would strenuously argue that it is not even close to being conventionally known for that to happen. But either way, "Gurmukhi" and "Shahmukhi alphabet" are both entirely within the naming conventions in a way that "Gurmukhi alphabet" is distinctly outside the naming conventions. VanIsaac_WS^cont 05:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• I reverted a cut and paste move ([2]) which was performed without any rationale in the edit summary. I am not opposed to a move, however I suggest that at the very least you use a proper move (that saves editing history) and I would also strongly suggest a requested move discussion.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 05:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking for some feedback here on the use of {{charmap}}. User:HarJIT has created a UTF converter for the GB 18030 standard - GB 18030 algorithmically includes the whole UCS - and implemented a function for displaying this encoding at template:charmap. The big question is whether displaying the GB 18030 encoding should be enabled by default in a charmap table, like UTF-8, and UTF-16 for surrogate code points, or if it should only display when the "IncludeGB=yes" flag is explicitly set. The charmap template is currently deployed on about 500 pages for characters in the Latin, Cyrillic, Greek, Semitic (Hebrew and Perso-Arabic), Braille, and Kana scripts. Thanks for your thoughts. VanIsaac_WS^cont 08:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I prefer it display only when the IncludeGB=yes flag is set. DRMcCreedy (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any insight on where it definitely should be displayed vs. definitely not vs. could go either way? VanIsaac_WS^cont 02:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't but I wouldn't want it showing up unexpected or unintentionally. User:HarJIT is probably a better person to know. DRMcCreedy (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

For background, a run-down of other Unicode Transformation Formats, and presumed reasons why they are or are not included:

• UTF-8 is the most common in interchange internationally, and prescribed by HTML5/WHATWG standards, hence it is shown.
• UTF-32 would be stating the obvious (one code word matching the code point), hence it is not shown (unless one could argue that the Unicode scalar value line itself counts). It is often used internally (outside of Windows), rarely if ever used in interchange, and is not permitted in HTML5.
• UTF-16 would similarly be stating the obvious if all codes are in the Basic Multilingual Plane, hence it is only shown if at least one is not. It is sometimes used in interchange, and included (with some reluctance) by the WHATWG.
• BOCU-1 cannot be meaningfully shown, since the coding sequence is a function of both the code point itself and the previous code point in the stream.
• Punycode operates on the string as a whole, rather than operating strictly on a code point by code point basis, and so similarly cannot be meaningfully shown.
• SCSU would need more than just a single table row to outline the different ways a given character could be accessed, and the prefixes needed in order to do so from various initial states: this would be undue weight for an encoding which is generally used only for internal storage rather than interchange.
• UTF-7 is pretty much a specialised ASCII armour scheme for a UTF-16 stream. It is not permitted in HTML5. It could theoretically be listed (in the same sense that a Quoted-Printable transformation of UTF-8 could be listed separately), but probably shouldn't.
• LMBCS, although almost a UTF in its current version, largely predates Unicode as a concept and, as a consequence, has multiple encodings for many characters, most of which are trivially related to other encodings which are probably already listed manually.
• UTF-EBCDIC could be listed but, since it is is apparently relatively uncommon even on EBCDIC systems, and unheard of elsewhere, it probably shouldn't. The only place I think it's listed at the moment is At sign § Unicode, where it is merely in a row header giving a list of EBCDIC variants using that specific single-byte encoding for the character.
• CESU-8 (UTF8mb3) is really a messed-up UTF-8 with legacy in certain database systems (and TCL/Tk), rather than something that's supposed to be used. It is forbidden in HTML5 as a separate encoding (and in its definition of UTF-8, the WHATWG Encoding Standard limits the range of the first continuation byte after certain lead bytes so as to exclude both overlong encodings and surrogate codes).
• UTF-1 was dropped in favour of UTF-8 and removed from ISO 10646; UTF-5 and UTF-6 as proposals were dropped in favour of Punycode; UTF-9 was only ever an April Fools gag (and the accompanying UTF-18 isn't even a full UTF: it hasn't even encoded all non-private blocks since Unicode 13 came out earlier this year).

As for GB18030: it is a mandatory standard in Mainland China, it is included in the WHATWG Encoding Standard, it is listed in the HTML standard as the default fallback encoding for Simplified Chinese locales. It is also a superset of GBK, itself a superset of EUC-CN (8-bit GB 2312), which are the main legacy encodings for Simplified Chinese (although GBK also adequately supports Traditional Chinese and Japanese, and both of them support Russian and Bulgarian).

Essentially, there are a few ways of looking at it:

1. It's a UTF used in interchange, hence it should appear everywhere.
2. It's a CJK encoding, and should be listed in boxes which list other CJK encodings such as variants of Shift JIS, plus those distinctive to GB 2312's coverage (i.e. Mainland Simplified forms).
3. It's a retrofit on GBK to complete its coverage, and should be listed in boxes for characters from scripts which are covered at least in part by GBK (i.e. Roman, Greek, Cyrillic, kana, hanzi, zhuyin).
4. It's a Mainland Chinese standard encoding, and should be listed for characters from scripts used in Mainland China, by the dominant group or otherwise (e.g. hanzi, Roman/pinyin, Tibetan, Mongolian, Uyghur Arabic…)

That being said, it is probably not necessary to set a bright line standard for when it should or should not be included (similarly to how the manual mappings can already freely specify or not specify a variety of encodings, decided on a per-article basis). The question is merely whether it would be appropriate to bulk roll it out to all articles, which I do not really have an opinion on (the added information is informative but comes at a space cost, since the table can be hard to use if it gets much longer than one's screen). --HarJIT (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

We are fighting against vandalising on wiki, so we should fight against vandalising of writing systems in reality as well: https://forum.unilang.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=57993

This is common russian practice BTW:

• https://lenta.ru/articles/2004/11/16/language/ (in Russian) -- "criminalized Latin", "outlawed any switch to Latin"
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_press_ban
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ems_Ukaz#Yaryzhka
• and so on, and so on, and so on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prognadzvy4ajn (talk • contribs) 07:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

A RfC has been opened at Talk:Odal_(rune)#RfC_CPAC_stage_Odal_shape. The question is, "Should the article mention the that some sources noted the CPAC stage had an appearance similar to a Odal?". –dlthewave ☎ 03:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

In a recent edit to glagolitic script[3] I mentioned abecedaria, numeraria and alphabet acrostics (terms used by the source). I later thought some wikilinks would be helpful for such technical terms and by a quick check it seemed to make sense to link abecedaria to Abecedarium and alphabet acrostic to Abecedarius, I didn't found anything relevant for numeraria and they may not be relevant for many scripts. Both abecedariu* articles have a much needed disambiguation to each other, but aren't included in this project (at least judging by the talk page templates) and if their subject or this naming is general enough they would benefit from some expansion. Currently alphabet poem redirects to Abecedarius, while alphabet song has it's own article (dealing only with recent – "a couple of centuries old" english examples, which is somewhat reasonable; it's likely some older alphabet acrostics were sung too as a mnemonic, but that seems a conjecture and adding examples for every modern language seems unreasonable). I'm mostly looking for suggestions about my example and asking if I'm missing something (like more general terms/articles about this kind of written sources), if these subjects and the mentioned articles need more attention from this project and in general for opinions from someone in this field (sorry for the possible anacoluthon).Personuser (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey WikiProject Writing Systems, there are several Unicode conversion templates that are under discussion at TfD right now, but haven't gotten much traffic. Please hop on by and comment if you have any perspective on these templates vs. the Unicode convert module, etc. Thanks, VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 22:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I tried adding reassess=yes to the project banner on Talk:ß, but the article did not get added to Category:Writing system articles needing reassessment. Is this tag broken/obsolete? I added the attention tag in the meantime. This article has been edited fairly extensively since it was last assessed, so it could do with a reassessment. Lexicon (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Ñ 458,896 15,296--Coin945 (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Which project should systems of digits ('numerals') be in?

Egyptian numerals is under WP writing systems, but Hindu-Arabic is not. Many of these articles conflate the numeral word class of a language and the set of digits in its writing system, but some such as Cistercian numerals and Kaktovik numerals truly are about the system for writing numbers. — kwami (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

If this topic has been covered, could someone please point me to it? I am interest in the how this project views alphabet vs script. It is my understanding that in an "alphabet" (or abugida) a phonemic system becomes associated with a script (or a subset of it). Therefore, an alphabet becomes associated with a language, whereas a script is not. Would that be a good understanding.

The context is Bengali alphabet. If the script was used for another language, for example, Khasi language, would we associate the usage to the Bengali-Assamese script or the Bengali alphabet? Similarly, Manipur language, when written in this script takes letters from both the Assamese alphabet as well as the Bengali alphabet. So, could Manupuri language be said to be written in the Bengali alphabet?

Thanks!

Chaipau (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

See the archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (writing systems) DRMcCreedy (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This is awesome. Thank you! Chaipau (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)