Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

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 ^cont_WpWS 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 ^cont_WpWS 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

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

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. 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 ^cont_WpWS 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 ^cont_WpWS 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 ^cont_WpWS 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

Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA

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 . 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 ^cont_WpWS 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:

• Talk:Bassa Vah script#Requested move 13 April 2023
• Talk:Elbasan script#Requested move 13 April 2023
• Talk:Gadabuursi Somali script#Requested move 13 April 2023
• Talk:Kaddare script#Requested move 13 April 2023
• Talk:Osmanya script#Requested move 13 April 2023
• Talk:Todhri script#Requested move 13 April 2023
• Talk:Vithkuqi script#Requested move 13 April 2023
• Talk:Zaghawa script#Requested move 13 April 2023
  – .Raven  ^.talk 12:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

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 ^cont_WpWS 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)

In or of?

Question added per WP:Help desk#Another question 2405:4802:64C7:BF70:20BF:895B:4915:B58A (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Latin alphabet

Please can someone assist at Talk:B#Consistent proposal to unleash new format? We are trying to determine the best name for the thing of which B is the second letter. Thanks, Certes (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Certes. I think there is an opportunity to get better at reinforcing our naming convention at this discussion, and bring clarity to some of our project's most highly visited articles. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 19:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Vyaz (Cyrillic calligraphy)#Requested move 26 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Vyaz (Cyrillic calligraphy)#Requested move 26 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Croatian Glagolitic#Requested move 26 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Croatian Glagolitic#Requested move 26 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs#Requested move 1 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs#Requested move 1 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Graphemics versus Grammatology

As far as I have read, these are two terms for the same field--i.e. the field that underlies this WikiProject. Obviously, Derrida's work is outsized and should be featured in any merger. Remsense 14:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Graphemics is often the study of significant contrasts within each writing system, while non-contrastive differences in visual appearances are relegated to graphetics. I don't think that "grammatology" is used too much by North American linguists, at least (and for some of them the Derrida thing would be a definite negative). The classic book Writing Systems by Geoffrey Sampson doesn't use "grammatology", as far as I can tell, and the word has an entry in only two of the four linguistics dictionaries I have on my shelf (five if you count different editions of David Crystal's "Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics"), and in both cases it's a brief one-line definition (as opposed to many other longer entries which go into detail)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you think Grammatology constitutes an accidental POV fork? Remsense诉 16:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Avestan letter

I noticed in some Wikipedia articles (e.g. Avestan alphabet, Zoroaster) Avestan letter ⟨𐬚⟩ is transliterated as ⟨θ⟩ but scholars prefer the slightly different Greek letter ⟨ϑ⟩ (open form); for example Gippert.-- Carnby (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pharnavaz I of Iberia#Requested move 6 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pharnavaz I of Iberia#Requested move 6 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Armenian alphabet#Requested move 8 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Armenian alphabet#Requested move 8 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Gwoyeu Romatzyh under Featured Article Review

I have nominated Gwoyeu Romatzyh 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. George Ho (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

adding

Please add timeline and genealogy of writing systems. 5.232.9.86 (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

We have Template:Alphabet... AnonMoos (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I think OP is exactly right: There should certainly be Timeline of writing. As the last editor for that template, it really doesn't work as one, and would function much better if it was allowed its own article. Remsense诉 18:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

What is the relevance of 2007 in "Square Aramaic 2007", by the way? AnonMoos (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

On a cursory glance, likely original research. Remsense诉 20:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics (Unicode block)#Requested move 14 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics (Unicode block)#Requested move 14 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 22:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ideographic Description Characters (Unicode block)#Requested move 14 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ideographic Description Characters (Unicode block)#Requested move 14 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 22:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ideographic Description Characters (Unicode block)#Requested move 14 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ideographic Description Characters (Unicode block)#Requested move 14 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about hentaigana glyph at talk:Ye (kana)

A discussion of interest to this Wikiproject is happening at talk:Ye (kana)#Glyph in prose. If you have any expertise in Japanese writing systems, your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 00:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

What should we call the study of writing systems?

(In a perfect world, I would post this here first, but the livelier WikiProject gets to host.)

Please take a gander at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#What should we call the study of writing systems? and help me out with this question. Seems important! Remsense诉 09:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If no one has outstanding objections, once I've finished a self-standing draft my plan is to

1. Make Grapholinguistics the top-level article, incorporating content from Graphemics and Grammatology
2. In line with Meletis & Dürscheid (2022), move Graphemics ⇒ Graphematics
3. Redirect Graphemics → Grapholinguistics
4. Redirect Grammatology → Grapholinguistics § Derrida and grammatology (or equivalent)

Remsense诉 04:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Grapholinguistics

I still crave others' input (of course), but as I've continued to survey the recent literature I think the best plan is to have Grapholinguistics as the top-level field, with Graphemics adjusted in scope as to be roughly analogous to the scope of phonology within the study of speech) is the best reflection of the field. I've started a draft article, and of course I invite people to contribute if they fancy. Remsense诉 12:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Uralic Phonetic Alphabet#Requested move 4 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Uralic Phonetic Alphabet#Requested move 4 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Bashplemi lake tablet

I've recently created Bashplemi lake tablet. I thought y'all would be interested. Input welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization of letter names

Is there a standard for the capitalization of letter names. I see usage in Wikipedia is mixed. I was just at Khakassian Che and was surprised to see that it was capitalized in the article title and some places in the text. I changed the text to lower case, but wanted to check here before I pursue other changes. Thank you, SchreiberBike | [kbd]  22:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything exactly on that at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Of course, in English, letter names aren't usually spelled out, and look kind of odd when they are ("ay, bee, cee, aitch, double-you" etc)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If I had to conjecture intuitively, in almost every case where a letter name could be written uncapitalized, it would be rather confusing, and unnecessarily so. Remsense ‥ 论 08:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It's long been common to capitalize letter names in English for clarity, as Remsense notes. The OED uses lower case, and that's generally what I've seen in more serious literature, but more popular stuff often capitalizes.

For non-English letter names, I've usually seen them lower-case but set in italics as foreign words. — kwami (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you're referring to letters which are being mentioned, not used (i.e. A, B, C, D) and not to actual letter names (ay, bee, cee, dee)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Both. Though capitalized letter names tend to be from older sources, e.g. 19th century; not so old as for all nouns to be capitalized, but old enough that capitalization was more pervasive than it is now. E.g. Goold Brown 1856: 10 The First Lines of English Grammar:

The names of the letters, as now commonly spoken and written in English, are A, Bee, Cee, Dee, E, Eff, Gee, Aitch, I, Jay, Kay, Ell, Em, En, O, Pee, Kue, Ar, Ess, Tee, U, Vee, Double-u, Ex, Wy, Zee.

[Though it's hard to tell if this is a case of list capitalization, Brown goes on to give capitalized examples in text, such as '[letters] are often used in lieu of [names], ... as, C, for Cee; F, for Eff; ...']

But yes, in more recent sources, letter names tend to be lower case, as in Waite, Prata & Martin 1984: 190 C (Computer Program Language):

Thus first C checks to see if ex and wye are equal. The resulting value of 1 or 0 (true or false) then is compared to the value of zee.

— kwami (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:G-caron#Requested move 31 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:G-caron#Requested move 31 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Origin of the alphabet

In a lot of articles (Proto-Sinaitic script, History of the alphabet#Semitic alphabet, Egyptian hieroglyphs, Aleph#Origin, Bet (letter)#Origin, Gimel, Dalet, He (letter)#Origins, Waw (letter)#Origin, etc.), the letters of our alphabet are claimed to be derived from hieroglyphs. This, however, is a minority view the contenders of which contradict each other in the details. Therefore an encyclopedia should not represent this as a fact, as we currently do in all these articles. Please join the discussion at Talk:Proto-Sinaitic script#A complete misrepresentation of the history of writing so we can achieve a consensus before changing all these articles. --Daniel Bunčić (de wiki · talk · en contrib.) 14:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Emphasis marks

I created a discussion at WikiProject Linguistics about the article emphasis mark that is possibly relevant to editors of this project. Feel free to participate if you wish. ★Trekker (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Scope of Template:Cyrillic navbox

I'd like to open up a discussion on what should be included within the Cyrillic script navbox, looking for input.

Thanks, Underswamp (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Notability of individual letters

In past AfDs launched by me, disagreements have arisen about notability of letters. Some editors claimed that letters are inherently notable under WP:5P1 (User:Cyclopia). I argued that WP:GNG applies to letters. What is your opinion on this matter?

I think there also were disagreements on what counts as WP:SIGCOV. I would suggest (to avoid misunderstandings: I haven't discussed this on-wiki before.) that letters, for which only the following information is available from reliable sources, should have their articles merged into a letters list (i.e. into an appropriate section of the article about the alphabet/orthography, or a specialized list, like List of Cyrillic letters):

• existence of the letter
• languages/orthographies/scripts, in which the letter is used
• Unicode encoding
• pronunciation, if sufficiently trivial (no firm criterion, but e.g. esh has a very trivial pronunciation, while yat has an extremely nontrivial one)
• a short piece of trivia that would fit into a trivia (or notes) column in a letters list

What do you think about these points? Your ideas are welcome.

Pinging editors who have participated in more than one of the AfDs launched by me: @Kepler-1229b, Eluchil404, Anonrfjwhuikdzz, and Stockhausenfan.

—Janhrach (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Letters surely aren't inherently notable, but given every letter in any alphabet that descends from Proto-Sinaitic has at least a story to tell of its lineal descent, both graphically as well as functionally in the corresponding orthography, that pushes us safely into independent articles being best for many alphabets at least. For esh as a borderline example, the only thing that makes me think not to fold it into another article is that it was borrowed between more than one phonetic alphabet. Remsense ‥ 论 15:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, history of a letter can amount to SIGCOV. But there are a lot of letters like esh, which are descended from much well-known letters, and listing the whole histories (In this case, this would include the evolution of sigma.) might seem excessive. And there also are articles on letters with diacritics, where the evolution of the particular letter–diacritic combination does not have SIGCOV. Janhrach (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• WP:SIGCOV says: 'Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.' My (preliminary) opinion is that mentions of a letter in an educational resource cannot (usually) be trivial, since they must be sufficient for people to learn how to use the alphabets in question. However, learning materials will rarely have more information than that which is listed here on any specific letter, so it seems to me that it follows that we don't need more than that for these letters to meet WP:SIGCOV. I guess the discussion is primarily about WP:NOPAGE, but I will say that I personally find articles about individual letters to be very useful. Of course WP:ILIKEIT, but I'm just mentioning that to provide the background that these aren't pages that nobody wants which are just being prevented from deletion by bureaucracy. Stockhausenfan (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Another point is that often these kinds of articles might look non-notable when in fact there are relevant sources, only they are not in English and do not mention the letter in the title, making them hard to search for. A case in point is the article Tje, which might look hopeless at first sight but in fact this paper quite clearly meets WP:SIGCOV. Stockhausenfan (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Just to elaborate a bit on how these pages are used, I read pages on languages, and if the orthography section features a letter I am unfamiliar with, I will follow the link to that letter to find out more information. This would not be served by merging pages to a larger list of letters (many of which are rather unwieldly anyway), and I don't think my use case is a particularly niche one. Stockhausenfan (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

    This is interesting – I did not expect this argument. What makes long lists inconvenient? Would inserting anchors into appropriate rows and making redirects to that anchors fix the issue? Janhrach (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

    One issue is that I may not know the correct collation order, and the list may be very long which means there will be a lot of scrolling before I find the letter I actually wanted to search for, and then at the end of all of it the list will most likely not have any information on the specific letter other than the languages in which it occurs. Of course the last problem can be fixed with editing, but then adding this information will make the lists even longer than they already are. A good example is Yi_Syllables#Syllables - it is very tedious to try to find anything from there. Now I don't know whether the individual Yi syllables in particular are notable, but they may be, and if not, the problem isn't specific to a particular script. (I haven't personally spent any time on Yi syllables in particular - it was just an example that came to mind of an unwieldly list.) I do agree that addition of anchors would make things better, as then these can be linked to directly from articles. Stockhausenfan (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

    I will work on List of Cyrillic letters to see how the list can be made more convenient. I have some unfinished work on Module:wd, which I want to finish first, so I won't start working on the list very soon. Janhrach (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  Hopefully I wasn't intoning too ominously or bureaucratically above. I mostly think the status quo is fine. Remsense ‥ 论 18:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  Oh no don't worry about it, I thought your comment was a perfectly reasonable point of view! I'm just personally in favour of keeping things the way they are as I read these articles myself, but I will defer to the consensus if it's decided these kinds of articles shouldn't be kept. Stockhausenfan (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  mentions of a letter in an educational resource cannot (usually) be trivial, since they must be sufficient for people to learn how to use the alphabets in question – Unless you mean textbooks for linguistics students, I am inclined to diagree. Consider the following analogy. How much of the article Silent e could have been written from introductory English books without OR? I do not think much, because (from my experience) educational books do not try to explain complex orthographic quirks, but rather demonstrate them on specific words and let the learner understand them intuitively. Janhrach (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  If we take a specific example (I had to go to Discord to find the reference to illustrate the difficulty of finding sources as a non-Russian speaker!), the book Самоучитель хантыйского языка (Self-study guide to the Khanty language) has this to say about the En with hook:

  заднеязычный носовой согласный. При его произне сении задняя часть спинки языка прижимается к заднему нёбу (как при русском к в слоге ка-). Маленький язычок опускается и закрывает доступ воздуха в полость рта. Весь воздух идет в носовую полость (как при русском н). Кончик языка опущен вниз и прижат к нижним зубам. Сравните: пан «неводной песок» и паӈ «большой палец».

  Google Translate:

  a velar nasal consonant. When pronouncing it, the back of the tongue is pressed against the back palate (as in Russian к in the syllable ка-). The small tongue drops and blocks the air from entering the oral cavity. All the air goes into the nasal cavity (as in Russian н). The tip of the tongue is lowered and pressed against the lower teeth. Compare: Пан «non-water sand» and Паӈ «thumb».

  The book is not (exclusively) written for a linguistic audience, but rather is described as being written for teachers, Soviet and party workers working in the Khanty-Mansiysk National Okrug who independently study the Khanty language, and can also be used for work in groups of students of the national pedagogical college who do not speak the Khanty language.

  This enough for a Wikipedia article, and is quite normal for endangered minority languages. Stockhausenfan (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  I think this does not cover the letter, but the corresponding phone, which is incidentally very common in English. I would leave it on other editors to decide whether descriptions like this one are appropriate in articles. (To be clear, I wouldn't delete this article, not because of the pronunciation, but because of the long list of the languages that use the letter.) Janhrach (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Stockhausenfan above. I have used this argument in most or all of the AfDs I participated in related to this topic. Many of the articles are unsourced, making them seem as if they were not notable. In reality, there are many learning materials created for them, such as alphabet books. This is the case for most of the old Abkhaz letters, for example. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment Unless a letter is from a very very obscure alphabet most of them are likely to be notabel.★Trekker (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

It has already been decided that e.g. Cyrillic vowel letters with acute are not notable: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A with acute (Cyrillic) (2nd nomination). Janhrach (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Pronunciation of foreign language letters?

This map gives the local pronunciations of the name of the letter "U" in various European languages. Serbia and Belarus are marked, despite Cyrillic scripts being dominant. Does this make sense? I'm not sure, since either they don't have a dominant pronunciation of a foreign letter, or it's likely to be a minor topic. Plus, if it's reasonable for these countries to be marked, why aren't Greece and other Cyrillic-dominant countries also marked? Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Egyptian hieroglyphs: A NooB asks

Anyone accustomed to manipulating Egyptian hieroglyphs for Wikipedian purposes might (please!) have a look at Wikipedia:Help desk#Egyptian_Hieroglyphs_for_Dummies. Thank you! -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Cuneiform, what type of system(s) is it?

Cuneiform, especially early forms of it use ideograms, so should that be added to the page for Cuneiform. Something like: Cuneiform is mostly a logo-syllabic writing system, some early forms also made extensive use of ideograms. these various versions of cuneiform were used to write several languages of the Ancient Near East.

this is probably a bad potential edit so if anyone has a more seamless way please respond.

Legendarycool (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

It depends which cuneiform. Most broadly construed, the word itself just describes the stylus making wedge-marks in clay. The Ugaritic alphabet is a script that is materially cuneiform but graphematically alphabetic. Akkadian itself was mostly written like a syllabary with some forms functioning as logographs from time to time. The original Sumerian, a much more analytic language than its Semitic neighbors, was like Chinese arguably better suited for a purer logo-syllabary. Think about it like this: for half of its history as a technology, we were using cuneiform in some form or another. It got used as many different ways as it reached. Remsense 🌈 论 02:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

That is to say, I think the fact that cuneiform wrote many differently functioning systems is key, and shrugging with "mostly logosyllabic" is ignoring most of its history, like any other single choice would. Remsense 🌈 论 03:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly.

You have made some good point about the use of Cuneiform in its broadest sense (which is what the article is covering and what it should cover), as systems besides Sumerian where in most ways phonetic. I nonetheless think it is important to have some mention of the ideographic qualities of Sumerian. It could say something like: Cuneiform is a logo-syllabic writing system that was used to write several languages of the Ancient Near East, it’s earlier forms used ideograms to supplement these other characters. I still think it’s a bit unwieldy but I think the information should be in the introduction.

Legendarycool (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

But that's not right for the same reason. It's like saying the English script is logosyllabic because the ancestors of its letterforms originally corresponded to Egyptian words. For the vast majority of its history, in the vast majority of extant texts, cuneiform scripts were not mainly logosyllabic, and really were mainly syllabic for most of that time. Remsense 🌈 论 08:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

But Sumerian still did use them (especially in the earlier periods) nonetheless so it is important for it to be recognised in the introduction.

P.S. I think I noticed an error as the introduction calls ‘Cuneiform ...’ a ‘… writing system …’ which seems incorrect as cuneiform is a style? group? lineage? family? of scripts. It would be like calling every Egyptian hieroglyph derived script (including tentatively related ones like Cherokee and maybe Hangul) to be a script. Legendarycool (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I wrote up how I would define cuneiform off the cuff, but in reality it's more prudent to consult sources first, since they're what matter here.

By the definition of writing system that's generally explicated in our sources, it would make sense to me to define cuneiform as a family of writing systems, related graphically, that wrote several languages of the ancient Near East according to various principles. Looking through my books, I can't immediately come up with any one source that states it like that, though. Remsense 🌈 论 15:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I would even contemplate going further that cuneiform isn't a writing system at all, but rather a technology and associated writing style used by several writing systems such as Sumerian, Akkadian, Old Persian, and Ugaritic. VanIsaac, GHTV ^contr_about 17:07, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I checked out some other language and they might have a better structure?

but yeah it is an issue because this page exists, has a purpose but what is it. Has there been any study into this family??? Of scripts – does there need to be a page about Egyptian derived scripts if this page fills that niche, is it about merely about the method/characters used.

Given the current structure and what other pages have done I think this page should focus on the type of written script, base it off the structure of the French one.

P.S. would specific scripts be notable enough to warrant their own pages; given Old Persian has its own page I would say so.

P.P.S. Remsense since the source for the first sentence – the sentence that calls Cuneiform a script – only references a document pertaining to Sumerian grammar¹,it is in effect not sourced

1. This interesting choice of source has another massive issue. The article talking about Cuneiform only sources the type of script from something talking about Sumerian grammar.

another random note: I think there would be sources that describe them as a group, due to mention of them being related to each other. Through that some sort of ‘family’ could be created through sourced ancestors and descendants, as in the articles pertaining to ‘ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs and decedents’

Also the info-box is messed up as it treats cuneiform as a single

hopefully this is coherent

Legendarycool (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Writing is a bespoke enough technology that the impulse to impose consistency across articles here seems misplaced: we should treat hieroglyphs and cuneiform (and Chinese characters, ahem) differently because they functioned quite differently and had cross-cultural progeny that evolved quite differently as well. Again, our sources take priority, and enough of our sources treat cuneiform as an umbrella term emphasizing the material and conceptual overlap across what I would personally consider different systems that we should be careful here.

This has to do with material conditions to a significant degree as well. In Egypt and its neighbors, one had papyrus reeds to accelerate inexpensive experimentation with forms of writing, while clay from the Tigris and Euphrates remaining the writing material one had most immediate access to in Mesopotamia encouraged the comparative conventionality we saw there. Remsense 🌈 论 07:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

And on the separate-articles question: I don't think it best serves our readers to WP:SPINOUT unless there's a really clear idea of what goes there, keeping in mind Wikipedia is not a dictionary or any sort of glossary or reference guide for ancient languages. Cuneiform as an article is a bit of a dog's breakfast atm, but it's only 6k words in length – and the problem is emphatically not that it's overflowing with excess detail in areas that clearly could use their own articles. Remsense 🌈 论 07:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kunrei-shiki romanization#Requested move 15 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kunrei-shiki romanization#Requested move 15 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 05:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gugyeol#Requested move 10 August 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gugyeol#Requested move 10 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2025 (UTC)