Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Writing systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Request for new writing-system category: runes (ISO code runr) 2 User iso15924 3 TfD and CfD 4 ipa-0 5 Bot request 6 Proposal: Either explain, combine or delete -1, -2, ... -N categories? 6.1 Examples 6.2 Proposed categories 7 proposal2 8 Please fix this page 9 Proposed Edit: IPA userbox Order 10 Brai + Cyrl 11 Add Writing systems? 12 Kanji of the Day

[edit] 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:

1. No native level would apply, because almost nobody consistently uses runes (an ancient script) to write their native language.
2. 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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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

Nice, but we'd still need boxes for (semi-)scripts like gugyeol that don't have ISO codes yet. Wikipeditor 00:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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

[edit] Bot request

WP:BOTREQ prepare a bot request:

• replace all occurences of {{user Xxxx-z}} with {{user iso15924|Xxxx|z}}
• replace all occurences of {{user yyy-z}} with {{user iso15924|Xxxx|z}}
  • yyy is an alias for Xxxx
  • all {{user yyy-z}} should already redirect to {{user Xxxx-z}}
• Conversion for the boxes created via {{Babel|Xxxx-z}} will be done by hand.

• user cyr-1 -> user iso15924|Cyrl|1
• user cyr-2 -> user iso15924|Cyrl|2
• user cyr-4 -> user iso15924|Cyrl|4
• user cyr -> user iso15924|Cyrl|5
• user grk-1 -> user iso15924|Grek|1
• user grk-5 -> user iso15924|Grek|5
• user grk -> user iso15924|Grek|5
• user cyrl -> user iso15924|Cyrl|5
• user Cyrl-1 -> user iso15924|Cyrl|1
• user Cyrl-2 -> user iso15924|Cyrl|2
• user Cyrl-4 -> user iso15924|Cyrl|4
• user Cyrl -> user iso15924|Cyrl|5
• user Grek-1 -> user iso15924|Grek|1
• user Grek-5 -> user iso15924|Grek|5
• user Grek -> user iso15924|Grek|5

[edit] 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)

[edit] Examples

I'm only raising this issue, by the way, because I'm confused, which is not an unusual state for me. :-) I really appreciate that work that various people have put into the writing systems userboxes, because they makes it easier to consult with other Wikipedians.

Hypothetically, how would the following users be classified?

• Sam knows enough Cyrillic to pronounce Russian words semi-accurately.
• Judy can read Hiragana, Katakana, and several dozen ideographs. She can help proof-read for the most obvious errors in articles on Japan.
• John knows enough IPA to read an American dictionary, but can't recognize or pronounce any of the more exotic sounds. He's comfortable reading other people's IPA--at least the simple stuff--but wouldn't dream of adding pronunciations to a foreign-language article, even if he speaks the language.
• Rachel has a pretty good working knowledge of two futharks, including a few regional variants and sound shifts, but is clueless about the other futharks. She's happy to contribute to Rune stone articles.
• Michael can recognize the most common Middle Kingdom hieroglyphics (he learned them from a book in a museum), but really only knows some phonetic symbols, a half-dozen determinatives, and few common words. He could double-check some simple claims, but is likely to make mistakes.
• Altea is one of the few hundred people in the world who can actually read Cuneiform, but not the really early stuff. She can write Featured Article-quality content.

Roughly speaking, how should each of these users be classified under the current system? Are there any improvements we could make that would help support collaboration among Wikipedia editors? The Wikipedia:Babel levels are mostly defined in terms of editing ability, which seems very useful. -emk (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

IMO: keep same levels for all scripts. Merge -N into -5. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, that sounds reasonable enough. -emk (talk)

[edit] Proposed categories

OK, here's a very, very rough draft of some proposed definitions for categories 1 through 5. Like the Wikipedia:Babel categories, they'll all based on the ability to read and write content for Wikipedia (which seems a good way to organize things).

These descriptions are just to start a discussion; please feel free to suggest revisions.

Choose:

• xxxx-1 if you can interpret individual words in this script, in the context of an encyclopedia article. For example, Grek-1, implies you can understand the Greek letters in the phrase, "hieroglyph comes from the Greek ἱερογλυφικά (hieroglyphiká)", and IPA-1 implies you can understand the IPA symbols in the phrase, "Canada is pronounced ['kʰænədə] in English and [kanada] in French."
• xxxx-2 if you can identify at least some mistakes involving this script (enough for very basic proofreading), but you wouldn't feel comfortable making the corrections yourself.
• xxxx-3 if you can add content involving this script, but might benefit from a more experienced proofreader. For example, IPA-3 implies that you could add new pronunciations to Wikipedia using IPA, at least for the names of cities in your area, but wouldn't necessarily feel comfortable with adding IPA for foreign words.
• xxxx-4 if you understand this script at a native or near-native level, and can work with it fluently when contributing to Wikipedia.
• xxxx-5 if you understand this script at an academic or professional level, including obscure and/or historical variants.

I'd be completely happy with a different breakdown, too. Any suggestions? -emk (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

IMO the proposal is a little bit too much language based. One can have Grek-5 with ell-0. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proposal2

feel free to edit

1. • what script is it
   • can identify individual characters (not necessary naming any)
2. • can name at least one character
3. • ?
4. • ?
5. • knows every character. including obscure and/or historical variants.

[edit] Please fix this page

This page has been listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion for two days now. Please fix. Thnaks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there never was a delete tag here, so your post proabably belongs to aother page. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

{{cyrl-1}} and the othe cyrl tempaltes had speedy tags included on them. When those tempaltes were transcluded onto tis page, that put this page in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion alos. That is a knmown problem with taggign templates with speedy delete tags while they are still being transcluded. This should normally not be done. DES ^(talk) 14:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Edit: IPA userbox Order

On the list of codes and boxes generated it starts with the lowest level of understanding and goes up to the highest, however I believe the last two are in the wrong order, as from the babelboxes I had understood that a native level of understanding is higher than a full level of understanding. I do not want to change this myself because I am relatively new here and this looks like quite an important page. Benpage26 22:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the last is for at all. It is not consistent with the ISO 15924 template generated ones. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brai + Cyrl

Why were templates added? Cyrl: [1] Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add Writing systems?

Shouldn't Tengwar or Cirth be on here? It's a writing system, isn't it? Bunny Flying in the Sky ^Talk _Contribs 05:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kanji of the Day

I was wondering if I could post this new userbox I made:

I though it was a interesting idea, so I made it. Since it is sorta different from the others I didn't know if I should post it or not... ~_~ – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 00:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)