| Revision as of 15:14, 11 November 2006 editNandesuka (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,890 edits →Request for Arbitration← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:01, 20 November 2024 edit undoScottishFinnishRadish (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators60,935 edits Reverting edit(s) by 202.70.139.215 (talk) to rev. 1198841457 by Qwerfjkl (bot): Vandalism (UV 0.1.6)Tags: Ultraviolet Undo | ||
| (73 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| | |||
| {{WP Writing systems}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Writing systems|importance=mid}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| |counter = 1 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 3 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(730d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:ISO 15924/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Archives |age=730}} | |||
| == |
== Voynich? == | ||
| Why is there no code for ] (International Phonetic Alphabet)? ] ] 12:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Because the International Phonetic Alphabet is Latin. ] 18:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::according to ] this would not be true. ] ] 02:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not going to debate you. Misplaced Pages articles are not normative, and the overwhelming majority of IPA letters are Latin. ] 18:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If IPA is only partial latin, then a text written in IPA cannot be tagged Latn. How would you suggest tagging such a text, Zzzz (uncoded script)? ] ] 19:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Latn. ] 19:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| a section on undeciphered writing systems?--] (]) 00:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Many writing systems which are categorized as Latin-based alphabets borrow characters from non–Latin-based writing systems. One example that sticks out for me is the ] used in Anglo-Saxon and Icelandic but originally from ]. We wouldn't classify the Icelandic alphabet as a "mixed script" just because it has multiple influences. The difference, of course, is that Anglo-Saxon and Icelandic had/have ]s (as opposed to the constructed writing system IPA), so the thorn has evolved more from the original rune (over a few centuries) than β and ɛ have from the original Greek (during the century or so that IPA has been around). But just because the IPA happens to include "foreign" characters doesn't negate the fact that it is primarily Latin-based. IPA uses every letter of the English, French, Spanish, Italian, German, Romanian, Esperanto, and even Vietnamese alphabets (excluding diacritics), whereas it borrows only seven or so characters from Greek. In an alphabet with over a hundred base characters, that's pretty insignificant. – ] <small>(], ])</small> 04:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :ISO 15924 doesn't include ] so it's out-of-scope for this article. ] (]) 03:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Special codes == | ||
| The codes could be used for ]. | |||
| Should the section about special codes | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| I copy the following here because it is related to ISO 15924 and ]. But if the cat is deleted we will not have the talk anymore. ] ] 20:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/ISO_15924#Special_codes | |||
| ] move to ] | |||
| --------------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| T H I S I S O N L Y A C O P Y, not for actual voting | |||
| *'''support''' use ] for scripts. three letter codes should only be used for languages as per ] -- ] ] 22:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - Do we have a policy on this? I'd prefer to see that cited than some ISO standard. Frankly CYR is understood widely so why change it for the sake of some process? --] 06:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **cyr (not CYR) can perfectly be mistaken as language related. Which it is not. It is script related. It's not adding more complication, it's reducing complication, because other people allready develeopped a known code list. | |||
| **do we need a policy for every little template? If you need one, than here it is: use ISO 15924 for script coding. | |||
| **where is the policy for using cyr? ] ] 09:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' we should also make sure not to run in conflict with ISO 639-3 if cyr one day should be assigned there. ] ] 11:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **I created ] - ] ] 19:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support.''' It makes sense to use both ISO standards together. It may be not such a big deal for Cyrillic, because there’s AFAIK no language of a similar name, but consider Arabic and many others where there’s a script sharing its name (and possible abbreviations) with a language. The move then is for consistency and standard compliance reasons. ] 13:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' we need to establish a central policy about the naming of userboxes or otherwise we fall into endless debates about names of ''every'' userbox.-] 16:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. This would be a very good implemention of ISO 15924, which was designed quite for this purpose. ] 19:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC) (creator of ISO 15924) | |||
| ------------------------------ | |||
| be extended? Or should a new article be started to describe them? For example, Qaal (from the private use area) is (informally) used for | |||
| ==individual links to unicode.org/iso15924/== | |||
| Michael, did you ever think about providing direct linking possibilities to unicode.org/iso15924/ like sil.org does? | |||
| *http://unicode.org/iso15924/?id=Cyrl | |||
| *http://sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=eng | |||
| We could than easily link via the Infobox WS if the Infobox has the code. Also outside the world of WP this seems helpfull to me. ] ] 14:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I have no idea what you are talking about. The first link goes to the RA homepage. The second link goes nowhere. And I don't really need any "busywork". ] 18:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=eng - corrected the link | |||
| *http://unicode.org/iso15924/?id=Cyrl - goes to RA homepage, but it could display Cyrl related content. ] ] 19:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That would be busywork. We don't have "Cyrl-related content". ] 19:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::the numeric codes would be one example of Cyrl-related. And the code ranges, the individual sign names, maye even the signs itself could be shown. ] ] 03:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| https://sv.wikipedia.org/Landsm%C3%A5lsalfabetet | |||
| == Stop adding this misleading section on "scripts missing" == | |||
| https://sv.wikipedia.org/Landsmålsalfabetet | |||
| as in (for example) sv-Qaal-SE or sv-Qaal-FI or nn-Qaal-NO etc. | |||
| The ISO 15924 Registration Authority '''objects''' to this material as it is guaranteed to become out of date and therefore it will mislead users of the ''real'' ISO standard as well as users of this page. Mr Conradi, the material you are adding is ''not'' welcome. It is ''not'' relevant to the article. I protest at your adding it, and I do not want you to continue doing it unless there is consensus from the community that it is the right thing to do. Your list could easily include ''hundreds and hundreds'' of items. This cannot be useful to anyone. -- ]·] 18:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Where should this information be made available on Misplaced Pages? | |||
| I oppose the introduction of uncited material into the article (such as the list of "missing scripts"). I would recommend that people remove it. What is the point of having the list if it is not complete? - ] ] 18:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Not a separate article for private codes. But if a Privater Use code is relevant (sources, traction, used in real life, etc), then a subsection could be added in this article. -] (]) 20:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I think it would suffice just to explicitly note that some scripts aren't yet covered by the standard, and that the 900–999 and Zzzz Private Use Area codes can be used if necessary. Besides, we already have ] to collect articles on writing systems that don't have codes. – ] <small>(], ])</small> 19:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Nuneric codes == | |||
| :Very reasonable suggestion. - ] ] 16:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There are numeric codes, whose general ranges *are* listed, but then they are *not* given individually for each script in the table, where only the alphabetic codes are listed. Why? It makes no sense to omit them (especially with all the other additional information which is suprisingly given even though it has little to do with the actual subject matter here, which is the ISO script coding and not, for example, how many characters from the script have been so far encoded in Unicode, which is off-topic info of very questionable usefulness here and certainly much less important than the actual script codes which is the actual on-topic info that unexplainably is missing), forcing the reader to tediously click through into each scriptʼs article in order to find out. ] (]) 19:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::''we already have ] to collect articles on writing systems that don't have codes. '' - which I created. But there are lists and categories. Both coexist. @Evertype: this is wikipedia not the page of "The ISO 15924 Registration Authority". They can object, but wikipedia is not here to be censored by the RA. It is valid content. And well sourced. ''"The ISO 15924 Registration Authority objects to this material as it is guaranteed to become out of date"'' - I would like to see the source of this guarantee. We do not remove lists solely because they can become out of date. Where did you get this from? This page is NOT your OWN page. ] ] 18:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Mr Conradi, what you say simply doesn't make any sense. If you make a list of scripts not in the standard and then one of those scripts gets added, your list is automatically out of date. This is a synchronization problem. It is not beneficial to people interested in ISO 15924. ''This page is ''not'' your ''own'' page''' either, and the content you are trying to add is unwelcome. I have elsewhere shown other problems with your ISO 15924 template, which for instance lists an Arabic orthography for Tatar to be a script of its own with "Arabic" as a parent script, which is simiply wrong. I do not find that your interest in ISO 15924 is making the Misplaced Pages a better place. You are adding inaccuracy and confusion. -- ]·] 20:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, wikipedia isn't paper, so we don't need to worry about things getting out of date. You can count on an editor updating the page promptly. Aside from this, Evertype ''is'' right that some of these scripts are misrepresented or non-notable. If there are some rather widely used scripts or historically significant scripts which do not yet posess a code, or if they are controversially categorised, I suppose it's best to mention them. Is shorthand codified into ISO? What about embossed scripts for the blind? If there is a definite trend towards not codifying certain types of writing systems, then they are not worth listing. '''] (]·]·])''' 21:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We have already seen that the list of codes isn't promptly or correctly updated. It also contains aliases which do not reflect the actual aliases of the standard, which is ALSO objectionable and has not been corrected though I have pointed it out. You people want these articles which duplicate the content of the standard, you people need to do your jobs and keep it up to date. -- ]·] 22:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Who is '''we'''? Or are you talking of yourself as plural since you are the personification of the ISO 15924/RA ? ] ] 11:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::We are the Wikipedians who have observed that the ISO 15924 article is not updated accurately and contains material which does not occur in the names list of the standard. We also includes members of the ISO 15924 JAC. Why are you so hostile? You are adding material to this article which does not belong here, and which causes problems for users of the standard and for users of the Misplaced Pages who may believe that the article reflects the reality of the standard in some way. The material you are adding is controversial, and unwelcome. -- ]·] 11:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::1) who are these wikipedians? 2) Can you provide an official JAC source stating what you say? If true statements about the standard cause problems for the users of the standard, than maybe the standard should be changed, not the truth be deleted? ] ] 14:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The vast majority of lists (and other articles) can, and '''do''', become out of date from time to time. Just as any such in a paper encyclopedia would. However, unlike paper those in Misplaced Pages ''can'' be updated immediately and usually are updated in some 'reasonable' time frame. If we fear that some sort of significant damage could be done by 'out of date information' the answer is not to exclude the information, but to prominently note the date as of which it is current and then provide links/references to where any more up to date/official list can be found. | |||
| :As to items not included in the standard... obviously with any relatively new (10 years or so I think... which ought to be in the article if someone knows/can find the specifics) standard covering such a vast topic there are going to be '''alot''' of things not yet incorporated / sorted out. Since they aren't really 'about' the standard I might suggest a separate page with a 'see also' from here and then the same sort of 'not included as of MM/DD/YYYY' disclaimer at the top. --] 13:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I had the same idea. The ] is created. ] ] 14:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Will add the numeric codes, good point; although their importance may be not that high, RL usage is rare (as opposed to alpha-4 code). re "off-topic" Unicode data: I disagree, because the table is intended to ''give the connection'' between ISO 15924 and Unicode script identifiers. See for example the header title & structure. ] (]) 20:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Section "Scripts without code" == | |||
| I'v removed the secion "Scripts without code", as a lot of the information in it was wrong. For example, it falsely gives ] and ] as not having codes, as well as including leet (!). I'll paste the section in here if anyone wants to modify it and add it back in. (Added below inside <!-- comments -->.) ] ] ] 21:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :remove it from the cat if you think these things are not scripts. ] ] 03:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- | |||
| ==Scripts without code== | |||
| There are also scripts that have no code. Some of them may get codes in the future. If in need of codes the private range 900-949 (Qaaa - Qabx), offers space, but only allows coding 50 scripts. The downside is that then one has e.g. alphabetic writing system not in the alphabet range. | |||
| ''in brackets, the range the script falls in is indicated'' | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] (400-499) | |||
| * ] (400-499) | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] (400-499) | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] (200-299, ) | |||
| * ] (600-699) | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] (400-499) | |||
| * ] (200-299) | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| see also: ] | |||
| </nowiki></div> | |||
| --> | |||
| == Information surpression by Michael Everson == | |||
| ] aka User:Evertype aka ISO 15924/RA . He also states that the RA objects to certain content. But this is Misplaced Pages not the RA homepage. In WP, WP rules have to be followed not external censorship suggestions. ] ] 11:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Mr Conradi. I have endeavoured to be civil with you. The RA does not favour duplication of the codes because it believes that it could be misleading to users of the standard. In particular, we are concerned where information '''differs''' from that of the formal standard. Formal standards are important. You seem to think that this page is your personal sandbox and you can put whatever you wish here. I personally do not favour my name being listed here '''by you''' because (as we see here) you have a personal interest in disputing with me. You have, above, accused me of suppression. This is POV, your POV, and it does not belong on the Misplaced Pages. You also, in your "list of scripts without ISO 15924 codes" took pains to point out that ''I personally'' disapprove of the attempt to create a script code for IPA. While this is my view, because IPA is a Latin orthography, your putting it here is an example of your POV. You disagree, so you stick my name up in order to try to discredit me. I object to this, and request (again) that you stop. -- ]·] 11:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Continual reversions, POV statements and ]. I think this heated exchange needs to be moved off the article and frankly off the talk page asap. ] 11:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::''I personally do not favour my name being listed here '''by you''' because (as we see here) you have a personal interest in disputing with me.'' - who is '''we'''?. If my opinion is of interest: I think I have no personal interest in dispute with you. Who is responsible for registring new codes? The RA. The RA appointed a Registrar. This is Michael Everson. This Michael Everson suggested IPA should be coded with 'Latn'. That's it. ] ] 21:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"We" is anyone who can read the Misplaced Pages. Several times yesterday and today on various Wiki articles you have taken pains to identify me both as Michael Everson and Evertype. You have inserted my name into a couple of articles because it suited your own POV regarding ISO 15924, IPA, and what have you. None of this is encyclopaedic. It has to do with your dispute of my views or opinions. Your saying that you have no personal interest in disputing with me is belied by your behaviour. -- ]·] 23:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Don't you have enough bacbone to stand for this decision? ] ] 21:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a personal attack. Backbone? You call me "coward" with this comment. This is ad-hominem. Leave me alone, Mr Conradi. -- ]·] 23:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I simply asked a question. I did not call you anything. IIRC I did not insert your name into "several articles". The article ] mentions lot's of things he has done. Very much helpfull things. Why shall WP not mention that name in the ISO 15924 article? Why don't you want to be related to some things you have done, while on the other hand you write on your user page how proud you are about certain other things and you also added stuff to ]? Why this split into wanted and unwanted relations? ] ] 12:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Your question was not "simple". It accused me of corwardice by its nature. You have accused me of "suppressing" information. You have inserted my name per se in the ]. You have in the past few days in several places taken pains to state on various Talk pages that Michael Everson is "a.k.a. Evertype". This is not a secret, and your doing so is a tactic designed to point at me as an individual, not as a Misplaced Pages editor. You have further accused me of falsehood and suppression, taking pains to cite links to various statements on Talk pages to "prove your case". ''I do not want you to take an interest in me, Mr Conradi.'' I have asked you before, just leave me alone. -- ]·] 16:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''Please note that I re-titled this section "Tobias Conradi's allegations of information suppression by Michael Everson". and that Mr Conradi has reverted this. I consider this to be an example of his persistent attacks on me.''' -- ]·] 13:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == What is to be done now == | |||
| I apologize for not addressing this issue sooner. However, I had the oppurtunity to visit this article earlier today (not logged in) and I'm upset by the fact that an edit war has escalated into a case of page protection. We're all dedicated to the subject, and we're all veteran editors here, so there's no reason why we can't edit this article to the best interests of the encyclopedia. Here is an idea: | |||
| Why not simply link ] under "See Also?" No list here, just a link to that. As for the dispute regarding concerning registry information, perhaps a small section could be created regarding the process and requirements for a writing system to be categorized and added to ISO. I am open to suggestions, lest we continue this edit war once the page is unprotected. '''] (]·]·])''' 04:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :AGREED, protected page is a mess. Michael, is it ok for you? The list will not be in the article. best regards to all. ] ] 12:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Since the apparent contention on this page was over the list and that list is now agreed to not be included here I'll unprotect as this seems like it may be resolved so far as this page is concerned. --] 13:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, the article is not OK for me. It contains plenty of Mr Conradi's suppositions and he has re-inserted my name in it despite the fact that I removed it. I object to Mr Conradi's suggestion that I "suppress" information and I do not want him taking an i nterest in me at all. I am going to edit this page so that it is "OK for me". -- ]·] 16:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| May I ask other editors why Mr Conradi is "allowed" to simply revert every improvement I make to this article? I spent time doing it. I was invited by Ikiroid, and indeed by Mr Conradi, to see if the text was OK with me. It was not. I edited it. Mr Conradi simply reverted it again. What can be done? Shall I seek arbitration? -- ]·] 20:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| What you call improvements are indeed to a large part deletions of verifiable facts related to ISO 15924. ] ] 20:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is incorrect. I h ave made edits correcting punctuation as well. But you just revert ''everything''. Is this fun for you? -- ]·] 09:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::1) It's not fun for me and it's untrue that I revert everything. I took over some of your corrections, did only revert ''everything'' if I thought this needs to be done. 2) May statement was ''What you call improvements are indeed to a large part deletions of verifiable facts related to ISO 15924.'' - If you reply that you ''have made edits correcting punctuation as well.'' to support the uncorrectness of my statement this does not succeed. Since ''a large part'' does not mean that ALL your edits are deletions. ''a large part'' allows for edits other then pure deletions. 3) I am not aware of edit'''s''' with respect to punctuation correction that I reverted. I am sorry if I did so, it was not on purpose. ] ] 13:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with Evertype that he doesn't need to be mentioned here. Seeing as how the information was added in amongst an aether of bad faith, we should leave it out until we can work out what of it is notable, if any. For now, we should discuss everything that is to be added into the article ''here'' first, so there are no ambiguous misunderstandings. '''] (]·]·])''' 23:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Seeing as how the information was added in amongst an aether of bad faith,''' what are you talking about? I will readd the info. It's a verifiable fact. Change WP policies if you don't like verifiable facts. ] ] 03:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::He means that you hide behind Misplaced Pages rules while doing everything you can to "win" arguments and have your own way. This is discourteous to your fellow editors, and is an example of your acting in bad faith. -- ]·] 09:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::How do you know what he means? Ikiroid, can you confirm this? How to act in future, shall I regard all explanations by Evertype of what you meant by writing to be authorative? @Evertype, are there more persons you think you can state with certainty that you know what they mean? This would give some explanation to your frequent use of plural '''we'''. ] ] 13:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for Arbitration == | |||
| I protest at Mr Conradi's insistence on reverting ''everty change and correction'' that I make to this article. I protest at his ''continued attacks'' claiming that I "suppress information". I have endeavoured to be civil and to correct errors in what he has posted. At every turn he reverts it to his own POV text. I do not know what to do. Please look at the history, look at the comments I have made when reverting or correcting his text, and look at his own comments, which are in every instance simple gainsaying and reversion. Will someone please assist us here. Mr Conradi's edits are NOT neutral, and are not much more than persistent attacks on ISO 15924, its RA, and me personally. (One may predict that Mr Conradi will respond to this by saying that I make "false claims".) -- ]·] 13:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Articles in WP very often have a space for explicit criticism. When you delete what you call ''implicit criticism'' this looks like censorship not in line with WP policies. ] ] 13:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I reiterate my request for arbitration. -- ]·] 13:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The header at ] contains some information about filing such cases. You might want to look at some of the other cases there to see how it's done. If there has not yet been a user conduct ] on this issue you might pursue that route first. ] 15:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 02:01, 20 November 2024
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Voynich?
a section on undeciphered writing systems?--142.163.195.90 (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- ISO 15924 doesn't include Voynich so it's out-of-scope for this article. DRMcCreedy (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Special codes
Should the section about special codes
https://en.wikipedia.org/ISO_15924#Special_codes
be extended? Or should a new article be started to describe them? For example, Qaal (from the private use area) is (informally) used for
https://sv.wikipedia.org/Landsm%C3%A5lsalfabetet https://sv.wikipedia.org/Landsmålsalfabetet
as in (for example) sv-Qaal-SE or sv-Qaal-FI or nn-Qaal-NO etc.
Where should this information be made available on Misplaced Pages? sign diff
- Not a separate article for private codes. But if a Privater Use code is relevant (sources, traction, used in real life, etc), then a subsection could be added in this article. -DePiep (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Nuneric codes
There are numeric codes, whose general ranges *are* listed, but then they are *not* given individually for each script in the table, where only the alphabetic codes are listed. Why? It makes no sense to omit them (especially with all the other additional information which is suprisingly given even though it has little to do with the actual subject matter here, which is the ISO script coding and not, for example, how many characters from the script have been so far encoded in Unicode, which is off-topic info of very questionable usefulness here and certainly much less important than the actual script codes which is the actual on-topic info that unexplainably is missing), forcing the reader to tediously click through into each scriptʼs article in order to find out. 92.178.80.48 (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Will add the numeric codes, good point; although their importance may be not that high, RL usage is rare (as opposed to alpha-4 code). re "off-topic" Unicode data: I disagree, because the table is intended to give the connection between ISO 15924 and Unicode script identifiers. See for example the header title & structure. DePiep (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)