Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Where to redirect cased IPA letters?

Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_29#Ɥ for where to rd the character itself when we have an article on the letter, such as turned h for 'Ɥ' (the capital of which has no IPA use). VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 22:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Letter (alphabet), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "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, 14 March 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Latin Letters used in Mathematics

Dear WikiProject Writing Systems,

I am a new editor on Wikipedia who is interested in an array of subjects. The Wikipedia algorithm tasked me with adding references to the Latin letters used in Mathematics page! However, as I am new to referencing, fully citing this long list has been tough. I realised that this article falls underneath your WikiProject and I would love any assistance in fully referencing this important article! Kabiryani (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

A redirect for discussion of interest to WPWS

I got a notification of a redirects for discussion happening at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 3#Ṝ that concerns letters with diacritics and whether they should be targeted at their diacritics, a transcription/transliteration standard that uses them, or somewhere else. Hopefully someone has something more cogent than I was able to come up with. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 02:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Undeciphered writing systems

The lead says " The term "writing systems" is used here loosely to refer to groups of glyphs which appear to have representational symbolic meaning, but which may include "systems" that are largely artistic in nature and are thus not examples of actual writing."

So it's not surprising that many of the examples don't seem to be systems at all. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I doubt anyone's around, but I'm not sure about these edits.[1] Doug Weller talk 09:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

A useful tool for this community

Lexilogos multilingual keyboard Flag Mechanic (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Cyrillic character edits

I've reviewed ongoing contributions by 2603:6010:7504:46C0:* and left those which seem useful or at least plausible. However, I've had to revert many which replace correct Cyrillic characters by Latin or Greek letters, usually similar but sometimes unrelated. I've left several messages but the IP hops within the /64 and may not have seen them. I'm not a linguist and would appreciate a second opinion on these edits. Certes (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Help with cuneiform character

I've been digitizing the cuneiform article in the 1911 EB at Wikisource, and am stuck on one: looks like it's maybe wikt:𒇽, but I can't ID the bottom-left stroke, and without a reading there's nothing else to go on. Can anyone here verify? — kwami (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I think wikt:𒈗 might be the match instead. VanIsaac, LLE contWpWS 02:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, then it would be missing a stroke, which seems more likely. — kwami (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

New Taskforce WikiProject Unicode?

A proposal is opened at WP:COMP § Taskforce WP Unicode –_proposal. Please take a look. DePiep (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Template:Latest stable software release/Unicode or similar

Currently, the Category:Unicode charts templates are updated with every new Unicode release that they are up to date with it. Since more than a third of the blocks are already fully allocated and will therefore not receive any changes that would need to be reflected in our tables, I believe it would be easier if we could just use a template with the newest version of Unicode to only need to update that for those blocks. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Do we ever update the charts for anything other than character repertoire? Because while Unicode stability policy since 2.0 has specified that no code point will be changed in a fundamental way (such as name) or deleted, some character properties are not part of that policy, and several characters are deprecated either in whole or for specific uses that they were originally specified for. VanIsaac, LLE contWpWS 15:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure those properties are not listed in the tables. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Besides character additions, I can think of these cases for chart changes:
1) A character alias is added, which happened in 15.0 for Arabic, Basic Latin, and Sundanese.
2) Notes at the bottom change. For example when characters where "undeprecated" in 9.0 in the Tags block.
3) When dashes are added or removed from around a character. A specific example of this alludes me but it has happened in the past few years.
If we had a "latest Unicode release" template for the charts, we'd have to be sure that all changed charts were updated before changing the template value to the next release. This discussion has come up before. Say such a mechanism is in place for Unicode 16.0 next year. I would image the procedure would be:
1) Update all of the affected charts with a hardcoded 16.0.
2) Update the "latest Unicode release" template from 15.0 to 16.0.
3) Update the charts updated in step 1 from hardcoded 16.0 to the "latest Unicode release" template.
That's the only procedure I can think of that would work accurately. DRMcCreedy (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
I think all that could be simplified by having a parameter like Last updated=, which could be checked in relation to the universal value to see which one is greater. So that all you have to do is save updating the base value parameter until after you've updated all of the changed charts, each of which gets Last updated=xx.0 and displays that new version number once they've been updated. The unchanged charts would get the new version last. This would enable us to have tracking categories like Category:Unicode charts last updated in v. 16.0 to make sure that we've hit all the needed changes before rolling out everything to the next version. And that template would be appropriate for all of the unicode chart templates, regardless of whether they are "complete". VanIsaac, LLE contWpWS 19:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh, thanks, I didn't know the tables listing aliases (I thought I had checked this at some point; maybe it just wasn't done for the character...). In that case my suggestion is probably not helpful. 1234qwer1234qwer4 09:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Incidentally, I already created {{Unicode version}} for exactly this job; development is postponed. Needs more text options.
Drmccreedy's 16:49 reply is well-defining the 'need' and mechanism of the updatings. For now, better postpone any system change or conclusions until after October 1, so not interfere with current v15 updating (which are carefully and excellently done by @Drmccreedy:! btw, see also {{Recent changes in Unicode}}).
For those thinking about this in September: what with version-dated references? ({{cite web}} having |date accessed=2021 or |version=14.0?). Maybe we need a {{cite Unicode}} template. -DePiep (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
More thoughts. The mechanism of "This page conforms version X.x" is needed*, but is hard to be automated (change 'Most Recent Version' centrally e.g. in a template page). Sure some things will never change by U+-definition, but other aspects can (for example, last month @15.0, three new alias names were added). The update mechanism is to be inverse: all actual changes must be implemented in pages; ~no page can be excluded. After that, the remaining pages can be update-to-versionX-as-unchanged — Drmccreedy just did this, called "bumping the version". Hard to think how this can be automated then. For comfort: this is also what&how is done at Unicode backoffice.
*  For such improvements, I advise to support WP:COMP § Taskforce WP Unicode –_proposal.
-DePiep (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Rongorongo for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. A455bcd9 (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed 		Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62) 		Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. If comments are not entered on the article talk page, they may be swept up in archives here and lost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  1. Bengali language movement
  2. Gwoyeu Romatzyh
  3. Mayan languages

Request for comment on a relevant article to this WikiProject

Please see Talk:Kaktovik_numerals#Displaying_the_characters_in_the_article for issues related to display of characters and accessibility. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:En-ghe#Requested move 16 February 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:En-ghe#Requested move 16 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Diacritics topic structure pattern: graphs vs meanings

Initially about circumflex/caret recently, but wider. @John Maynard Friedman: about our (your) recent additions [2]. 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)

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)
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)

Theban

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Project-independent quality assessments

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)

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)

Requested move at Talk:N'Ko script#Requested move 10 April 2023

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 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The same applies to:

Fabric and Cord Writing Systems

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)

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

Notability of Ge with dot below

I came across this page on NPP. I don't read Cyrillic, so I'm not sure if this is a notable letter and wanted to bring it here. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 04:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

It appears to be of very limited use in transliteration, and that's about it. I'm willing to bet that the only reason it even made it into Unicode was for compatibility with an older standard used in the Soviet Union. VanIsaac, GHTV contWpWS 04:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Decipherment of rongorongo to FAR

I have nominated Decipherment of rongorongo for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Writing_systems/Archive_11&oldid=1212761021"