Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scripts without ISO 15924 code

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. ~ trialsanderrors 05:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of scripts without ISO 15924 code

edit
List of scripts without ISO 15924 code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

First, this article tries to catalog what things are not included in a given standard, and has no hope of ever not violating Wikipedia's prohibition against original research. Second, even if you could somehow write this article without, y'know, just making things up, I question whether it has any encyclopedic value at all. Lastly, the fact that the talk page is one long war between an expert and those conducting the original research, and that the quality of the writing in the article is hopelessly poor is just the icing on the cake. We should put this article out of our misery. Nandesuka 15:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, just to be very explicit about my opinion, for the reasons stated in the summary. Nandesuka 00:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm the expert who has been arguing with those conducting the original research. I'm also responsible for the real ISO 15924 standard, and I would very much like for this misleading page to be deleted. Arigato, Nandesuka-sama. -- Evertype·✆ 16:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The summation above is somewhat inaccurate. There is absolutely NO 'original research' involved in listing scripts which do not have a specific code in the ISO 15924 standard. You can point to the standard... see that there is no code there... and perfectly verify the accuracy of the list. This page exists because there is currently a problem with articles on 'writing systems' in Wikipedia. Specifically, it has been claimed that Wikipedia is in 'error' to refer to various sets of characters as 'scripts' or 'daughters' of other scripts... because the ISO 15924 standard would not define them that way.
    This is, again, untrue. ISO 15924 does not define scripts. It assigns codes to the names of scripts. I have explained this before. I asked you to read the standard, which is online. The list contained articles about some alphabets like Arwi script, claimiing that they were not in ISO 15924. But Arwi uses the Arabic script. So it is in ISO 15924. Bah. I've explained this before, too. -- Evertype·✆ 17:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, when the words "character sets" are used to describe groups of symbols used in writing the angry retort is 'that is not how ISO 15924 defines the words "character set"'... which, while all true, is irrelevant. This is not the ISO 15924 website. This is Wikipedia. An encyclopedia written for ordinary web surfers. If you ask a regular person whether Klingon script is the same thing as Latin script they are going to tell you NO... regardless of what User:Evertype, no matter how expert on writing systems he may be, has to say on the matter. And it is those ordinary people who define what Wikipedia includes and how it is presented. This page attempts to clarify the difference between 'scripts' as defined by the ISO 15924 standard and things which are called scripts by ordinary people. It has not proceeded very far or had much cleanup because people have been attempting to get agreement and understanding on this difference before proceeding. Essentially this comes down to a question of whether Wikipedia is written to comply with the expectations of billions of ordinary people or to follow a recently developed and little known international standard. --CBD 16:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for proving my point. Your sentence "You can point to the standard, see that there is no code there, and verify the accuracy of the list" is exactly the sort of synthesis explicitly forbidden by the no original research policy. It is exactly the reason that I cannot write an article entitled List of monkeys and spaceships without ISO 15924 codes and expect it to remain in the encyclopedia. Unless you can find a "list of scripts without ISO 15924 codes" that has been published by a reliable third-party source, you are conducting original research. Nandesuka 16:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but I must disagree with your conclusion's about Original Research in this article. That is meant to apply to different things than this situation. Theories is the primary concern, and research data, not logical deductions such as this. However, I would say from this Unicode.org page that it is at least possible for there to be some sources. Might even be some more detailed books on the subject as well. There's probably also some coverage in books Furthermore, your example of alternative bad lists is a clearly absurd comparison, and may well be considered insulting. Monkeys and Spaceships have nothing to to with ISO 15924. FrozenPurpleCube 16:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) You suggest that unless someone else has already published a list in a reliable third-party source it is original research to compile one here. I disagree. That definition of 'original research' would invalidate things like List of English words containing Q not followed by U, Zimbabwean national cricket captains, and most of the other featured lists. This isn't 'original research' because no 'research' is involved... only compilation of verifiable third-party source material which already exists. It is possible to cite reliable sources for various things which are called scripts... this is readily apparent from the fact that Wikipedia has referenced articles on dozens of them. Compiling those into a list is NOT original research. 'Original compilation', yes... original research, no. Because there is no research involved. --CBD 16:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You know, having looked at the page, and at its talk page, as well as going back further in the history of the dispute, I suggest the parties involved going through the steps in Dispute Resolution instead of deletion. It seems to me that there are some hard feelings involved. FrozenPurpleCube 16:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just tired of the whole thing. It started with people putting Arabic-script orthographies on the list; these are not scripts, but orthographies, the script being Arabic. I attempted to explain this, then stated getting called liar by Mr Conradi and told that I was engaging in original research by CBD. This is not interesting. I tried to explain things on the Talk page, but that didn't go anywhere either, not for want of trying on my part. Dispute Resolution? I'm not sure what you think the dispute is. I thought I was helping omprove this bad "article" by removing things that didn't belong on it. Bleah. -- Evertype·✆ 17:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, everything you said convinces me that you need to carefully read Dispute Resolution and consider what you want to do with the advice there in mind. You may feel one way about the article, other people feel differently. From the length and nature of the discussion, it's clear that it's getting nowhere between just yourself and others. Thus you should consider the advice DR offers you. If you are tired of this problem, then you may wish to consider leaving it for a while, though given your stated membership with the Unicode foundation, you may find that you can't just leave forever. Still, it might help to take a break. I understand that you don't want false information going around, but in this case, I doubt anybody will come to any lasting harm if you let it stand for a while. If that doesn't work, then you may wish to try mediation, or should that fail, arbitration. However, deleting this article will really do nothing for your on-going concerns. So, think about it, rather than just saying "Bleah" . FrozenPurpleCube 18:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evertype, on 'original research'; You argue that Arwi script "is not a script", but rather 'an orthography of the Arabic script'. This and similar views then get incorporated into numerous articles. Can you quote from ISO 15924 or ISO/IEC 10646 or a published text on the subject or a peer reviewed journal or... anything to back that up? If not, then yes... it IS original research. If there is no source that 'Joe Wikipedian' can go to and see, 'Yup this reliable third party source says that Arwi script is an orthography of Arabic' then that isn't 'verifiable' information by Wikipedia standards. That doesn't mean it isn't 'True' or 'logical' or whatever. Treating the thirteen Arwi characters which do not appear in Arabic as 'orthographic marks which do not indicate a different script' might well be the best way to view it. It might be the accepted "common sense" amongst experts in the field. But if it isn't written down anywhere then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. We don't define things. We report on how other people define things. --CBD 22:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    By all the gods featherless and feathered, will you please listen to what I am saying? The Arwi alphabet is not a script. The English alphabet is not a script. If you do not understand the difference between an alphabet and a script you have no business editing articles about writing systems. The English alphabet is an orthography of the Latin script. The Arwi alphabet is an orthography of the Arabic script. It is a mistake to call the Arwi alphabet a script. It would be a mistake to call the English alphabet a script. An alphabet is made of a set of letters which belong to a script. If I say that the letter B is used in the English alphabet, and that the letter B belongs to the Latin script, I am not engaging in original research. If I say that the letter ب is used in the Arwi alphabet, and that the letter ب belongs to the Arabic script, I am not engaging in original research. I do not have to "back up" a claim that B belongs to the Latin script, nor a claim that ب belongs to the Arabic script. It is simply a fact. These are coded characters. If you have some software, you can select a coded character an find out its Unicode name and hexadecimal code. You will find out that their names are LATIN CAPITAL LETTER B and ARABIC LETTER BEH respectively. The one is not Latin and the other Arabic because the standard says so. The standard says so because the one is Latin and the other Arabic. Good gods, man, this is Sesame Street. -- Evertype·✆ 10:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. When you say, 'I don't believe I've been particularly incivil...'... do you read your own comments? :]
    I have listened. I understand. I am not so "obtuse" as to be unable to understand the "Sesame Street" logic that "ABCDEF" are part of the Latin script as you have implied. What you need to understand is that I do understand what you are saying, but I do not agree. You say above, "It would be a mistake to call the English alphabet a script." I disagree. I am convinced you are wrong about that. The reason I am so convinced is that I can open up my OED and see that it defines 'script' as an 'alphabet'... I can do a Google search on English script and find thousands of examples of people doing this thing which you say is a mistake. So... no, it is not a mistake. It is reality. That is the way actual human beings use the word 'script'. You don't believe that this is a proper / logical usage of the term and you may well have many excellent reasons for that... but it does not matter because that IS the way the term is used. As to, "I do not have to 'back up' a claim that B belongs to the Latin script"... again, no one has asked you to. Rather to 'back up a claim that β belongs to the Latin script'... or that IPA belongs to the Latin script despite using the character 'β', which does not. If you have a reliable third party source for either of those things then please quote them. If not... then clearly that is NOT verifiable. --CBD 13:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:CBD, I have to ask have you got third party sources that, for example that Arwi is a script? Surely it is your responsibility to to find sources that show it is a script before putting it in a list of scripts, not User:Evertypes responsibility to find sources to disprove that fact. In any case, I would advise you seek comments form third parties to resolve this problem, as it does not look like you will manage it between yourselves. Adam Slack 14:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if we have a reliable list of scripts, and a reliable list of scripts included in ISO 15924, then it is merely a trivial mechanical (albeit tedious) process to derive a list of scripts that are not in ISO 15924. Since no original thought is required, the resulting doesn't fail WP:NOR. All scripts which are not reliably sourced should be removed from the list, of course. Demiurge 18:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Since there seems to be no such reliable list of scripts, and the definition of script given in the article depends on "common sense" and "is commonly regarded as", this appears to be OR, at least in its current form. Changing my vote to Delete. Demiurge 13:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only if one assumes that the list of applicable scripts is infinite. That is not provably so. I suppose it could be eventually, but then, that could apply to Wikipedia as well. As it stands though, I don't think this article is the real problem. FrozenPurpleCube 04:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
but is there a List of scripts, and how many entries would we be looking at? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should look outside Wikipedia. Then you'd find: [1] or [2] and who knows what someone in the field might have in published, non-web form? Not to mention this [3] which pretty much includes this entire list. FrozenPurpleCube 13:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As written, the article does not adequately define "scripts", and no, there is no List of scripts (that link redirects to a different article). The entire talk page is one long argument that we should just apply a "common sense" definition of "script", where "common sense" seems to mean "whatever anyone thinks a script is today." Nandesuka 12:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is inaccurate. Your quotation is false... the appeals to "common sense" have not been made on behalf of the list of scripts, but rather on the claims that they aren't scripts. That they are scripts can be verified simply by referencing any of the thousands of sources which call each of them such. What other sort of verification is there? As to a single list... we currently have two pages, List of ISO 15924 codes by letter code and List of scripts without ISO 15924 code. Combining these into a single 'list of scripts' would, I think, be even more objectionable to Evertype. Or am I wrong about that? --CBD 13:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find the find claim that there are "thousands of sources that call each of them a script" somewhat at odds with the reality that not a single source is cited in the list. Nandesuka 15:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Each of them is an existing article on Wikipedia. Were they unsourcable that would not be the case. Obviously sources can and will be provided, but there would have been little point in edit warring to maintain them. The underlying claim that Wikipedia articles on writing systems must conform to the ISO 15924 standard, rather than actual usage, must be settled first. --CBD 12:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you do not understand what "conform" means in the context of ISO standards. But I do not know what your claim is. ABCDE belong to the Latin script. Wikipedia should not have an article about the "Albanian script" where the alphabet is really what is being discussed, and because ABCDE do not belong to the "Albanian script" but to the Latin. The arbiter of what the scripts are must be the UCS. When you type A, you are typing LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A as defined in the UCS (ISO/IEC 10646). If, therefore ا ب ج are found to be in an alphabet (as they are in Arwi) then, because all of those are Arabic letters, we know we cannot have an article called "Arwi script". Anything else is ignorant opinion. -- Evertype·✆ 10:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're just being disingenuous. You are well aware that while (as you say) ا ب ج are Arwi characters classified as 'Arabic' by UCS, چ ڊ ڍ are Arwi characters classified as NOT Arabic by UCS... and there are four characters in the Arwi alphabet which aren't coded by UCS at all. The fact is that ~30% of the characters in the Arwi alphabet are not Arabic... as defined by the UCS which YOU say should be the standard we follow. If the UCS classifies a significant portion of Arwi characters as being not Arabic (as it does) how can you cite it as an authority that Arwi IS Arabic?
No, no, no, no, no, no, and no. Will you PLEASE listen for once? There is a difference between a script and an alphabet. چ is ARABIC LETTER TCHEH. ڊ is ARABIC LETTER DAL WITH DOT BELOW. ڍ is ARABIC LETTER DDAHAL. These are Arabic characters. They belong to the Arabic script. They are not, it is true, used in the alphabet used for the Arabic language. They belong to the Arwi alphabet. TCHEH also belongs to the Persian and Urdu alphabets. DAL WITH DOT BELOW also belongs to the Sindhi alphabet, as does DDAHAL. All of them belong to the Arabic script. It was therefore incorrect for someone to make an article called "Arwi script", because there is no Arwi script. There is an Arabic script, which includes a great many characters. No single language uses all of them. The Arabic script is a superset including the Arabic alphabet, the Arwi alphabet, the Sindhi alphabet, and dozens more. This is unambiguous. It is precise. It is the accepted nomenclature in the International Standards Organization and in the Unicode Consortium. Articles about ISO 15924 or aboiut چ are about UCS charcters. It makes very good sense for us to make use of these simple and precise definitions for the benefit of users of this encyclopaedia. I don't see you offering a better framework. -- Evertype·✆
Further, the only reason we don't "have an article called 'Arwi script'" is that you moved it to Arwi alphabet. Last week. Just as you removed it from the list under consideration here and now seek to get the list deleted so it will not be re-added. That people have attempted to discuss this with you, rather than edit warring, is not an indication of the validity of your position.
I saw no argument for retaining an article about "Arwi script" as this does not exist. If it were to exist, then we would need to have articles about the English script, the German script, the French script, the Polish script, and the Swahili script. But there are no such things. All of those languages use alphabets, which are subsets of the Latin script. There is a difference between a script and an alphabet. -- Evertype·✆
Above you present the argument that UCS classifying some characters of an alphabet as belonging to a particular script means the entire alphabet belongs to that script (Arwi to Arabic in your example)... but by that reasoning the 'International Phonetic Alphabet' could be classified as the 'Greek script' (rather than Latin as you argue) since it contains Greek characters. There is no 'clear cut' standard here.
There is if one knows what one is talking about. It appears to me that you do not. I said, and I say, that the International Phonetic Alphabet is a Latin alphabet. That means that it belongs to the Latin script. It happens to borrow two letters from the Greek script. That does not transform it out of being a Latin-script alphabet, and it does not turn it into a unique script. -- Evertype·✆
Contrary to what you imply, the UCS does NOT classify which alphabets are 'unique scripts' and which are 'orthographies of some other script'. It codes characters and assigns them to ranges which are commonly associated with various alphabets.
This is simply incorrect. It is entirely incorrect. You do not know what you are talking about. I am one of the authors of the Unicode Standard. I have written over two hundred proposals to encode characters and scripts for more than a decade. Not a word that you say indicates to me that you have read, much less understood, any of the text of the Unicode Standard or of ISO/IEC 10646. Frankly I think you are embarrassing yourself. -- Evertype·✆
YOU are making judgment calls on what should and should not be called a script... with no consideration of whether people actually do so or not. Only your personal estimation of what is logical. THAT is 'original research'... unless you can point to where UCS or ISO 15924 or any other published standard says 'the Arwi alphabet is the Arabic script with some extra orthographic characters'. Which you haven't been able to do... because that isn't the case. Note that I am not saying you are 'wrong'... you could very well be promoting the 'most logical' or 'most popular amongst linguists' positions... but that doesn't stop it from being original research.
It seems to me that you don't really know what constitutes "original research" either. You seem to think that your stipulation that the UCS or ISO 15924 must make lists of alphabets and say what scripts they belong to means anything to anybody. Well, it does not. And what you say just here below shows just how little you understand how scripts are defined by the UCS. -- Evertype·✆
Above you mock the idea of an 'Albanian script'... but I can give you hundreds of references to such... while you can provide none showing that your view that it is NOT a script is supported by any sort of international standard (and before you start with UCS... ç is an Albanian characters not classified as Latin by UCS and ë is part of the 'extended' latin character set). --CBD 13:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first is LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH CEDILLA and the second is LATIN SMALL LETTER E WITH DIAERESIS. In what way does this make them belong to the "Albanian script"? Oh, look. You used Google. What did you come up with? A Caucasian script, named Albanian, which is a different Albania entirely from the other one on the Adriatic, and which does not use Latin letters ç and ë, as the national language of Albania does. So you're telling us what? That you don't know how to use Google properly? Or that you still don't understand the difference between a script and an alphabet? -- Evertype·✆ 15:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype: "There is a difference between a script and an alphabet."
Oxford English Dictionary: "Script: A kind of writing, a system of alphabetical or other written characters"
Until you can understand that I do not accept the idea that your definition of terms should take precedence over the definitions in common usage we aren't going to get anywhere. You are going to keep accusing me of not understanding what a script is rather than comprehending that I understand both what YOU mean a 'script' to be and how the word is more generally used... I just give precedence to the latter. Your comments about the Google results on 'Albanian script' referring to the Caucasian script are again misleading. Some of them do, but many of them instead refer to the modern "Albanian script" [4] [5] [6]. You can say as loudly as you like that it is 'wrong' to refer to it as "Albanian script", but that will never change the easily provable fact that people DO. --CBD 21:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't going to get anywhere, then. Your first link is unimpressive, and simply shows imprecision on the part of the vendor. The second is to a PowerPoint essay and is hardly authoritative. The third contains the word script in its correct sense (the Turkish shift from Arabic script to Latin script [NOT to "Turkish script"]) and doesn't even contain the words "Albanian script". So much for your Google prowess. In the real world, the word "script" is not "generally used" as a synonym for "alphabet". I work with people from India who sometimes use the world "alphabet" where we would use the word "letter" ("In Hindi we have 35 alphabets"). This error is common enough, but it doesn't mean that the word "letter" is "generally used" for the word "alphabet". We have three words: letter, alphabet, and script. There are good, simple definitions of these which allow us to describe the world's writing systems unambiguously on the Wikipedia. In particular, in the context of ISO 15924 it is pernicious and misleading for you to insist that your "script = alphabet" view should be the one used in the context of articles on writing systems. And the definition you have taken from the OED you have misunderstood, because the script is the system not the individual alphabet. So the OED definition can be seen to be more congruent with the definition of this word in ISO and Unicode contexts, which are what we are using in the WS project. If you can't live with this, please find something else to edit than articles on writing systems, because you will get reverted. -- Evertype·✆ 10:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside your typically condescending tone... you apparently missed the part where the third link states, "I also find it significant that Armenian was placed closest to the new Albanian script in the table." As to your casual dismissal of the other two as 'imprecise'... that's the problem. The real world IS imprecise. People use the terms this way. That it is 'imprecise' does not change the proven fact that they DO. --CBD 11:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not find the text "Albanian script" on the page at [7]. Or the word "Armenian" either. What is it you are trying to achieve? Insisting on imprecise terminology because it pleases you... in what way does this assist users of the Wikipedia to be able to distinguish between an alphabet and a script? They are distinguishable. The Arabic script contains the Urdu alphabet, the Persian alphabet, the Arwi alphabet, and indeed the Arabic alphabet. Each alphabet contains letters. There is a hierarchy here. A taxonomy which we need to use on the Wikipedia because it makes sense, and it helps users of the encyclopaedia. -- Evertype·✆ 14:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and refer to Dispute Resolution: Fails WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. There is no point in a list of negatives in this context. The larger conflict between the editors will still need to be addressed however, so I believe external input is needed for any consensus to be achieved. Adam Slack 14:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while it is quite possible to verify that items don't exist in a document by consulting said document without it being original research, it becomes original research when you provide the definitions of the terms and the suppositions of where those items should be placed. The opening sentence, "Many character sets which are commonly considered scripts", sets the tone here. Who commonly considers them scripts? Yomanganitalk 23:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: 'Who commonly considers them scripts?' - Answer... humans. Just like everything else on Wikipedia. We name our articles based on what people commonly call them... not the precise technical name considered most appropriate by specialists. That is and has always been the case. If thousands of people around the world call something 'Albanian script' or 'Klingon script' or 'Latin script' (meaning only the common characters found in our Latin script article rather than the full range so defined by UCS) then that is how we name and structure the articles. Should Latin script be re-written to state what we have in Unicode Latin or should it continue to cover how the term is commonly used? Should Bat be retitled to 'Chiroptera' because that is the name used by specialists or should we continue to give precedence to the name the majority of people actually use? How is it 'original research' to use common names and definitions rather than specialized and in some cases undocumented ones? --CBD 11:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As it stands, it isn't stating an alternative common name, it is expressing an opinion which needs supporting with references. I wouldn't suggest renaming Bat, as I can provide many reliable sources to back up the use of that name for the genera, and reliable sources are all that is required here (as everywhere where a statement is the subject of controversy); this isn't covered by its absence from the cited document. If thousands of people use it, it should be easy to find sources, otherwise it is just your opinion. Yomanganitalk 12:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But... it IS easy to find sources. As has been demonstrated when Evertype said above that English script or Albanian script were 'incorrect usage'... it was child's play to find the linked examples of such usage, and those were cases where he chose the item in question. How about Aramaic script? Not exactly difficult to find references. Edit warring with Evertype to maintain them in the article would not be worthwhile until this issue is settled, but it is obvious that references exist. If they didn't the pre-existing Wikipedia articles on these things wouldn't be here either. Some of the more obscure ones might be difficult to find English language sources for, but it is also readily apparent that the word 'script' is used to describe any and all forms of written communication (as per my citation of the OED). --CBD 13:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your link to "English script" leads to a "cursive handwriting" example of "script" which is not what we were disputing about. What we were disputing about is whether "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ" can be termed "the English script". It cannot, which is why the Arabic letters making up the Arwi alphabet do not lead to a meaningful entity called "the Arwi script". Your citation of "the Albanian script" ONCE AGAIN leads to a true script found in the Caucasus which is unrelated to the Latin-script Albanian alphabet used in the country on the Adriatic. Your citation of the OED, as I have mentioned above, is being completely misinterpreted by you: And the definition you have taken from the OED you have misunderstood, because the script is the system not the individual alphabet. It is ridiculous that you suggest that we do not distinguish between script and alphabet on the Wikipedia. I don't think you're an expert in this area. What is it that you are trying to achieve? To defeat me in argument? I am trying to achieve a usage on the Wikipedia which assists people in knowing what the difference between a script and an alphabet is. You are not ever going to convince me that the terms are synonymous, or that there is such a thing as the "Arwi script". -- Evertype·✆ 14:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You already acknowledged above that there were various entries in the 'Albanian script' list DO refer to the modern 'Albanian alphabet'... after I provided direct links proving that. Thus, repeating the false claim that they all refer to the older 'Caucasian Albanian script' seems less than helpful. Likewise, while it is certainly possible to find results in almost ANY Google search that refer to other things it is obviously false that all of the Google hits on 'English script' refer to things other than the alphabet used to write the English language. Could we please argue the actual merits rather than such obfuscations? You say it is ridiculous to suggest that 'script' and 'alphabet' be used interchangeably on Wikipedia. I say that it is proven reality that they ARE used interchangeably throughout the world... and therefor believe that Wikipedia should follow suit. What 'I am trying to achieve' should be obvious... 'a usage which is consistent with the way people actually use the terms'... in conformity with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --CBD 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not "catching me out" on anything, CBD. I am quite tired of arguing with you. Wikipedia naming conventions do NOT oblige us to use imprecise terminiology or taxonomy where precise terminology exist. You have not established with any of your efforts that "Arwi script" would be appropriate to describe the "Arwi alphabet"; you have not addressed my specific description of the relations between "Arabic script" and the many alphabets which use it. You have taken pains to show that "script" may be polyvalent, but that does not mean that you are right and that your notions of article titling should prevail. I have taken this up on the Writing Systems WikiProject pages. There seems little point in continuing the discussion here. -- Evertype·✆ 18:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_scripts_without_ISO_15924_code&oldid=1071371808"