Talk:Sharada script

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

India: Jammu and Kashmir High‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir.

Abugida or alphabet?

The article is inconsistent, describing Śāradā first as an abugida, then offering in graphical form an alphabetic representation. Someone who is knowledgeable about this script needs to sort this out.

The Wikipedia display of the Oriya script is, one might say, "how it should be done."

Floozybackloves (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Śāradā script → Sharada script – Removing diacritics as per Wikipedia policy for English wikipedia
Anish Viswa 12:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose English Wikipedia uses diacritics for almost everything so where the nom is getting ideas about "per Wikipedia policy for English wikipedia" I don't know. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plus seems English sources use the title we currently have So, no, thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:DIACRITICS
Anish Viswa 13:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but that says we normally use diacritics and follow the best English sources. Which is exactly why I just opposed. In ictu oculi (talk)

Oppose. Removing diacritics does not make it "more English" and Wikipedia does not face the technical or style manual limitations that require removal of diacritics. The current title seems slightly more common in print sources. — AjaxSmack 04:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Glyphs appear as question marks

I don't think this is just me as glyphs on other pages work just fine but all I see are question marks in boxes where the glyphs should appear. Quezerque (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text displays fine for me. Do you have a Sharada font installed on your machine? DRMcCreedy (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]