Talk:Ranjana script

Nepal Low‑importance

	Nepal portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Writing systems High‑importance

	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.

The Ranjana script is not used to write Tibetan

Although the Ranjana script is used by Tibetans to write Sanskrit, it is not used by Newars or Tibetans to write the Tibetan language. The Ranjana script lacks several consonants required to write Tibetan: Tibetan letters ca (U+0F45), cha (U+0F46), ja (U+0F47), zha (U+0F5E), za (U+0F5F) and 'a (U+0F60). (Note: the Ranjana and Devanagri letters ca, cha, ja, and jha are transcribed in Tibetan as the Tibetan letters tsa (U+0F59), tsha (U+0F5A), dza (U+0F5B) and dzha (U+0F5C) respectively.) I am therefore removing the erroneous references to the Ranjana script being used to write Tibetan from the article.

There is a Tibetan script called Pungchen, modeled on Ranjana / Lanydza (and at first glance easily mistaken for Ranjana) which is occasionally used for writing Tibetan.

Chris Fynn (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Both this article and Lanydza script explain that it is essentially the same script, so there should clearly be only one article about it. --Latebird (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the experts - such as this guy http://www.lantsha-vartu.org/ - suggest that they are not the same script. Similar but with significant differences. mahaabaala (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, although he has clearly done a tremendous amount of work making Lanytsha and Vartu fonts, in the end that "guy" is an amateur (in the best sense of that term) expert and http://www.lantsha-vartu.org/ is his self-published site. On that web-site he cites no reliable source which states that they they are sufficiently different or divergent to be normally classified as separate scripts. There are also significant differences between e.g. Roman , Fraktur, Uncial, Insular and other forms of the Latin script but in the end they are usually classified as one script or writing system (Latin script) with different glyph forms (though they do have their own individual Wikipedia articles).
Incidentally, several sources actually cited in the present article (e.g. Omniglot.org, www.dharma-haven.org, www.teachingsofthebuddha.com and Jwajalapa) also suffer from the same problem of being self-published sources which are really not good enough for a Wikipedia article.
Chris Fynn (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ranjana alphabet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310222353/http://www.jwajalapa.com/lipi/index.php to http://www.jwajalapa.com/lipi/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]