This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Nagari (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The descent of Brahmi from a semitic alphabet has no scientific or scholarly consensus. It is intellectually dishonest to write that it is descended from the Aramaic or Sinaitic alphabet in the infobox (same for any other indic script). The Controversy is clearly detailed in the article itself, so why is the disputed origin written in the language descent? Any unsuspecting reader would assume this to be consensus. (whence it is not). A simple note linking to the controversy is sufficient. Abh9850 (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Error in the classification of r as moordhanya ===
While Y l and v were probably correctly classified in their respective rows in the table, r is not moordhanya. The equivalent is actually the old L as in marathi as in veLa (time). This used to be in old sanskrit and vedas, and came into marathi, kannada, telugu, etc. but was lost in hindi. this L has a devanagari character that looks a bit like l with circles in the bottom as seen marathi which also morphed into Kannada and telugu. The r is to be placed in its own place elsewhere in the table because it is neither moordhanya nor talavya. In fact r and l are abheda hence it may fall in the same row as l.
The article would look more intelligent if the words 'Indian Sub-Continent' were changed into South-Asian. There was no such India before a few centuries. And the very concept of an 'Indian' came only after the arrival of the English East India Company rule, which led to the creation of British-India. This British-India also did not contain the full of current-day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. It was only around half of the SouthAsia or even less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4073:2099:553B:D155:2B2D:B5D2:5B3F (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think South Asian is going to convey the correct meaning. Specifying as Indian Sub-Continent seems better. SmitaVarma (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)