Talk:Osmanya alphabet

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Osmanya alphabet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100326133510/http://www.somalinativealphabet.com/ to http://somalinativealphabet.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Weird numbers in character cells

In the tables containing the Osmanya characters there were numbers next so them. I removed them for now. If they had any significance plese add a seperate column for them. --LonleyGhost (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 13 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. The only objection is in reference to an RFC that would have no impact on this article regardless of the outcome. UtherSRG (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Osmanya script → Osmanya alphabet – See: • Clair, Kate; Busic-Snyder, Cynthia (2012-06-20). "Key Concepts". A Typographic Workbook: A Primer to History, Techniques, and Artistry. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 347. ISBN 9781118399880. alphabet: a set of visual characters or letters in an order fixed by custom. The individual characters represent the sounds of a spoken language. ... In addition to English, there are... Somali (Osmanya),....
• "alphabet". Merriam-Webster [online]. 1.a. a set of letters or other characters with which one or more languages are written especially if arranged in a customary order
• WP:NCWS#Alphabets: "'Alphabet' is used for language-specific adaptations of a segmental script, usually with a defined sorting order and sometimes with not all of the letters, or with additional letters:" [followed by list of examples].
• Note that Osmanya is "language-specific" to the Somali language.
• See also what Omniglot calls it. – _•Raven  ^.talk 01:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I count 7 separate move requests for the same redundant reason. Raven should respect the ongoing discussion on changing the wording of WP:NCWS, which may address this exact question. This article should be moved, or not, depending on the outcome of that discussion; an independent move here might need to be reverted if that discussion doesn't go Raven's way. Also, the fact that Raven continues to repeat the same misleading claims about NCWS indicates that they still fail to understand what it says, despite it being explained to them multiple times. — kwami (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  (1) "I count 7 separate move requests..." - on 7 separate article talkpages, each concerning that article alone. This is recommended procedure after a move is reverted, so you should have posted these requests (in the other direction) after your move was reverted – not reverted the reversion: it's supposed to be BRD, not BRRD.
  (2) "This article should be moved, or not, depending on the outcome of that discussion; an independent move here might need to be reverted if that discussion doesn't go Raven's way." – ❌FALSE. This request cites the current text of WP:NCWS#Alphabets as it stands, so it is unaffected if that RFC fails. It is also compatible with the RFC's proposal(s), so it is unaffected if that RFC succeeds. In other words, it doesn't "depend[] on the outcome of that discussion" at all.
  (3) "... the same misleading claims about NCWS...." – ❌FALSE. Clicking that link to WP:NCWS#Alphabets will confirm that my quote above was verbatim, word-for-word, accurate. – _•Raven  ^.talk 23:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• No other comments besides the original mover (kwami)'s, so far. As I understand it, in the absence of consensus, the stable status quo ante (in this case "Osmanya alphabet") is resumed. – .Raven  ^.talk 05:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I originally closed this RM with the following result: no consensus. There is an ongoing RfC that is currently debating about this article and other similar articles' titles. As the RfC has not reached a consensus yet, this page will not be moved. Per a discussion in my talk page, I'm reopening it and requesting another page mover to decide what to do. MaterialWorks (contribs) 19:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
• Per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus, "If objections have been raised, then the discussion should be evaluated just like any other discussion on Wikipedia: lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens (though like AfD, this is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority). However, sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if no consensus has been reached, the closer should move the article back to the most recent stable title. If no recent title has been stable, then the article should be moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." [underline added; two further explanatory paragraphs not quoted]  The underlined situation appears to be the case here.

As noted at the RfC at NCWS, "Since [the page move requests mentioned] cite and quote the current text of WP:NCWS#Alphabets, they are unaffected if this RFC fails. Since they are also compatible with this RFC's proposal(s), they are unaffected if this RFC succeeds. In other words, they are unaffected by this RFC either way." [italics as in orginal] The RFC affects only alphabets for specific uses which are not language-specific (e.g. ISO basic Latin alphabet, International Phonetic Alphabet), and clarification of multi-language general alphabets (arguably N'Ko, though that is specific to Manding languages, and preceding discussion had said "language specific" could mean to "one or more languages").

Osmanya, however, is a single-language [Somali] alphabet – unambiguously covered by the current definition: "'Alphabet' is used for language-specific adaptations of a segmental script, usually with a defined sorting order and sometimes with not all of the letters, or with additional letters". – .Raven  ^.talk 00:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stop edit-warring

@Kwamikagami: You've repeatedly removed RS content, munged URLs, and otherwise hurt articles including this one. Stop. If you know of RSs that say Osmanya isn't an alphabet, cite it. You never have. Per cited RSs you remove, it is. Per WP:NCWS#Alphabets, it is. Where's your factual support to counter the facts you delete? – .Raven  ^.talk 09:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm tired of your Borat routine. No-one is saying what you continually claim that they're saying. Let the NCWS discussion play out. This article may well be moved to "alphabet", but even if it is, adding multiple citations in the lead for a point that no-one disputes is a violation of WP style guidelines. — kwami (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

If you don't dispute that point, why claim on your talkpage that the RS citations supporting it are "bogus citations"?
> "This article may well be moved..." – irrelevant to whether it can be edited in the meantime. You keep citing that "bogus" reason to revert any and every article body text edit.
Per WP:LEDE: "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body, and not the lead." [emphasis added] You're citing as a rule what is merely "common", while ignoring the actual "should" there. – .Raven  ^.talk 12:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Raven, stop playing stupid. You know exactly what the NCWS discussion is about, since you've participated in it.

It's also not disputed that Osmanya is an alphabetic script, though if you want to go back to the status quo ante of just "script", we can do that. I don't see what you gain by denying the obvious, as you've now been called out several times and even threatened with blocks for your disruptive behaviour, so apparently people aren't buying your idiot act. — kwami (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

On page after page, you've replaced wikilinked alphabet (=an actual article) with wikilinked alphabetic script (=a #Redirect to alphabet, no #section specified). The term "alphabetic script" occurs twice in that article, once while saying "Cyrillic is one of the most widely used modern alphabetic scripts...", once while saying "Most alphabetic scripts of India and Eastern Asia descend from the Brahmi script..." It is neither defined, nor specifically differentiated from "alphabet", in that article.* I question the helpfulness of those edits, compared to linking directly to alphabet.

* Off-WP, the most frequent definition of alphabetic script, "a writing system based on alphabetic characters", also does not clearly distinguish it from an alphabet, save that definitions of "alphabet" usually also mention "arranged in a customary [or fixed] order" — suggesting that order may be absent from an alphabetic script.

This distinction makes sense in the case of Cyrillic, a script covering several languages' alphabets with different added characters, so the set and its order vary. But in the case of a single alphabet like Vah or Osmanya or the others whose moves by you have been reverted, there is one customary or fixed order (apiece), so "alphabet" fits better than "alphabetic script".

> "It's also not disputed that Osmanya is an alphabetic script..." — Only in the general sense that all alphabets, abjads, etc., are also "scripts" as in forms of writing. Not in the sense that calling them "scripts" or even "alphabetic scripts" adds helpful information absent from the word "alphabet". As indicated above, it actually subtracts helpful information the word "alphabet" provides, that there is a single set and order of characters — which distinguishes an alphabet like Osmanya from a(n alphabetic) script like Cyrillic. – .Raven  ^.talk 08:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)