Talk:Pollard 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.

Miao script

My source for move to Miao (script) (now reverted):

"Final proposal for encoding the Miao script in the SMP of the UCS" (PDF). The Unicode Standard. Unicode, Inc. 2010-03-26. Retrieved 2012-01-05. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
also: "Lao Miaowen"
"Common name" as base for the revert es is not that much of a source.
ISO 15924 name: "Miao (Pollard)"

-DePiep (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Unicode chooses to call the block is not terribly relevant. They often get things wrong, as will always happen when something tries to cover everything, or will make an arbitrary decision when faced with multiple choice. AFAIK, there is no convention to follow Unicode naming on WP, except when dealing with Unicode matters such as character codes and blocks.

We follow the usual term in the literature, which in this case is "Pollard". Daniels & Bright call it the "Pollard script", for example. The The Blackwell encyclopedia of writing systems calls it the "Pollard Miao script", though in a section specific to Miao writing. Enwall (1994), which is the ref for Miao writing systems, calls it the "Polland script" as well, as do plenty of accounts of the Hmong, most of whom ref Enwall.

Also, it is not just used for Miao, but for TB languages as well. — kwami (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: after my move I tried to add the sources and (lead)edits into the article. Kwami's move-revert gave me an editconflict. Now they ended up here.
What Unicode chooses to call the block? They don't call it a "block". They say it's a script.
...is not terribly relevant Your word against Unicode. Whatever.
They often get things wrong: I agree, but you go tell them. In this.
AFAIK your "AFA I Know?"- Know ahead. Your I KNOW is not enough. Don't you think and know the YOUR KNOWING is not a criteria?

Had you not reacted, I'd think this was done. -DePiep (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC) removed the waaay too serious part. -DePiep (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they call it a block. Check Unicode.

Yes, of course 'as I know'. If you are able to write about things you don't know, you are evidently psychic. I'm not so gifted. And if you know better, then please provide a link to the relevant WP policy or convention.

We go by sources. I'm sorry if you don't understand that yet. — kwami (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. I felt pissed off (you might have noticed) because while I edited added sources to the lead, it was reverted. It caused the ec. I really think I was careful. Asking for understanding in this.

2. We both were 'bold' in the old time WP way. Where have those good times gone.

3. Yes it is an Unicode Block name, but blocks are not that important (they are mainly for organising code points).

4. More relevant is that Unicode uses "Miao" as a script name ("Miao" is due version 6.1 next February). And scripts is what Unicode-outside users like us are more familiar with. But OK, I can understand that "Pollard" is the COMMON name. Script names formally are defined by ISO 15924. Anyway, the script name ISO 15924 choose is "Plrd=Miao (Pollard)" [1], and Unicode added an alias name they (will) use in character names like "Miao". E.g., the first character in today's beta-version is "U+16F00 MIAO LETTER PA".

4. re Unicode Consortium behaviour (as in: how decisions are made, and does it help the Standard), I might agree they are missing opportunities and don't adhere to quality levels we are used to. Being a standard!

5. Your calling me evidently psychic [2] is out of line. I contrapositioned your "I know" and "sources" (see top of this post). We both want sources, and I provided mine. -DePiep (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some stats:

Google Hits in Web pages
Description	Hits
Pollard script	18,100
Pollard alphabet	822
Pollard Miao script	1,170
Miao script	2,110
Miao alphabet	361

Looking at occurrences in books:

Google Hits in Books
Description	Hits
Pollard script	899
Pollard alphabet	3
Pollard Miao script	6
Miao script	225
Miao alphabet	3

For the record, I was originally pretty set on "Pollard alphabet", but, as the above shows, the current name appears to be the most common one by a significant margin. Hope that's helpful. Waitak (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. This proves I am evidently psychic. -DePiep (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was there anything in what I wrote that merited that response? C'mon, be nice. Waitak (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No not you. But it is part of this thread. I could read your contribution, correctly, as a response to all of my comment. -DePiep (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you could, but you could also choose to be gracious, and cooperate with an effort to bring this discussion back to something more productive, and more appropriate for Wikipedia. Waitak (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Like, no edit warring, no move warring, posting arguments and sources. Actually, I already did so by starting this thread [3]. -DePiep (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, and well done for not having indulged in those particularly counter-productive forms of warring. Well done as well for deleting what you described as the "way too serious" part. I still suspect that there's a bit more room for being gracious that you may be availing yourself of here. Waitak (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I left out some of my black lines. Concluding, I will not pursue any name change here shortly (and did not since the Moves). Improvement of the article is that alternative names are mentioned. Some kind of 'warning' I do too: Unicode will publish a script they call "Miao" (mr. Pollard is only mentioned once in the background papers, linked to above). Somehow we at WP should link that to Pollard. Result: it's getting better. I like reading Unicode proposals about scripts. Even though I am not that familiar with it. -DePiep (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By now I prefer leaving this page. Other people, Waitkak included, can take care better than I do. I'll just keep an eye. -DePiep (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that including the history of this script in Unicode would be interesting. Do you have sources that describe when it was proposed, when it was accepted, and what, if any changes it's undergone as part of Unicode? If we had such a description, it would certainly be appropriate there to mention that Unicode calls that block Miao. Waitak (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I think this next response is constructive in any sense, so I skip my promise to leave). The proposal to encode Miao in Unicode, which is the result of a long and scholarly discussion as always, is in the link I gave here in the top line: n3789. Related links are n3761 and n3877. My example site for readable backgrounds is BabelStone. -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]