Talk:Bamum 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.

Section sizes

Section size for Bamum script (19 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	1,834	1,834
History	1,415	3,624
Phase A	419	419
Phase B	264	264
Phase C	303	303
Phase D	229	229
Phase E	320	320
Phase F	320	320
Phase G	354	354
Description	2,997	2,997
Modern syllabary (phase G)	7,422	8,374
Punctuation	952	952
Numerals	742	742
All versions (phases A–G)	60,839	60,839
Unicode	1,653	1,653
Bamum Scripts and Archives Project	1,227	1,227
See also	125	125
References	31	31
External links	838	838
Total	82,284	82,284

There are serious discrepancies between Omniglot and the Unicode proposal, in the values of the glyphs and the changes that result when modifying them. This article is therefore likely to be wrong in multiple places. kwami (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The romanized orthography systems vary between sources, which produces a lot of variation in how the sounds come out represented in Latin script. Are there some examples you would point to that are not a function of this effect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.179.160 (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For my part I would advise you to rely on the Unicode proposal. -- Evertype·✆ 17:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Unicode is a lot more likely to be accurate than Omniglot, but it too has its limitations; best to go back to the original sources and verify which (if either) are right. — kwami (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

new category: "artificial script"

Is there a reasonably clear definition of "artificial script"? Maybe the adjective gives the wrong nuance. Every script is new and original at some point. Is it time and use that moves a script out of "artificial" into some other category? And what should we call that category? Obviously this same question applies to the whole category label, not just this particular example. Advice? Response?Pete unseth (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Failed link

The 'Working document' link no longer works - what should it be now? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Split

This page exceeds the post-expand include size limit, causing the refs and Unicode chart at the bottom of the page to fail to render. The main culprit appears to be the section All versions (phases A–G). I propose splitting this section to a new page, perhaps called Bamum characters. Danski454 (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I'd suggest using Bamum character phases for the article name. DRMcCreedy (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Ahecht has brought the PEIS down without a split so I'm withdrawing this. Danski454 (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History / Politics

"Fell into disuse after the exile of King Njoya" seems excessively sanitised and leaves out who exiled him, and their policy and actions regarding literacy in an African writing system for an African language. The omission of any mention of this isn't neutral point of view. Languages and writing systems generally don't just "fall into disuse". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.247.154.123 (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]