Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:46, 22 September 2006

Template:SampleWikiProject

List of lists and categories

I'm very unclear about how to distribute things between the project page and the talk page, so I put this here for the momemt. Pjacobi 11:16, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Categories

• Category:Writing systems
• Category:Logographic writing systems
• Category:Abugida writing systems
• Category:Alphabetic writing systems
• Category:Latin-derived alphabets
• Category:Cyrillic_alphabet
• Category:Undeciphered writing systems
• Category:Syllabic writing systems
• Category:Syllabary writing systems

Lists

• List of writing systems
• List of alphabets
• List of undeciphered writing systems

Lists within articles

• Abugida

To do

A rough scratch for start, please expand and comment. Pjacobi 11:17, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lists and categories

Is this in-scope for a WikiProject?

The above mentioned lists and categories all disagree in subtle and some not so subtle points. Tedious cleanup seems necessary to me, starting with getting input from actual field experts on some difficult points in classification.

See alse these talk pages:

• Category_talk:Writing systems
• Category_talk:Abugida_writing_systems
• Talk:Devanagari

Terminology used on article pages

When to use alphabet, when to use script.

Of course the best usage would be 'writing system', but that can feel a bit awkward, particularly in the title of an article. 'Alphabet' has a distinct technical use, but is popularly used for most writing systems (perhaps excluding logographs). 'Script' just feels a bit amateur, but may be the best solution: it is equivalent to a 'writing system'.

There is also the issue of how to name individual segments of a writing system. The usual, western use is 'letter', but there is a tendancy to drop this use with more 'exotic' (from a western POV) scripts: glyphs and characters. I think the technical term is 'graph', but in popular usage that word is used for a graphical representation of statistics. There is also the issue of what to call the vowel marks in a vocalised abjad text, or the additional vowel strokes in an abugida.

Gareth Hughes 13:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Presentation of script samples

To rely on rendering of Unicode text or creating images. In case of images, a recommendation on size and layout and some tips for tool chains to use.

Separating the script articles from language articles?

For scripts only used to write one language, there currently often exists only one page for both language and script. Is it preferable to separate these, or can criteria given when to separate these?

In my view, yes, it would be ideal to have separate pages to describe the spoken language, and the script/writing system (of course, interlinked). Writing systems may be used (with little variation) by more than one distinct language, and a language may commonly (or formerly) be written by more than one script. Even in the case where there may be a one-to-one relationship, one might wish to discuss aspects of one or the other in more detail than would be convenient if they are presented together on the same page.

As for when to separate where they may already be conjoined, a blanket criterion could probably not be given in advance - it would depend upon how advanced the current conflated description is, how much effort it would take to separate, and if there is anyone prepared to do it. But yes, I for one would like to see separate articles appearing on each of the individual writing systems used to encode a given language, as they merit such a distinction. Whether this can easily be done, is another question! --cjllw | TALK 06:39, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

WikiProject Transliteration

• This WikiProject aims primarily to provide a consistent treatment of each language family on the Misplaced Pages.

I imagine "language family" is supposed to mean "writing system", seeing that this is what this project is dealing with?

I would like to start a WikiProject "Transliteration/Romanization" as a central place to develop policies how terms that are natively spelled in non-Latin alphabets should be represented. See Transliteration for a list. See also Talk:Islam#transliteration.2C_capitalisation.2C_diacritics for my thoughts on the Arabic language. Should this project's scope be expanded to cover these questions, or should a sister-project be initiated? dab 17:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Still active?

Doesn't seem to be much in the way of recent activity here - is anyone still active or monitoring this, who would be interested in firing this up again? --cjllw | TALK 03:36, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

I am no linguist. However, I'll contribute in whatever way I can and also give some inputs on Tamil script and related scripts. Perhaps, I can help bring that article to a model article state. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 07:17, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Project page re-org

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

Proposal for article structure and format

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

Articles on individual writing systems - proposed coverage and structure

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

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

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

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

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

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

Siva, indeed, as I had noted above some of the topics for coverage (eg decipherment) will be applicable only to some writing systems; however where this features (eg Maya hieroglyphics) such an account would be useful. Also, "orthography" may not be the best term, what is meant is some exposition on the general rules of the writing system, and again may not be appropriate or even useful for particular examples. I have inserted one thing which I overlooked earlier, namely an annotation of any transliteration or transcription standards which may apply (again, only applicable to a subset of scripts). "Overview" also may not be the best term; the way I see it, the intro should ideally be only a few sentences summarising the most notable features of the script, and a subsequent "overview" or similarly-named section can be used to go into more detail, not appropriate for the opening paragraph. At least, that seems to be a fairly widely-observed practice for articles in general.

Whatever the section headings, an "ideal" article on a given writing system should give the reader information which covers (not necessarily in this order):

• what is the article about (opening para)
• how and when did the script originate
• what are the historical contexts of its development
• who uses/used it
• how widely is it used / was it used
• literacy amongst user population - widespread, or restricted?
• where is it used
• what language(s) does it relate to
• what other script(s) is it related to, derived from, the precursor to
• what "type" of script is it, what are its notable characteristics (syllabic, alphabetic, etc)
• what are its main constituents (graphemes- both phonetic and non-phonetic elements)
• what is the common "ordering" of the elements (eg. alpha-sort)
• what do they look like, what are the variations - current and historical
• what are the main rules for writing (orthography, spelling, etc)
• how may it be transcribed/transliterated into Latin chars (not applicable to all scripts)
• what are the notable texts/documents in the script (mainly for "historical" scripts)
• what notable tools/methods are used for inscription (mainly historical, eg cuneiform)
• if the use of the script is specialised, what kind of information is recorded (again, mainly historical examples)
• what progress, if any, has been made in decipherment (for "historical" scripts)
• what external notable references have been used so the reader may refer to them for further information
• how is the script represented in Unicode (or other electronic format)
• what fonts may be available for the script

The above not an exhaustive listing. Further comments welcomed.--cjllw | TALK 09:04, 2005 August 3 (UTC)

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

UPA draft help requested

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

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

Articles for the wikipedia 1.0 project

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

transliteration

We may need a sub-project to deal with transliteration issues. At least, I would like some central list of templates tagging individual transliterations/transcriptions, such as {{IPA}}, {{IAST}}, {{PIE}}, {{ArabDIN}}. dab (ᛏ) 11:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

there are also an unknown number of templates like {{ar}} that tag languages as spelled natively. dab (ᛏ) 12:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

there is also {{Ivrit}}. We need a place to collect these... dab (ᛏ) 18:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

{{UPA}} for the Uralic Phonetic Alphabet. —Felix the Cassowary 11:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

{{he}}, which is being tfd'd, should be replacing {{Ivrit}}. dab (ᛏ) 14:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

{{Semxlit}} for generic Semitic transliteration (Proto-Semitic, Akkadian, Phoenician etc.); should possibly be renamed. dab (ᛏ) 14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

New member

Hi, I'm just added my name to the project. I want to help transliterate articles into IPA, add images, and maybe help make some templates. Any suggestions, or ways I can find articles needing help?--The ikiroid (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Ikiroid. As you can probably see from the Project's history view, this has been a rather moribund project for a few months now (at least), as others (including me) have been pursuing other activities. Still, don't let that discourage you, sometimes all it takes is for a couple of new interested editors to come along for things to pick up again. And thanks, BTW, for setting up the WS User template. If you feel inclined, and you'd like to round up a little more interest in this area, you could possibly work on a WikiProject WS banner template for article talk pages, which could direct other interested parties to this project. As you can see, there's also a bit to be mapped out on the project page itself, you're welcome to expand it if you can see things to add.

As for your question re finding articles with portions in need of IPA transliteration, AFAIK there's no listing of these, but one way would be to review the articles in the writing system categories and see what's there, and what's missing. You could even compile such a list yourself and put it on the project page to be worked on. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 23:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was thinking of also working to create a template for the writing system articles. However, I'll be sorta strapped for time in the next week or two, but I'll do what I can with the time I got.--The ikiroid (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've created Template:Infobox WS. It needs much work.--The ikiroid (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

{{Infobox WS}} is complete

It's good enough to be added into any Writing System article. I've already put it in katakana, hiragana, Arabic alphabet, Leet, and a few others.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Cantillation

I'm not sure it's a "writing system"; it's more of a system of punctuation/musical notation. --Dweller 06:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin?

I'm not really sure I understand the logic behind adding Ben Franklin's biography to this project. I'm going to remove the tag from his Talk page, but if for some strange reason it should be there, anyone is welcome to add it back. MagnoliaSouth | Talk 13:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A bot recently added a bunch of articles to the Writing systems project. It automatically picked up every article in a number of categories, including Category:Inventors of writing systems. I originally added Franklin there because he indeed invented a phonetic alphabet (see his article). Someone later made Ben Franklin's own category a subcategory of this, so he is still in the parent category as you can see by checking Category:Benjamin Franklin. Because he did work with phonetic alphabets, it may or may not be appropriate to include him in the Writing Systems project, as the bot did... What do you think? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean now! Yes, he did "invent one" but it was more of a toy of his. Actually I was thinking he was added due to his typeset inventions, which is the reason I was confused because it is a print format and not really a writing. I guess it's worth it then to at least explore what it is that he did, but would the writing systems project still be interested if it's not in use, or never was in use? I'm not entirely sure, but I don't believe it ever evolved into a true alphabet. I'm currently reading a book on him, as time allows, and perhaps I'll learn more but I have to admit that this is an interesting idea. I'm adding the project back to his talk page. :) Thank you! MagnoliaSouth | Talk 22:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Problems with talkpage tags

I see above that there were some...er....off-topic articles that had the {{wsproj}} added. This is because we had a bot add this tag to all writing systems categories. Feel free to remove these tags in articles that don't apply. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah come on. Did you add them? It looked like a spate of spam. You (or whoever) should not have put them into articles that don't apply. Why put it on us to clean it up? Evertype 00:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not count on articles that had nothing to do with writing systems being in writing systems categories. I'm sorry. There are hundreds of writing system articles, and this was the best way to tag them. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

-) Not a problem for me. I know what it can be like trying to tag loads of articles. I noticed this because an inventor of several writing systems (J. R. R. Tolkien) got tagged. I've removed the tag from that article talk page (as the article actually says little about his work on inventing these writing systems), but left it on Tengwar and Sarati and Cirth, as those are articles about the writing systems themselves. Carcharoth 14:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional Template and Project work

I've added Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Writing systems/Assessment. There is a bit of a question as to whether "system" or "systems" should be used in some of the template pages. I mean, is it ] or ]? And should we migrate from {{Wsproj}} to the more informative and standard {{WP Writing systems}}? We should decide these things now before the project gets too big, I should think. -- Evertype·✆ 14:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

For the project banner's name, agree that {{WP Writing systems}} is a more informative and standard choice. It will not be that difficult to migrate to it, I'll look to doing this in the next little while.--cjllw | TALK 01:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now moved the project's banner to {{WP Writing systems}}, and commenced migrating from the previous name. However, I hadn't counted on there being so many articles' talk pages already tagged with the banner (1200+), and it's proving a little tedious- perhaps the bot could be re-enlisted to make the updates.

In any case, it doesn't matter so much since the previous banner {{Wsproj}} redirects to the new one, and either can be used (the category inheritance still functions OK).--cjllw | TALK 07:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding scope and assessments

As has been commented on above, when the bot went through tagging all articles within the schema of the writing systems category and its child categories, it picked up quite a number of articles which could be seen as "non-core" or only tangentially-related. At this juncture it's probably appropriate for the Project to decide how wide or narrow its scope should really be. Articles on specific writing systems, and articles on writing system types, components and terminology would seem to be a given for inclusion in scope - but what about articles on say, inventors of writing systems, or writing implements/materials? Either approach would be valid, but how extensive the project's scope needs to be should be determined.

Re the rating assessments- before doing too much more of this the project also needs to articulate what each of the importance classifications mean in the project's context. The general idea of importance rating as used in other projects is for Top- importance to be reserved for those topics (generally at the highest level of coverage) indispensable for any brief extract or compendium of information on the subject (viz. writing systems), High- importance to include other significant (sub-)topics, and so on down the line. Any thoughts on what would be the best way to define how the importance scale is to apply for this particular project?--cjllw | TALK 07:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.

The plugin has two main modes of operation:

• Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
• Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)

As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.

For more information see:

• About the plugin
• About support for "generic" WikiProject templates
• User guide
• About AWB (AutoWikiBrowser)

Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 15:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)