Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 17: Difference between revisions

Unused and lakes of a former county in Norway. All listed are transcluded through their respective Norway county lakes navboxes. All of which can be found through Template:Lakes in Norway which doesn't include former counties. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Viken lasted only a couple of years, and as both Viken and its template has been superceded by other, there is no need for navigation within this entity. Geschichte (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Recblock-v

Template:Recblock-v (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Same as what I said below, stale and outdated. Kinda feels unneccessary for me. kleshkreikne. T 13:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This should've been replaced with the ANI report (There is currently a discussion at ANI...) Waylon (he was here) (Does my editing suck? Let's talk.) (Also, not to brag, but...) 16:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Recblock

Template:Recblock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template looks stale and unused. I don't think we need this template. We can report users to AIV, instead of manually reporting them to admins on their own user talk page. kleshkreikne. T 13:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Topicon fakeEC

Template:Topicon fakeEC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Creating something that can easily deceive other editors isn't something that should fall under the allowed humor templates. Gonnym (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unblock-spamun

Template:Unblock-spamun (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unblock-un (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Unblock-spamun with Template:Unblock-un.
For whatever reason, this template looks and feels the exact same as the latter. kleshkreikne. T 07:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Officially used writing systems in India

Template:Officially used writing systems in India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I researched this thoroughly. Of the scripts include in this info box, only three have any official standing. The rest are just used by convention. PepperBeast (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it is not the use of the scripts that is officially/legally enshrined, but rather the languages written with them. Nevertheless, for every language that has official status at the national or state level in India, there is an associated script (in a very few cases two scripts). The use of this script is a simple matter of fact for most of these languages, just like English is written in Latin script. I don't think there is an explicit regulation about the latter fact in the US, the UK, Australia, Canada etc., but I'm sure English writing in Cyrillic won't bring you far in an official context (or any other context). So when for instance the lawmakers who passed the Telangana Act No. 9 of 1966 ("Telangana Official Languages Act") wrote: "The Telugu Language shall be the Official Language; and the Urdu Language shall be the Second Official Language", they wouldn't have dared to imagine that their "negligence" to mention the associated scripts could be construed as not having given official standing to the respective scripts. –Austronesier (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how X being associated with every language that has official status at the national or state level in India means X should have an infobox template. Lots of things are associated with lots of other things; you need to show this specific grouping is more natural, useful, or current in the scholarly discussion than other possible groupings.

they wouldn't have dared to imagine that their "negligence" to mention the associated scripts could be construed as not having given official standing to the respective scripts
But the fact they chose not to mention it is clearly evidence that this is not a grouping or categorization system of interest to them! Our ontologies need to reflect those in the real world; otherwise we veer into WP:OR territory, at best, if not outright irrelevance. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please show us the definition of "official" used in Wikipedia that you are applying here. Please do not create a definition on the fly. Chaipau (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a whole article on what an official language is! The wonders of Wikipedia. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? We are discussing scripts here, not languages. They are different. Chaipau (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And? As I've commented elsewhere, I think it's official if it's named in legislation, as a few scripts are. What's the definition you think applies? PepperBeast (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When a single script has been in use with a language for hundreds of years, then that script is not legislated as official separately. It follows that when that language is legislated as official, the associated script too is deemed official. This is the case with most of the Indian languages, and that is why you see all the official languages in their official scripts depicted in the Indian rupee note/bill on the reverse side. Most of these scripts, used officially here, have no legislation to back it up.

Only when there is a conflict and a political interest to support one script over others is the script legislated into law. This is the case for Gurmukhi (a Brahmi script) in India and Shahmukhi (an Arabic script) in Pakistan, both used for the Punjabi language. Legislation was needed for the Boro language too, because of competing use of the Latin script and Bengali-Assamese script, and finally Devnagari script was legislated as official. Similarly there was a conflict between the Meitei script and Bengali-Assamese script for Manipuri language in Manipur and that led to legislation.

Your claim that all official scripts have to be legislated is your personal opinion. In real life this is not how it operates.

Chaipau (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the article Official script disagrees with you:

An official script is a writing system that is specifically designated to be official in the constitutions or other applicable laws of countries, states, and other jurisdictions.

The rest of your comment is merely explaining why official scripts are official in the first place. This has no bearing whatsoever on whether a script is official to begin with.

Contrary to your claims, it is actually your personal opinion that scripts are official even when not declared so. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau My bad, I meant to link to official script. Again, a whole article flatly contradicting you here; if you think the way scholars use the term is wrong, fine, but that's not for us to decide— see WP:RGW. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead of Official script has no citation. Not a reliable source.

On the other hand, I have shown you a number of instances how the Government of India supports these scripts officially. Active participation in the Unicode Consortium, and the use of these scripts in the currency notes. Chaipau (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. As if you've attempted to give any citations at all for your claim that "official script" is used the way you wish it were used? Probably because you realize scholars don't actually use the term this way, and that this is just your own WP:OR. I did a quick search through Google Books on how terms like "official writing system" and "official script" are used, and I could painstakingly copy these over for you, but are you really going to make do that? Why don't you try providing a single source that claims something as ludicrous as "a government working with the Unicode Consortium to design a script standard elevates the script to official status"? Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me state the two positions explicitly.

Official when legislated:

For a script to be official it should be legislated - an act passes a vote in a legislative body and establishes a script as official.
Official script. Unfortunately, there is not a single citation in the text of the article let alone one that defines an "official" script and it fails reliability on WP:WINRS.

Official when used and supported officially

The alternative definition (stated by @Austronesier above) is that when languages are legislated as official, the associated scripts too are deemed official by default, unless there are more than one scripts associated with a language when particular scripts are explicitly legislated as official. Here we depend on the dictionary definition of official, specifically 3a, which states that something is official when something is prescribed or recognized as authorized. Here the authoritative body is the Government of India, and these scripts are therefore recognized as official by the following actions of the Government of India:
The Indian government officially actively supports these scripts in the Unicode Consortium. There are other Indian scripts which are supported not by the Indian Government but by non-state parties and are deemed non-official (e.g. Tirhuta (Unicode block) supported primarily by Anshuman Pandey, and Ahom script supported by linguist Stephen Morey), which are not official.

The Indian 1-rupee note (issued by the Indian government - all others are issued by the Reserve Bank of India), lists the official scripts of India. This is a recognition of these scripts by an authoritative body, which is the Government of India.

Chaipau (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The one-rupee note features the official languages of India. The scripts used are conventional. PepperBeast (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pepperbeast, the GoI, an authoritative body, using the "conventional" scripts make them "official". They are being used for official purposes. Chaipau (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, something like this would make Cyrillic, Hanggul, and Arabic "official scripts of New Zealand"? PepperBeast (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to not understand what "official" is. Handing out information in a language/script does not make that language official, unless that language/script is used in the working of the authoritative body. The languages you see in the Indian 1-rupee note are the ones mentioned in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution of India (1950). These languages and scripts are working languages/scripts, in the sense that records the working of Indian governments (union/state/local) are kept in these languages.

When the Imperial Japanese govt dropped English pamphlets during WW2, that did not make English an official language of Japan. Chaipau (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that the Government of New Zealand isn't an authoritative body, or that elections aren't part of its workings? PepperBeast (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying very hard to assuming GF here, @Pepperbeast. No, New Zealand is not using Arabic in this example to run the government. Chaipau (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to not understand what "official" is. Handing out information in a language/script does not make that language official,

But working with the Unicode Consortium does? You are literally just making stuff up as you go, and you have yet to present a single example of any reliable source using "official script" in the way you are using it. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I cared how the dictionary defined a word, I can check for myself, thank you very much; you combining the definitions of "official" and "script" is just your WP:SYNTH, and that's without even going into the other holes in your synthetic argument.

You have yet to provide even a single example of a reliable source that uses "official script" the way you do. I'll wait. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me your WP:RS for your claim. Chaipau (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can, as annoying and painstaking as it is, and in spite of the fact that you've made zero effort to show any RS'es yourself, but can I first ask if you did the bare minimum of due diligence in checking yourself? Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a JSTOR search for "official script". Once you disregard the obvious mismatches (e.g. those references Clerical script, sometimes called official script, a style of Chinese calligraphy), what do you notice? Literally all of them refer to polities (from ancient ones like the Qin dynasty to modern states like the Kyrgyz Republic) legislating a specific script as official, not any other more nebulous sort of association such as those which you would like us to believe define official status. Notice that such official status is always conferred by explicit legal decree. Do you need me to go one by one and transcribe the specific quotes from each and explain the historical and sociopolitical context of each quote too, or are you capable of doing a minimum of your own due diligence? And again are you able to provide a single source using "official script" (or "writing system") as nebulously as you do? Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to WP:SOURCEDEF. A search result, which is what you have provided, is not even a source. Further you have to quote from the source properly where you get the definition of an "official script". So we are still at zero WP:RS from you or Pepperbeast.

We are discussing Officially used in the name of the template {{Officially used writing systems in India}}. I have given you a link to the Constitution of India (here) which contradicts your definition because the Latin script has been used to write the constitution, which according to you is not an officially used script. Reductio ad absurdum. Or in other words, WP:DUCK.

Chaipau (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC) (edited) 10:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per User:Austronesier above.

It is also not true that there is no "official" recognition of the "scripts". The Government of India has actively participated (sometimes in a confusing way) with the Unicode Consortium to create standards for these scripts to be used digitally. Here is an example: Unicode Standard for Indic Scripts UTC #94. This is a letter from a government officer [1]. Caveat—please do not use the Unicode standard to define the Indic scripts. Chaipau (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the Government of India working with the Unicode Consortium has absolutely nothing to do with official status. This argument is patent nonsense. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's just not relevant. There might be some case for content regarding South Asian scripts in Unicode, but that tangential to this. PepperBeast (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brusquedandelion, why is it patent nonsense? @Pepperbeast, why it is not relevant? I think you are just pushing your case.

@Pepperbeast, you have been hacking away without any good reason. [2] is an example, where you have removed perfectly academic sources and something that has been extensively discussed and debated. I am not certain you know exactly what the issues here are. Chaipau (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that edit was just a plain clumsy manoeuvre on my part, and we're discussing the issue at hand, not me PepperBeast (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's patent nonsense because that's not actually how anyone uses the term "official script/writing system" except you. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or potentially move/refine as ~~{{South Asian writing systems}} or~~ {{Brahmic scripts}}, as discussed Template talk:Officially used writing systems in India § Convert to navbox? and User talk:Pepperbeast § Proposal: Writing systems of South Asia (EDIT: thought about it, Brahmic scripts is the grouping that makes the most sense; see my comments below). Clearly ill-conceived and poorly thought out template, much like the corresponding article Official scripts of the Republic of India; while the AfD for the latter regrettably did not receive much attention and closed without consensus, it has since been established thanks to @Pepperbeast's diligent investigation that there's only really three scripts that have any sort of legal status anywhere in India, and not even necessarily by the federal government. This is a poor and paltry basis for any template. @Austronesier argues above that even if the scripts do not have official status in and of themselves, languages do have legal status (Scheduled languages of India) and these in turn are associated with one or perhaps two scripts. That's all fine, but languages are associated with many things. Should we make templates for the Official phonemes of India or the Official clusivity distinctions of India too? No, this is obviously patent nonsense. These things just aren't obviously natural categories that are so important and so worth stressing, as a group, and to the exclusion of other possible groups— and IMO the same is true for this template as it stands.

Now, as mentioned, I do think one could make a much better case for a much more natural grouping being scripts which are used in India, regardless of official status; or, arguably even better, {{Brahmic scripts}}, which is a way of grouping scripts that scholars actually use and not something some Wikipedia editor came up with one day because they felt like making a template. Again, these alternatives have been raised by at the two talk pages linked at the beginning of this message, as well as at the AfD for the corresponding article, but the creator of this template/article has made no attempt to engage with this suggestion, quite possibly because they realize their proposed categorization is clearly and self-evidently less natural and defensible. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This. Also, there can be some pretty substantial difference between the intentional and the assumed. The selection of Devanagari by the Union or Meitei mayek script in Manipur, are absolutely intentional, political choices, not just underlining of conventions. And I absolutely agree that this is just not a useful grouping the way that (say) 'Writing Systems of India' might be. PepperBeast (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the scripts used in India are not all "Indian". There is Tibetan script, which is not an Indian script, but which descends from Brahmi script, which is definitely Indian; and there is Nastaliq, which is an Arabic script but used in many Indian languages. Both non-Indian and Indian scripts have support in India, as the PDF I have posted above shows. South Asian is also not right, because the Tibetan script is not even South Asian.

We look forward to a glimpse of your thorough research on this subject.

Chaipau (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could also explain to me how water is wet. PepperBeast (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about this, the more I think it makes the most sense to have the template group {{Brahmic scripts}} and leave it at that. As you correctly point out, not all scripts used in India are necessarily "Indian", and while it is true that a title likr "Scripts of India" or "Scripts of South Asia" does not make any claims about the Indian-ness or South Asian-ness of any script other than asserting the simple fact that script is used in India, it raises thorny questions like "Should Nastaliq have two templates, one for India and one for Pakistan? What about Tibetan?" IMO all of this is avoided by having the infobox target a "genealogical" (perhaps not the right term; but you know what I mean) grouping rather than a geographical or political one. And this way you could use the same template on scripts no longer in use e.g. Sharada or Brahmi itself. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look below why "Brahmi script" is not appropriate.

What would you call a group that is a collection of writing systems used by federal/provincial/local governments for official purposes? May I suggest "Official writing systems of India".? Chaipau (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there are only three officially used writing systems anywhere in India. All three of them happen to be Brahmic. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? English is widely used and it is not Brahmic. Chaipau (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English is a script, not a language. I am beginning to think this disagreement boils down to you not understanding the difference between these terms. This is a common error in societies that stress the primacy of literacy, such as our own, and linguists commonly have to disambiguate these terms for a lay audience. Most languages to have ever existed have never been written, and of those languages which are/have been written, they can and often are written in a multitude of scripts. I suggest you review the two articles I linked above, as well as this excellent article by the Linguistic Society of America (the LSA just overhauled their website today, so it appears that link is having technical issues presently; here is an archived copy). Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my position, since you seem to not be getting it:

In the first place, I really don't see what's so fundamentally wrong about {{Infobox writing system}} that we need to be having this discussion. It already has slots for "official script"—nuff said—but also for the more nebulous "status"— which can be used, theoretically, to indicate not just official status, but also de facto use. Isn't that satisfying enough for you, since your basic argument (the most charitable version of it I can construct, at least) consists of obfuscating the difference between de jure and de facto?
If we must have a new template, it should be {{Brahmic scripts}}, to be included on pages like Devanagari and Khmer script, but not to be included on pages like Urdu script. I just don't see any reason why we need a template for the "most commonly used writing systems of the scheduled languages of the Republic of India", which is essentially what your vision for this template boils down to. Why is that such an important grouping? Is there any other nation that gets such a template for its nation's language's scripts? Put any nationalist feeling aside for a second; how special do you think India is that it deserves a template like this? The only one I can think of is that India happens to have perhaps more scripts in common usage than any other country (someone fact check me on this if I am wrong). But so what? Many languages have numerous languages that have different numbers of scripts; maybe not as many as India, but still quite a few. Notable for this discussion is Singapore and Malaysia, where Mandarin Chinese, Tamil, and Malay all enjoy official recognition (I don't know about "official scripts" per se but I am extended your facile argument to these countries as well). Should the page for the Tamil script have three infoboxes? Should Latin script have an infobox for India, but not any other country? Or should it have dozens, one for each such country? Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the language/script debate, this remains unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This cannot be a good reason because it is the proposer himself, Pepperbeast, who has removed the infobox from all pages. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], ... and so on. Look at it yourself: Special:Contributions/Pepperbeast, edits from March 16, 2024. Chaipau (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So? @Pepperbeast did this with a completely reasonable rationale: there is no evidence that more than three scripts are official anywhere in the Replubic of India. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The constitution is written in English. Look here for a photographic reproduction. And the Latin script is not official according to your definition. Chaipau (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, it is not official. Yours is a facile argument; the Constitution of the USA is also in English, but, famously, the USA has not even an official language, much less an official script (it would certainly be a surprise to the various nativist and right wing demagogues who have campaigned for English to be the sole official language of the USA to learn that they are, in fact, fighting for nothing). It isn't my definition; it's the definition used in reliable sources, unlike your own. This is easy to verify with three seconds of time spent on Google Books or with a real life book on the subject of language policies. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but rename to Writing systems of India. "Officially used" can be a parameter in assigning WP:WEIGHT for inclusion/exclusion decisions, but I don't see why official use is of any importance in general. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: Do you mind explaining why this is preferable to e.g. {{Brahmic scripts}}? Keep in mind that a number of writing systems used in India are also used outside of it— do we include {{Writing systems of India}} on a page like Tibetan script or no? This raises thorny questions that IMO are better addressed by having the infobox target a "genealogical" (perhaps not the right term; but you know what I mean) grouping rather than a geographical or political one. And this way you could use the same template on scripts no longer in use e.g. Sharada or Brahmi itself. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Brahmi scripts" is not appropriate simply because not all the scripts used officially in India are Brahmi. Chaipau (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that not all the scripts used officially are Brahmic. That is literally my point! I am saying the template should target a different grouping altogether, because the grouping you want it to target makes very little sense compared to other possible groupings. Remember, it is generally not a good idea to have multiple infoboxes, so you should pick the grouping that makes sense.

Frankly, the more I think about it, the less I see the need for any template other than {{Infobox writing system}}, but if you must have one, the natural grouping is Brahmic scripts. And yes, that means pages like Nastaliq would not have such a template, but, fortunately, Nastaliq isn't an official script anywhere in India anyways (same with Tibetan), at least not by the definition of an "official script" used in the real world. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... I find this to be one of the pointless discussions belabouring non-issues. The template is a sidebar navigation template, meant to guide the reader to other related pages. So, please worry about that issue, and the purposes of Wikipedia, rather than what is "official" and what is not. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Words have meanings, we can't just sidestep that. But yes, I agree that sidebars are navigational aids, and I fail to see how the existing {{Infobox writing system}} fails to accomplish this purpose; and if we must pick a replacement, I think something like {{Brahmic scripts}} makes for a much more systematic categorization system, and thus a better navigational aid. Again, how do you propose a page like Tibetan script should be handled? I don't see any good solution for it if we advocate the use of a geographical or geopolitical grouping like this, because it will inevitably open the door to complains from the standpoint of other countries where those scripts are used. How many infoboxes can a page bear? Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nosection

Template:Nosection (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used only in a sandbox of the creator, this appears to be experimental, and not clear why anyone would want to disable section edit links. DB1729^talk 00:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Not used. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 106: / Line 106: @@
 *:::::::::::I can, as annoying and painstaking as it is, and in spite of the fact that you've made zero effort to show any RS'es yourself, but can I first ask if you did the bare minimum of due diligence in checking yourself? [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 02:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 *:::::::::::[https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22official+script%22&so=rel Here] is a JSTOR search for "official script". Once you disregard the obvious mismatches (e.g. those references [[Clerical script]], sometimes called official script, a style of Chinese calligraphy), what do you notice? Literally all of them refer to polities (from ancient ones like the [[Qin dynasty]] to modern states like the [[Kyrgyz Republic]]) legislating a specific script as official, not any other more nebulous sort of association such as those which you would like us to believe define official status. Notice that such official status is always conferred by explicit legal decree. Do you need me to go one by one and transcribe the specific quotes from each and explain the historical and sociopolitical context of each quote too, or are you capable of doing a minimum of your own due diligence? And again are you able to provide a single source using "official script" (or "writing system") as nebulously as you do? [[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]] ([[User talk:Brusquedandelion|talk]]) 02:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
+*::::::::::::* Please refer to [[WP:SOURCEDEF]].  A search result, which is what you have provided, is not even a source.  Further you have to quote from the source properly where you get the definition of an "official script".  So we are still at zero WP:RS from you or Pepperbeast.
+*::::::::::::* We are discussing '''''Officially used'''''  in the name of the template {{tl|Officially used writing systems in India}}.  I have given you a link to the [[Constitution of India]] ([https://www.loc.gov/item/57026883 here]) which contradicts your definition because the [[Latin script]] has been used to write the constitution, which according to you is not an officially used script.  [[Reductio ad absurdum]].  Or in other words, [[WP:DUCK]].
+*::::::::::::[[User:Chaipau|Chaipau]] ([[User talk:Chaipau|talk]]) 09:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC) (edited) 10:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 *'''Keep'''. As per [[User:Austronesier]] above.
 :It is also not true that there is no "official" recognition of the "scripts".  The Government of India has actively participated (sometimes in a confusing way) with the [[Unicode Consortium]] to create standards for these scripts to be used digitally.  Here is an example: [https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2003/03102-indic-ov.pdf Unicode Standard for Indic Scripts UTC #94]. This is a letter from a government officer [https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2004/04233-vikas-letter.pdf]. Caveat—please do not use the Unicode standard to define the Indic scripts. [[User:Chaipau|Chaipau]] ([[User talk:Chaipau|talk]]) 00:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)