Talk:List of ISO 15924 codes by letter code
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why is there no code for IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet)? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Because the International Phonetic Alphabet is Latin. Evertype 18:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] This page needs to be deleted
The Unicode Consortium is the Registration Authority for ISO 15924. I am the appointed registrar. I object to this article comprising the code list. The code list is subject to change and a link to the official site is surely sufficient. Evertype 18:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- The matter is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ISO 15924 codes by letter code. I have copied over your reason for deletion, feel free to comment further – Gurch 16:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Latg + Ogam
Ogham and Gaelic script link to the same article. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why? They are not the same. Latg is a form of Latn. Evertype 07:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I turned Gaelic script into an article. Maybe it should better be a dab page, and the article for Latg should be Gaelic Latin alphabet or something like that. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Your "Gaelic script" article is embarrassing. No one could mistake Ogham and Gaelic script. What is it you are trying to do? Evertype 14:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Easy there, Michael. Let's expand it so it ceases to be a stub. – Kaihsu 14:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- We did that, but it needs to be noted that Tobias has a penchant for quantity rather than quality; see his talk page. I don't think that "mini-stubs" like the Gaelic script one should be tolerated, and I don't know about you, but while I am happy with the Gaelic script article, I have other things to do than leap on every writing system "mini-stub" that gets created. Evertype 07:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Easy there, Michael. Let's expand it so it ceases to be a stub. – Kaihsu 14:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Your "Gaelic script" article is embarrassing. No one could mistake Ogham and Gaelic script. What is it you are trying to do? Evertype 14:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- I turned Gaelic script into an article. Maybe it should better be a dab page, and the article for Latg should be Gaelic Latin alphabet or something like that. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Out of date
The standard has been updated. -- Evertype·✆ 14:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- And this page is still out of date. Come on, people. You wanted this page here. -- Evertype·✆ 15:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Nobody promised real-time updates, but I agree, of course, that the incorporation of updates of the standard into the article should be correct and if they are not for some reason they should be corrected as soon as discovered. Christoph Päper 14:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Aliases not in ISO 15924
I object to the recent placement of name aliases into the list here, where those names do not occur in the code lists of the Standard. Links to the pages should suffice and additional names can be given there. If this page is to be about ISO 15924, it should reflect the content of that standard. -- Evertype·✆ 17:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- I thought such added value was the main reason for this article to survive. JFTR, I haven’t checked any of those aliases for correctness. Christoph Päper 14:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- It is misleading to have name aliases in the "names list" here which are NOT part of the standard. If this page is to have any value, it should mirror the standard, and can link to other pages on the Wikipedia. Its names list should not be different than that of the standard. -- Evertype·✆ 19:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Annotations in the names list still are not accurately reflecting the names in the standard, which is misleading to users of this page. Names should be identical, and not contain additional material. That material belongs on the Wikipedia pages about the scripts per se. -- Evertype·✆ 12:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Annotations in the names list still are not accurately reflecting the names in the standard, which is misleading to users of this page. Names should be identical, and not contain additional material. That material belongs on the Wikipedia pages about the scripts per se. Come on, people. Be responsible. -- Evertype·✆ 18:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Annotations in the names list still are not accurately reflecting the names in the standard, which is misleading to users of this page. Names should be identical, and not contain additional material. That material belongs on the Wikipedia pages about the scripts per se. -- Evertype·✆ 12:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- It is misleading to have name aliases in the "names list" here which are NOT part of the standard. If this page is to have any value, it should mirror the standard, and can link to other pages on the Wikipedia. Its names list should not be different than that of the standard. -- Evertype·✆ 19:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
