Talk:Bengali–Assamese script/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sylheti

@Glennznl: @শরদিন্দু ভট্টাচার্য্য: this article need not take a position on whether Sylheti is a language or not. This article just gives out the different uses of this script. The rightful place to discuss the language/dialect issue is Sylheti language. Chaipau (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I have no opinion on the debate, I am only reverting unsourced changes and agenda pushing. For some reason no mod is paying attention after repeated requests to do so and this users edits still stand. Glennznl (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: Let us give them some time. I see this [1] which they have removed. I agree with you - this is not the place for that debate. Chaipau (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Article title

The article's title is disputed. The most common term for this topic is "Bengali script". A search on google scholar shows 2,050 results for Bengali script, 17 results for Bengali-Assamese script and 34 results for Eastern Nagari script. Even the globally recognized databases like Unicode or Ethnologue also describe it as Bengali script. Based on all the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the article should be renamed to Bengali script. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Is_an_"alphabet"_and_a_"script"_same? Chaipau (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is a continuation of that discussion as the editors there also seem to have supported the fact. I've started this discussion here as it's the relevant place. You can invite the editors here. Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: The number of results doesn't matter. We have to consider the context also. The search results are not context-based and only looks for keywords in the documents. And all those results can't be treated as references because those are highly dependent upon other primary, secondary and tertiary sources like Ethnologue. And ofcourse Bengali is a bigger Language, so you'll get more results. And everyone is not a linguist, so they'll use a term that sounds right to them or that matches their views. Talking about "number of search results," I never expected this kind of ignorant statement from a Wikipedia editor with 1000+ edits. Mohsin274 (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Mohsin274 see WP:COMMONNAME. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Considering you have been pushing for this since February 2019 and have moved the page without a consensus numerous times, I suspect your motive to be nationalism and not any genuine concerns for the page. The current name is a neutral one to avoid upsetting any users. I liked Eastern Nagari more myself, but it is what it is. Glennznl (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: I preferred the name "Eastern Nagari" as well. But after the consensus was created, I am OK with it. I don't think we need to change the status quo. Chaipau (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It was not only me but several editors who supported the fact that the title of this page should be Bengali script. The terms Eastern Nagari or Bengali-Assamese are just WP:NEOLOGISM where Wikipedia is being used as a medium to popularize them. Even the page Bengali (Unicode block) has been tried to be moved to Bengali-Assamese by multiple editors in that effort [2], [3] while the block name in the infobox was tried to be changed into Bengali and Assamese. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Eastern Nagari and Bengali-Assamese are both terms found in Google Scholar, so your claim there is a distortion of facts. It is quite logical that "Bengali script" gets more results when there is the entire country of Bangladesh with 160 million people. In any case, Wikipedia is not an academic medium and any decisions are done in a community fashion. The decision is that naming this page "Bengali script" offends a lot of people while also not being a very accurate name. If you want a page uniquely titled Bengali, here you have: Bengali alphabet. Glennznl (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Glennznl I also prefer that name. That's more neutral than "Assamese-Bengali" and much more neutral than "Bengali". Mohsin274 (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Glennznl I believe preventing people from getting offended is not a criteria yet to suggest an article title. It was also discussed earlier on this talk page and the page of Wikiproject Linguistics. Serbo-Croatian excludes Bosnian and Montenegrin from the title which surely offends the Bosnians and Montenegrins but that didn't prevent it from having the current title. WP:COMMONNAME suggests the most circulated term to be used for an article title. Za-ari-masen (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Look at Wikipedia:Article_titles#Explicit_conventions, a page can very well not be named the most common name. Glennznl (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Glennznl yes, in rare cases we can avoid the common name where the suggested title serves clear benefits over the common name. I don't see any such benefits here. Preventing people from getting offended is surely not the benefit the policy is referring to. Za-ari-masen (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen:, as per Glennznl WP:MOSAT applies here. Chaipau (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

What benefit does it serve over the common name here? Za-ari-masen (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It was decided in 2006 that "Bengali script" was unacceptable, by professional linguists and general editors, of many ethnic groups. We have now started using a name that was coined as early as 1998, or even earlier (Saloman 1998). I haven't seen any development since then in the academic world or popular works that demands us to revert. In fact the movement seems to go towards "Bengali-Assamese script" in Unicode and other places. And most of the editors, except you, accept this name. The only arguments you have made are (1) "Ethnologue" and (2) WP:COMMONNAME both of which have been already been objected to. (1) Ethnologue is a tertiary source, and we prefer WP:SECONDARY; and (2) WP:MOSAT nullifies WP:COMMONNAME. Chaipau (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Just like "Bengali-Assamese" doesn't include Tirhuta but that didn't prevent it from having the current title. You example supports the idea of using "Bengali-Assamese script" as the title. Isn't it? Mohsin274 (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau, here are thousands of secondary sources that describe the script as "Bengali script" as the search on google scholar shows. My argument is not only based on Ethnologue. Even Unicode describe the script as Bengali. You haven't explained why WP:MOSAT applies here over WP:COMMONNAME. And it's not only me several editors have earlier stated that the title of this article should be "Bengali script", [4], [5]. I'm also asking UserNumber to express his opinion. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: you haven't said anything new here. You are repeating. Chaipau (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

You haven't countered my argument so what new is there to say? You should look at the diffs of comments from other editors, they are suggesting these terms like "Eastern Nagari" or "Bengali-Assamese" are simply propagated on wikipedia for different interests. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Different interests like what, accuracy and neutrality, keeping both sides content, a different interest than your Bengali nationalism? That's the only interest I see with you. Glennznl (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Unicode is a tertiary source. And Unicode does not specify scripts but code blocks. "Bengali-Assamese" is cited and sourced. So stop it. I shall report you at ANI next if you keep disrupting. The community prefers "Bengali-Assamese" now even though many of us feel that "Eastern Nagari" is the appropriate name here. Chaipau (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Why are you only selectively quoting my statements? I also said there are thousands of secondary sources that describe Bengali script, Unicode or Ethnologue are not the only sources. If you keep misrepresenting statements and disruptively force your opinions over the policy-based comments of other editors, next time I will have to report you at ANI. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This was already pointed out. WP:MOSAT. Just to remind you, WP:IDHT is a form of WP:DE. Chaipau (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I already said WP:MOSAT doesn't apply here as Bengali-Assamese serves no policy-based benefits over the common name "Bengali script". You should look at wp:IDHT yourself since you have clearly failed to understand my points and are causing disruption here. If you don't agree, just stop replying. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I agree with Glennznl that it applies here. I understand your point and showed you that WP:MOSAT overrides WP:COMMONNAME. Chaipau (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Awesome

The title and subjects are awesome. It indeed is a shared script, a fact often ignored by Bengali speakers. This article deserves a lot more work. Let me see if I can lend a hand in improving this. Cheers to everyone who helped here. Good work people. You have my gratitude. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Tirhuta block

Can't see the the Tirhuta block of unicodes, only blank boxes. Something wrong with the browser? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: probably an issue with fonts. The same thing happens in the Sylheti language page for me. Chaipau (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Initially the same issue here. I downloaded NotoSansTirhuta-Regular.ttf, installed the font, and rebooted my Windows 10 laptop. I can now see the Tirhuta characters OK using Firefox but Microsoft Edge and Chrome still shows squares. DRMcCreedy (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Drmccreedy: thanks for the tips. Chaipau (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)