Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Language/Written

Request for new writing-system category: runes (ISO code runr)

Although I've previously discussed adding a userbox for runic literacy (in the Babelbox section), it seems more logical to list that skill under writing systems instead of languages. I see only a few problems with adding "runr-n" userboxes:

No native level would apply, because almost nobody consistently uses runes (an ancient script) to write their native language.
Some distinction between variants of the runic alphabet (Primitive Germanic vs. Saxon vs. Norse) might be useful. The ISO system, however, treats all runic scripts as a single block of Unicode: what kind of modifier should be added to "runr-n" to specify a variant alphabet?

--Ingeborg S. Nordén 00:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 15924 is Runr not runr. About variants you may ask User:Evertype who makes the codes. (nice to have him in WP). That currently nobody has Runr-N does not matter. I support the creation. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming the four historical runic systems are the Elder Fuþark, the Anglo-Saxon Fuþorc, the Younger Fuþąrk (long and short twig), and the medieval Scandanavian runes. Is this correct, or would you suggest a different breakdown?

If there were a runic userbox, I'd probably display it on my user page. But how should I choose between -1, -2, etc.? :-) -emk 00:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I took the liberty of adding "Runr" support to Template:User iso15924. (That is a seriously esoteric template.) To use it, type something like {{User iso15924|Runr|1}} on your user page. There's no codes for the individual Futharks, but I suppose we could put some sort of specialized userboxes together in the User namespace.

I still have no idea what the -1, -2, ..., or -N modifiers ought to mean for writing systems, either. :-) -emk 17:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User iso15924

instead of creating 100 userboxes we could make Template:User iso15924 and then let people simply pass parameters. "{User iso15924|-ISO 15924-|-level-}" e.g. "{User iso15924|Cyrl|4}". Maybe an advanced template coder could do this. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the old boxes should than be only aliases. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD and CfD

Level N and 5 are up for deletion Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_26#Category:Writing_systems_categories Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ipa-0

Can an admin state whether this was properly deleted, i.e. according to WP policies? was it marked for deletion? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Template:User_ipa-0

I think ipa-0 can in fact be usefull since it is used in en:WP, as en-0 is usefull for languages in en:WP. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a TfD discussion about this and other 'level 0' templates, but the template itself was never tagged for deletion and thus the ~50 people using it were likely unaware of the discussion. That is out of process so I have restored this template for now. --CBD 14:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot request

prepare a bot request:

replace all occurences of {{user Xxxx-y}} templates with {{user iso15924|Xxxx|y}}

Arab, alias ara
- Arab
- Arab-1
- Arab-2
- Arab-4
Cyrl, alias cyr
- Cyrl
- Cyrl-1
- Cyrl-2
- Cyrl-3
- Cyrl-4
Grek, alias grk

Proposal: Either explain, combine or delete -1, -2, ... -N categories?

Right now, there are 6 proficiency categories for each writing system. This mirrors the structure of Wikipedia:Babel, but it's not clear how (for example) there can be 6 separate proficiency levels for the Greek alphabet, or what each level would mean.

Some writing systems can be learned in days (Latin, etc.); others involve a modest amount of specialist knowledge (the four runic alphabets, the N different Old Italic alphabets), several take years of education (the Han-based writing systems), and a few are accessible only to scholars (Cuneiform, or anything beyond the simplest hieroglyphics).

Given that many writing systems are too simple to require 6 proficiency levels in any meaningful sense, and that--in any case--the levels aren't defined anywhere, I'm not sure what purpose they currently serve.

One solution might be descriptions of each level, similar to the ones found at Wikipedia:Babel and Wikipedia:Babel/Levels. Another solution might be combine the six categories into just two or three, at least for the simpler scripts. Any thoughts? -emk (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]