Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Unique scripts

The following discussion comes from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. This is an archive of the discussion only; please do not edit this page. -Kbdank71 15:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Unique scripts

Current votes:

Delete (4) : Gareth Hughes, Pjacobi, Node, Evertype

Keep (4) : Phyzome, Scott, Madreburro, Dejan Cabrilo

"Unilingual Writing Systems" (5) : FrancisTyers, Grutness, Xcriteria, Stereo, Madreburro

"writing scripts used by less than three/five languages" (1) : Instantnood

Moving to unresolved. -Kbdank71 15:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a general consensus that categorizing writing systems that are only used by a single language is misleading and controversial: it ignores the complex nature of many of the writing systems listed. Gareth Hughes 11:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it leaves out some information, but I think that it is a worthwhile category to keep. I would be happy with a name change, as you can see, I came up with 'Unique scripts' after not finding anything more suitable. When I am talking about unique, I am talking about as applied today, for information available on the internet. I realise that a lot of the writing systems/scripts listed under this category are related in some way (particularly the ones from the Indian subcontinent). But does any other language you will find on the internet use the Cherokee, Armenian or Yi scripts?). - FrancisTyers 17:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep and possibly rename. This is a useful distinction, and highlights the evolving nature of language. It is useful to know which languages are more isolated in their orthography. The category is not misleading, costs little, and has no replacement (e.g., can't be duplicated by a simple search). -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 18:14, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

Delete , useless clutter. And tends to be wrong in a number of cases, because this is not a question with a clear yes/no answer. --Pjacobi 21:02, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

If an article is mis-filed under this category, un-file it. Just because some of the articles are incorrectly filed does not make for a bad category. Re: yes/no, care to name any languages apart from Korean written in Hangul? (And no reples Re: North/South, both are still Korean). As I have maintained all along, I am amenable to a rename. - FrancisTyers 21:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As per talk page, propose rename to 'Unilingual writing systems' - FrancisTyers 23:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Much better name. The current one is ambiguous. Cyrillic is a "unique script", in that there isn't another one like it - but it is used for numerous languages. Another possibility would be "language-specific writing systems". Grutness|^hello? 00:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I vote to keep it. Personally, I like categories that make it easier to explore wikipedia's content, like this. They also provide some structure to the content. Either "Language-specific" or "Unilingual" sounds good to me for a name (or even "Writing systems used by only one language"). --Xcriteria 01:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep and rename. It is an interesting category. I have often wondered about such writing systems. I like the 'Unilingual writing systems' name. --Stereo 06:59, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Keep. Maybe a bit obscure, but potentially useful. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 07:20, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Rename or not, it's interesting enough. MadreBurro 17:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've voted above to delete I'm just wondering about the keeps. In the widest interpretaion, as judged by current category assignment, all but perhaps four (obvious cases: Latin, Cyrillic, Arabic, Hebrew) to eight scripts are "unique scripts". So, to make this distinction, you want to add a new category to 200 writing system articles? It still looks like a joke to me. --Pjacobi 12:19, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

That is a wild interpretation, the name has changed, I expect that the number of articles in this category will be wildly less than you anticipate. I just made a brief survey of the writing systems I know off the top of my head and I counted 14 of them as being used for more than one language. - FrancisTyers 19:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Scylla and Charybdis then? If you start looking critically, whether the writing systems are used for more than one language (as you must have done to come near 14), you must e.g. throw out all the Indic scripts, because they are used not only for "their" language, but for a varying degree also for Sanskrit. This re-enacts my first point of criticism: It isn't a clear cut yes/no decision and is best handled by prose in the article, not by inventing a new category. --Pjacobi 23:12, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

Please remove writing systems from the category that you don't agree are Unilingual. - FrancisTyers 16:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete Almost every single thing there is wrong, wrong, wrong. With the sole exception of (perhaps) Tai Le and Yi, all of those scripts are now or have been at some point in time the most common scripts in multiple languages (Sinhala, for example, is used for not only Sinhala but Veddah and sometimes Prakrits). Most Indic scripts are used not only for Sanskrit and their own language, but often for minor (or in some cases major) local languages: for example, Bengali is used to write both Bengali and Assamese (although Assamese as a language is a relatively recent development, having trampled the Ahom language - the last Tai-Kadai language of India - which is now being revived in Assam), Sylheti at times (otherwise written in its own script), and various other languages spoken in Bangladesh and West Bengal. --Node 05:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Remove those then, as I mentioned on Category talk:Unique scripts, I may have been over zealous in applying this category. Also, I think you are exaggerating when you say sole exception. :) - FrancisTyers 16:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep and rename. Perhaps "writing scripts used by less than three/five languages" would do. By the way, there's a list of languages by writing script isn't it? — Instantnood 05:40, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete There is no saving this category. I have already pointed out that the instant any Anglophone kid in Oklahoma tries to write his name in Cherokee, Cherokee ceases to be a "unique script". My name in Cherokee is ᎹᎢᎧᎵ ᎡᏩᏐᏂ Maikali Ewasoni. Not a bit of it is Cherokee. And no, Unilingual writing systems is just as bogus. This is a "dead-end" category, with nothing to offer. Evertype 14:38, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

Keep This is a good bit of information, that can come in handy. --Dejan Cabrilo 07:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)