Talk:Traditional Mongolian alphabet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Proposed move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Traditional Mongolian alphabetClassical Mongolian alphabet – I know this was used to write more than just the "classical" literary standard, but wouldn't "classical" be a better dab for the alphabet than "traditional"? Relisted. BDD (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)kwami (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC) — kwami (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Any reason this article shouldn't be merged with Mongolian script? Neither article is particularly long and there's a lot of content overlap. Then the title issue would be moot. —  AjaxSmack  04:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
That would work too.
I'm not arguing that we should move the article, I just came across the term 'classical' and wondered if it might be the one we want to use. — kwami (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Both terms are used and I'm fine with the move simply because "classical" sounds more like a title (cf. Classical Mongolian) and "traditional" more like an informal description.  AjaxSmack  03:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Some idiot's been messing w that rd. It obviously should not rd here, since this is not the Mongolian alphabet. — kwami (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed merge[edit]

Traditional Mongolian alphabet/Classical Mongolian alphabetMongolian script

Traditional Mongolian alphabet/Classical Mongolian alphabet was part of Mongolian script until a sudden split a couple of years ago. However, the two topics are still better dealt with together. The Mongolian script article has a hole in it—it mentions derived scripts but the section for original script is blank—and neither article is particularly long. Comments? —  AjaxSmack  03:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I split it off in an attempt to give the topic better balance: A central article for the script, and separate articles for each of the alphabets. This is what we do for Latin, Arabic, etc. The articles clearly need a lot of work, but I'm not sure reverting the split is the best way to go. — kwami (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The comparison with latin and arabic doesn't seem very helpful, because their situation is very different. Instead of a common script with alphabets for many languages, here we have a series of steps and branches in a historical development, most of which have fallen out of use, and all of which relate to the same language. In fact, the way that the mongolian script is used today, it is really a cumulated combination of many of the historical side branches. Any split between "script" and "alphabet" is rather artificial and confusing in that situation. --Latebird (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
It looks like there are some confusions in those articles. Mongolian alphabets is about mongolian scripts (not only alphabets), Mongolian script is about variants of mongolian (traditionnal) alphabet. Traditional Mongolian alphabet, that is about mongol bitchig, that means traditional mongol, is the only one that has a correct name.
  • agree -- should be merged.--HD86 (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)