Template talk:Infobox writing system/Archive 1

Archive 1

ISO notice not needed

I don't think the ISO part is needed, since that only applies to languages. But we should keep the IPA notice. I tried to remove the ISO part, but it messed up the template, so I guess we'll keep it in for now.-- The ikiroid  18:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Preview

Here's what I got for the Arabic Alphabet:

Arabic alphabet
Script type	Abjad
Time period	600 A.D. to the present
Languages	All dialects of Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, and Pashto
Related scripts
Parent systems	Phonecian Nabataean or Syriac Arabic alphabet
Unicode
Unicode range	U+0621 - U+FEFA

The code is like this:

{{Infobox Writing system
 |name=Arabic alphabet
 |type=[[Abjad]]
 |languages=All dialects of Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, and Pashto
 |time=600 A.D. to the present
 |fam1=Phonecian
 |fam2=Nabataean or Syriac
 |unicode=U+0621 - U+FEFA
 }}

It's almost ready.-- The ikiroid  19:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I got rid of the ISO stuff and added options for 'children' and decipherment 'status'. Another example of use: --CBDunkerson 23:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sarati
Script type	Alphabet
Creator	J. R. R. Tolkien
Created	~1919
Time period	V.Y. 1179-
Languages	Quenya
Related scripts
Child systems	Tengwar

{{Infobox Writing system|name=Sarati|type=[[Alphabet]]|languages=[[Quenya]]|creator=[[J. R. R. Tolkien]]|date=~1919|time={{ME-date|VY|1179-}}|children=[[Tengwar]]}}

Implemented in articles

I've added our two example versions into their two respective articles. I still have to add an image to them, though.-- The ikiroid  14:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Color coding

Color coding will change depending on the type of writing system.

Abjad

Alphabet

Abugida

Syllabic

Manual

Pictographic

Logographic

Undeciphered

Alternative (perhaps the default)

Please add more missing categories.

We should probably use a modified version of Template:Infobox Language/family-color for colors.--The ikiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 17:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If there are just going to be a handful of colors like the above then they could easily be built directly into the template. However, that being said what about hybrid or unusual cases? For instance Egyptian hieroglyphs... which are to varying degrees 'Pictographic', 'Logographic', 'Syllabic', 'Alphabetic', 'Undeciphered', et cetera. Or how would Quipu be classified? --CBDunkerson 23:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Most of these are originally based on one type—chinese has syllabic features. Consider:

1. 马(mǎ)—Horse
2. 吗(ma)—[Question particle]
3. 妈(mā)—Mama
4. 骂(mà)—Scolding

all of which modify the 马 radical. If there are multiple traits maybe we could have the color of the first mentioned be the color of the template.

Also, we need an "other" or "alternative" for things like Leet, AIM speak, and shorthand.

The template also probably needs blue links under "type:" I tried to add a link to "Abjad" in the Arabic one and the color turned white. Thank you for helping us out. Is there a way to make bluelinks under type not cancel out coloring?-- The ikiroid  20:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a change which may help for this... the color switch now recognizes either 'Abjad' or '[[Abjad]]'. It would be easier to make the 'type' always act as a link (i.e. '|type=Abjad' produces Abjad by default), but then we would have a problem with things like Alternative and Manual not really going where they were intended. We could also set up a separate switch to translate 'Abjad' to Abjad and 'Alternative' to whatever page that should map to. --CBDunkerson 23:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Sister Writing Systems" option added

I added the option to display sister writing systems, i.e. under the "Hiragana" box, "Katakana," "Manyogana," and "Hentaigana."-- The ikiroid  16:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Fields

I suggest (not necessarily in this order):

• Name
• Type (as specified by color code)
• Language(s) used for
• Geographic region (if applicable)
• Demographic group (again, if applicable)
• Time period
• State of decipherment
• Parent WSs (e.g., Etruscan for Latin alphabet)
• Child WSs (e.g., Cyrillic for Greek alphabet)

--Siva 00:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we need also to add logosyllabic as a category-type. In addition to the fields suggested by Siva above, we should also find room for:

• Example- an image or block of text written in the script, for illustrative purposes. This could either be an inventory of graphemes (but won't be practicable in all cases), or perhaps an example of the same semantic phrase, the script's name written in that script, or some other. Would need to be sure that the example displays correctly in all browsers, so maybe an image of the script rather than unicodified text would be better.
• Creator- where that is known
• Unicode blocks and ranges
• Currency- perhaps not needed if explicitly mentioned under Time Period, but need some flag to indicate whether it is still in use or not.

--cjllw | TALK 00:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I made changes for the colors, name, type, languages, region, demographic group, time period, script sample, and creator. I wasn't sure how to handle the remaining items so held off on those for now. For instance, should 'parent' be a single previous item or trace back as far as is known? Should 'child' include 'grandchildren' or just direct descendants? Are there specific categories to 'state of decipherment' that we would want to list or just whatever the user inputs? Also, I don't know what the 'Unicode blocks and ranges' should look like. --CBDunkerson 00:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What category would shorthand systems such as Pitman's shorthand fall under? Do we need to create a special "shorthand" category?

As for CBDunkerson's concerns: for "state of decipherment", the terms undeciphered, partially deciphered, mostly deciphered, and deciphered by xx(decipherer) in xxxx(year) should be used where applicable, but it should also be possible for a user to elaborate on these. (Note that if a writing system has never been in any need of decipherment, this field should be omitted.) "Unicode blocks and ranges" would look like "U+0621&endash;U+FEFA" (for Arabic, in this case). Make sense?--Siva 23:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a field for this and an example of use to the Arabic table below. Is that what you were looking for? --CBDunkerson 12:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I had in mind. --Siva 20:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done

This template seems to be working well. It even looks like it may have settled the perennial argument at Leet over whether the 'language' infobox should be included... by switching to this one. Good job by Ikiroid in tracking down and bringing together the right people to make this happen. I'm sure there will be further updates and alterations as the template becomes more widespread, but this is a solid foundation with alot of nice design ideas from the contributors on this page. Nice work all around. --CBDunkerson 00:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And thanks to you CBD for your invaluable technical expertise - now I know who to turn to the next time I'm scratching my head over some template code arcana. Cheers! --cjllw | TALK 02:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We could hypothesize and plan all we wanted, but in the end someone had to impliment the ideas. Thank you.

By the way, I think I built the "Sister writing systems" option wrong....sorry....--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked at it when you made the update, but missed the problem. You just had inconsistent capitalization of the parameter... they are case sensitive, so {{{Sisters}}} is different than {{{sisters}}}. I standardized on lower case for consistency with the other parameters and it should be ok now. --CBDunkerson 11:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you so much. I'll try out the parameter.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Parameters

Could someone please add to this talk page a full list of all the parameters available and what they produce/what they're intended for? Thanks! —The preceding signed comment was added by Angr (talk • contribs). 12:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, for the time being, you can look at the examples here, as well as Hiragana, Syriac alphabet, and Coptic alphabet, which have pretty complete infoboxes. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Help needed

I've just used this infobox for Braille and Moon type, but I'm not sure about some parameters. I'm pretty sure (but not 100%) both are alphabets (as its name suggest :-) but I have no idea about a lot of other parameters like family, sisters and children. I let all of them empty, but the default behavior of the template is to show it as 'artificial script'. Probably this is the case for Braille, but it seems that Moon type is heavily based on the shapes of Latin letters, and therefore I in doubt this should be reflected in the 'family'. Also, can both writing systems for the blind be considered sister ws? (Maybe all Tactile alphabets?) And finally, I suppose that Japanese Braille, Korean Braille, Tibetan Braille and so on are children of Braille. Sorry for some many questions, but I haven't found the answer neither on writing system nor alphabet. Maybe the usage of this infobox can be clarified adding more documentation. Best regards. --surueña 09:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that 'Moon type' is definitely a child of the Latin alphabet and the various Braille variants children of the original. I don't know that I'd call Braille and Moon type 'sisters' as they don't have a common origin so much as a common function. Also, while it is probably important to always list at least the immediate 'parent' of any writing system it isn't always practical to list all of the 'children'. --CBD 23:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, now I understand all this (and thank you for updating the Moon type article). Best regards --surueña 07:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Instructions below

If this template is entered without parameters, the heading says "Instructions below", but of course this will be incorrect 100% of the time an editor places it. Why not make that placeholder text read "Instructions at template:Infobox Writing system", linked to the actual instructions heading? —Michael Z. 2006-11-07 00:23 Z

I think that was what it originally did, but as this page was the only one where you would typically see the template with no 'name' parameter entered someone changed it to 'instructions below'. I'm fine with either. --CBD 14:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

no include / include only should solve it? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

To show different messages depending on where the template is? Yeah, that'd work. I'll put it in. --CBD 19:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Manual

I found Abjad, alphabet, ... , and Logograpic entry in wiki. But I am not sure about "Manual". What this type intended to? For which script use this typpe? --RedDragon 08:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume this is meant to refer to a Manual alphabet... aka 'sign language'. --CBD 14:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I updated Ja template page.--RedDragon 04:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

ISO 15924

IMO a variable iso15924 should be added for those in ISO 15924. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a parameter such that if you add '|iso15924=Fred' it should display a new row (under where 'Unicode range' is) with a link to ISO 15924 and whatever code you put in ('Fred' in this example). --CBD 20:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

CBD, one more for you :-) : Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Writing_systems#User_iso15924 Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Can someone implement Category:Scripts without ISO 15924 code - i failed, don't know how the if else works. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I made a change which I think will address this. Let me know if it isn't what you were looking for. --CBD 16:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This template is broken. It apparently automatically added İske_imlâ to the list of scripts without ISO 15924 tags. This is incorrect. The script is Arabic. -- Evertype·✆ 20:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Add a '|iso15924=<whatever>' parameter. I'll look it up/add one for that script. --CBD 15:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually... it looks like this writing system doesn't have a unique code in ISO 15924. At which point I don't understand the objection to it being in a category for scripts that don't have ISO 15924 codes. It's a writing system. ISO 15924 does not give it an independent code. Are you objecting that it should use the same code as Arabic alphabet? I note that the ISO 15924 page doesn't give lists of all the writing systems which you may be classifying as 'close enough' to not need their own codes... thus nothing in the published standard (that I can see) identifies systems which are intended to be clumped together under a single code vs those which just don't have a code assigned yet. Is there some documentation of this? If not, we can't just 'guess' or define groupings without references. --CBD 16:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

İske_imlâ is an orthography using the Arabic script. Accordingly, it has an ISO 15924 code, namely Arab. -- Evertype·✆ 18:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you are seeing my point. Given that İske imlâ uses mostly the same characters as Arabic (though it also includes some Cyrillic symbols) the above is a perfectly reasonable position to take... but it isn't actually stated anywhere in the ISO 15924 standard that I can see. So how are we to describe İske imlâ as using ISO 15924 code 'arab' when the ISO 15924 standard doesn't actually SAY that? And how does this apply to writing systems in general? Should we guess when ISO 15924 considers two writing systems to be covered by the same code? Clearly there are points at which divergences are considered significant enough to have separate codes (e.g. 'latn' and 'latg'). If the standard does not say İske imlâ uses code 'arab', and so far as I can find it does not, then using that code or other similar judgement calls seems unsourced / original research. --CBD 12:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand your difficulty. Spanish, Swahili, and Guaraní use the Latin script, and are described with "Latn" in ISO 15924. Arabic, Persian, Urdu, and Tatar all use the Arabic script, and are described with "Arab" in ISO 15924. It is an error to say that İske imlâ is a different script, or a "daughter" of Arabic script. It is not. It is Arabic. You can tell that by looking at the letters. How is this unclear? -- Evertype·✆ 12:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, ok... true or false: The character 'қ' appears in İske imlâ writing, but not in Arabic writing. --CBD 13:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Colour coding

The current colour coding needs to be changed. The dark blue used to indicate an alphabet makes the name of the alphabet almost impossible to read in the Infobox. Of course, the title of the article makes it clear, but the absence of these minor annoyances makes the "Wikipedia experience" better, and makes the encyclopaedia seem more professional.--Еstavisti 10:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support; the example I found is the dark brown used in Malayalam script. David Kernow (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Fine with me. Note that the colors and categories at the top of the page were the original proposal, but the actual implementation was a little different. The different classifications and associated colors can be seen on the template page itself. For instance, the brown noted above for 'Malayalam script' is the color for abugidas. Changing the displayed colors can be done easily. I'll try a lighter blue for now. --CBD 23:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Languages

Can we make the |languages= parameter optional? For some scripts (e.g. ciphers that could at least theoretically be used for any language the script they're based on could) it's not really relevant. --Ptcamn 12:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. --CBD 16:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's broken, I'm afraid. See e.g. Tengwar. Alatius 19:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

unsupported type

There are several semi-syllabic/onset-rime scripts, such as zhuyin, pahawh, Iberian, and Old Persian. Could we maybe have a type color (or two) for these? kwami (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

'creator' d n imply 'artificial'

currently, if you put in a 'creator' field, the template adds in 'artificial'. However, that does not follow. Lots of scripts were adapted from an earlier script by a known creator, and may bear their name, but wouldn't be considered artificial. 'Phagspa in the Brahmic family is one. I don't know where to draw the line, but the editor should have discretion over whether both of these fields appear. kwami (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I decoupled those parameters. kwami (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

native name for writing system

I think that it would be a great idea to add the 'nativename' parameter in the template, just like in the Template:Infobox Language. With this, we can show the writing system's name in it's native alphabet, abugida, etc. Kotakkasut (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to suggest the same myself. I can only come up with one reason why it shouldn’t be added, the original/native name depends on the language used. Anyone has any thoughts? In general I think this is a worthy addition, but since most of the informaiton in the box should be in the text body as well, it is not that important, as I see it. Kess (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

We'd need to use the name in the language the script was designed for. kwami (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You're going to be hard-pressed to find these in reality. -- Evertype·✆ 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"family" field

It seems there is a "family" field not covered by Template:Infobox Writing system/doc but handled by the template though it occurs only in two pages (Egyptian hieroglyphs and Japanese writing system). It seems to be a free text field to complement the ordered "famNN" fields. Would somebody care to document it? — Hippietrail (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of infobox fields

Here is a breakdown of how many times each field is used in writing system infoboxes in section 0 of articles. Note there are quite a few in pages which the template does not support. There may also be a tiny amount of pollution from fields used in other infoboxes on the same page:

field	count
date	1
img	1
rr	1
hangul	1
iso3	1
region	1
setting	1
speakers	1
hanja	1
family	1
width	1
posteriori	1
status	1
differentiated-to	1
agency	1
iso1	1
mr	1
iso2	1
IPAChartEng	3
caption	5
footnotes	5
ib-part	6
image_size	7
typedesc	10
creator	11
imagesize	13
children	17
unicode	23
sisters	24
sample	28
iso15924	44
time	47
type	49
name	50
languages	50
fam	142

— Hippietrail (talk) 08:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Automatization

Automatic script categories

Sould we also think about script categories being automatically added with the script direction template? How about category:RTL writing, category:RTL writing, category:vertical writing, category:spiral writing? Just a thought. Vanisaac (talk)

PS, does anyone know how pages get added to category:alphabetic writing systems? Is it somehow automatic, or does someone go around and do it as a janitorial task? Vanisaac (talk)

The reason I ask is that I wonder if we shouldn't have scripts be automatically sorted into script categories by the writing systems infobox template. It would be easy to program along with the "scripts with ISO 15924 codes" auto-categorization. VI_WS ^talk

Automatic categories by ISO category

Related issue: Category:Scripts with ISO 15924 four-letter codes - Belarusian Arabic alphabet can be marked with the ISO code "Arab", then the article ends up in Category:Scripts with ISO 15924 four-letter codes. Better the ISO code would place the article directly into Category:Arabic script. The whole category could be marked with Template:Parentcat. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:ISO 15924 gives an overview of ISO 15924 templates. I suggest to either use the Template:ISO 15924/article name for categorization - then the categories need to be named like the articles, or to create Template:ISO 15924/category name.

 Done Template:ISO 15924/wp-name is used to determine the category. The name should also either be the name of the article or redirect there, because the same value is used at Template:ISO 15924 script codes and Unicode. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Automatic ISO number adding

I already asked that [1] that Template:Infobox writing system displays the value from Template:ISO 15924/numeric if the alpha code is defined. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Two examples in the testpage: Template:Infobox writing system/testcases. -DePiep (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Just checked: not once is the numeric input used directly | iso15924n=.... So we can skip automate that easily. -DePiep (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done
If the number presentation is not as expected, please let me know. Maybe some refinement can be good, e.g. at Chinese characters (and more Chinese writing systems). Textual code now can go into |iso15924 note=..., so the alpha-4 code is solo available. I did run through all ~275 pages to clean this up. If any question remains in this, let me know. -DePiep (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Automatic ISO alias display

 Done The value from Template:ISO 15924/alias is now displayed automatically too. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Completeness re ISO 15924 list

 cross checked and completed
I have cross checked completeness of the various Script code lists (currently 160 are in the ISO datafile). Added as-of note in the code & documentation. Including /footer, /alias, /name, /wp-name, /number.
Also completed the wp-name list into blue links, i.e. every alpha-4 code now has a blue link. As close to an article as possible, but I did create a "X script" redirect page, when the existing article is "X language" or "X people"only (so not linking directly to the language page). Intentionally. So as to keep scripts and languages separate. -DePiep (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

IPA note relevant?

Currently the template shows Note: This page may contain IPA phonetic symbols. Is this to the point? I suggest removing that one. -DePiep (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that note is quite relevant. The vast majority of writing system pages contain some sort of phonetic transcription for that script, and the infobox is a good place to make sure that note gets included. VanIsaac_WS 14:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Then, is it not for the editor who does add the IPA, to provide a good note or helplink? After all, this is about scripts, not languages. And on top of this, shouldn't there better be a note about bad rendering fonts? There are more likely (and more relevant to this template), especially within this template, exotic scripts used. -DePiep (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a generic exotic scripts warning, although I would be happy to work on one. The fact that this warning was previously included indicates to me that there is some need for it, but more importantly that anyone who has put IPA into writing systems pages has not had cause to manually include the warning themselves. Unless you can establish minimal usage statistics for IPA in writing systems pages, I would vote to not delete the warning from the template. VanIsaac_WS 14:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If you had any sense for this template's name and essece, you should be asking for a tag saying "This tempate may include exotic scripts". The fact that you do not separate language from script (let alone the speaking of a language from its script, where we really would need IPA), says that you are on the wrong track. Drop IPA, ask for script support & help in certain situations. -DePiep (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC) (Please red "you" being plural: is how I wrote it. As in "you editors" -DePiep (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC))

I believe that several script articles include sections on individual languages that use the script, and the phonetic assignments figure quite heavily in those conversations. The fact that those sections may not be large enough to sustain an independent article does not make the necessity for IPA any less. Like I said, I would be happy to work on a generic "exotic scripts" template if people thought it would be better than the IPA template for the infobox. VanIsaac_WS 07:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

What? No direction?

Archived at Template talk:TextDir

I'm somewhat puzzled that apparently nobody else has thought to include this obvious piece of information that varies between writing systems - whether it's written left to right, right to left, top to bottom or in some other direction.

That said, I wonder how it should be notated. Should we just write "Right to left" or whatever, or use abbreviations like LRTB, RLTB, TBLR to denote both direction of characters and direction of lines? (I'm sure these have been used on WP somewhere, but next to nothing is showing up in searches at the moment.) Of course, the parameter needn't always be one of these by itself - we could have such things as "Traditionally TBRL, nowadays usually LRTB" for Chinese characters.

What do people think? Moreover, where can we put an explanation of BTRL, etc. if we're going to use these?

Or maybe we could just create the parameter now, and try later to standardise the notation of it. I'm not sure.... -- Smjg (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The template has been moved into the template namespace. As such, all further comments on the actual Text Directionality template should be placed at Template talk:TextDir.

Comments on the implementation of the Text Directionality template in the writing system infobox can still be placed in here. VanIsaac_WS 09:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Shorthands

I have updated the infobox Writing system with several fields for shorthands. The infobox should appear exactly the same for all other scripts (confirmed on all WikiProject Writing Systems Top-importance script pages). Specifically, shorthands should have their type set to "shorthand" or "stenography", and the fields SHline, SHtype, SHform, and SHdates can be set accordingly - SHline to "light" or "heavy", SHtype to the adjective form of most values for type (abjadi, alphabetic, consonantal, etc), and SHform to "geometric", "elliptical", "printed", etc. SHdates is roughly equivalent to date, except that it is labeled "Published", and should list not only the date of the original shorthand, but also its named adaptations. Please see the documentation for all of the possible values. If anyone wishes to discuss altering the new field names, I will be watchlisting this talk page. Vanisaac (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the definition for alphabetic shorthand here? At least Thomas Natural Shorthand clearly has a different meaning for alphabetic in the infobox than in the article text. I think it is more common that alphabetic shorthand means something like abbreviated longhand, but the infobox classification seems to be something else. --Ryhanen (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Same as the regular script types "alphabet", "abjad", "abugida", "syllabary", etc. A shorthand is alphabetic if it regularly marks vowel sounds similarly to consonants. Cf. Pitman, which optionally marks all but initial vowels and marks them with diacritics. Note that the distinctions between "alphabet" and "abjad" are generally more muddled when it comes to shorthands/stenographies, given the dictum of reducing superfluous data. It is actually quite common to find Duployan texts written with many implied vowels, especially unstressed vowels, and the modern French Duployan methods use many combined consonants that can stand for entire independent words or roots without any inherent vowels. The real distinction seems to come from whether the vowel signs are integrated into the word form, or whether they are appended extraneously for clarification only. Thomas definitely seems to fall into the middle of the abjadi/alphabetic spectrum, but my reasoning behind classifying Thomas as an alphabetic shorthand was due to the obligatory nature of positioning for vowels. Whether this holds in a more thorough investigation, I don't know, as I have been unable to track down any primary sources for the Thomas shorthand. If you know that only initial vowels are marked, or that medial/final vowels are only indicated by extraneous marks, then by all means, please change it to abjadi.

infobox head image

I've commented out the weird little infobox head image. I found it distracting and cumbersome - crowding out larger script names. Is there some reason why this is even useful, let alone necessary? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 18:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the disappearance. I retracked the thing (I looked at the earlier version), and indeed it is not adding x except disturbances. -DePiep (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The wikilink doesn't exist

The wikilink in "Without proper rendering support, you may (...)" directs to a nonexistent part in that article. --Stultiwikia^{text me} 23:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

fixed. Frietjes (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for multiple Unicode fields

Some writing systems have had blocks appended by a new revision of Unicode, such as Sinhala which is now U+0D80-U+0DFF & U+111E0-U+111FF. Currently there's no way that I know of displaying multiple Unicode blocks in this template. Attempting to do so (by repeating the "unicode" field) merely overrides the original block. Does anyone know a way around this or can propose a solution? Danielklein (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

See my edit to Sinhala alphabet. – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice edit! I didn't realise it wasn't doing anything special, just displaying wikitext! I also didn't look at the other fields which do the same thing as I was focused on Unicode! Thanks again! Danielklein (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Unicode Accepted Proposal field

Hi,

I would like to propose a field to link the final accepted Unicode Proposal, called "unicodeprop" (or something similar). Very often, the final Unicode proposal document provides a wealth of information regarding the actual contents of the script, its history, how its written, script samples, and peculiarities, and so on. It would be incredibly helpful to link these final accepted proposals systematically to Wikipedia articles to correct misinformation and provide a source for further, more detailed information for readers. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help. An example of such proposals are as follows:

• Takri alphabet: http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2009/09424-takri.pdf
• Modi alphabet: http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2011/11212r2-n4034-modi.pdf

As you can see, these proposals are a lot more detailed than either the article or the Unicode links that the infoboxes in these articles reference.

Thanks. Subbupedia95 (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding Direction Field

Hi,

I think we should add a "Direction" field as well (i.e. LTR, RTL, Top-to-Bottom, etc.). Can someone please look into this? These are often defining features of writing systems as well. And in fact, there is a primary direction (the direction in which it is written - LTR for English) and a secondary direction (the direction in which it is read - Top-to-Bottom for English).

Please let me know if you have any questions; thank you.

Subbupedia95 (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Japanese writing direction

Please see Talk:Japanese writing system#Direction of writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.180.129 (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Updating documentation to include Caption

Hi all. This infobox apparently supports the Caption parameter, which is inserted right below the sample image in the output. However, it is not documented. Could someone please update the documentation to include that parameter? Thanks! Phuzion (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)