This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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)
As I was experimenting with my conlang I came to realize that tr , as in TReble, has no listing in AHD or any other pronuciation alphabets and that when going to it's digraph's page there was no listing of it's pronuciation in english ,which was queer with this being the english wiki. At first I though this was becuase it wasn't a sound in it's own right but merely a blending of other sounds and thus not warrenting a page such as the cr in CReature but I soon realized that the T+R sound was in fact distint from the TR sound. Could someone please eleaboarte?
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.
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.
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 Wikipedia.
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)
