Jump to content

Talk:ISO 15924/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Archive 1

Userboxes

The codes could be used for Wikipedia:Userboxes/Writing systems.

Category_talk:User cyr

I copy the following here because it is related to ISO 15924 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ISO 15924 codes by letter code. But if the cat is deleted we will not have the talk anymore. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 

Category_talk:User cyr move to Category_talk:User Cyrl

T H I S   I S   O N L Y   A   C O P Y, not for actual voting

Michael, did you ever think about providing direct linking possibilities to unicode.org/iso15924/ like sil.org does?

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. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 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". Evertype 18:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
That would be busywork. We don't have "Cyrl-related content". Evertype 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. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

IPA

Why is there no code for IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet)? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Because the International Phonetic Alphabet is Latin. Evertype 18:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
according to IPA this would not be true. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to debate you. Wikipedia articles are not normative, and the overwhelming majority of IPA letters are Latin. Evertype 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)? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Latn. Evertype 19:47, 3 September 2006 (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 thorn used in Anglo-Saxon and Icelandic but originally from Elder Futhark. 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 natural writing systems (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. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 04:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding this misleading section on "scripts missing"

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. -- Evertype·✆ 18:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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? - Francis Tyers · 18:54, 7 November 2006 (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 a category to collect articles on writing systems that don't have codes. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 19:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Very reasonable suggestion. - Francis Tyers · 16:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
we already have a category 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. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 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 Wikipedia a better place. You are adding inaccuracy and confusion. -- Evertype·✆ 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. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 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. -- Evertype·✆ 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 ? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 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 Wikipedia who may believe that the article reflects the reality of the standard in some way. The material you are adding is controversial, and unwelcome. -- Evertype·✆ 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? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 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 Wikipedia 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. --CBD 13:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I had the same idea. The list of writing systems without ISO 15924 code is created. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi's allegations of information surpression

Michael Everson aka User:Evertype aka ISO 15924/RA tries to surpress information about ISO 15924. He also states that the RA objects to certain content. But this is Wikipedia not the RA homepage. In WP, WP rules have to be followed not external censorship suggestions. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 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 Wikipedia. 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. -- Evertype·✆ 11:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Continual reversions, POV statements and personal attacks. I think this heated exchange needs to be moved off the article and frankly off the talk page asap. Pete Orme 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. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
"We" is anyone who can read the Wikipedia. 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. -- Evertype·✆ 23:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't you have enough bacbone to stand for this decision? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 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. -- Evertype·✆ 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 Michael Everson 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 Michael Everson? Why this split into wanted and unwanted relations? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 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 List of writing systems without ISO 15924 code. 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 Wikipedia 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. -- Evertype·✆ 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. -- Evertype·✆ 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 List of writing systems without ISO 15924 code 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. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 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. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 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. --CBD 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". -- Evertype·✆ 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? -- Evertype·✆ 20:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What you call improvements are indeed to a large part deletions of verifiable facts related to ISO 15924. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 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? -- Evertype·✆ 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 edits with respect to punctuation correction that I reverted. I am sorry if I did so, it was not on purpose. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 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. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 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. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
He means that you hide behind Wikipedia 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. -- Evertype·✆ 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. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 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".) -- Evertype·✆ 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. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I reiterate my request for arbitration. -- Evertype·✆ 13:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The header at WP:RFArb 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 RFC on this issue you might pursue that route first. Nandesuka 15:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

B/T codes

Preference is given to the 639-2 B-codes, which is different to the otherwise often favored use of the T codes. was changed to Preference is given to the 639-2 Bibliographical codes, which is different to the otherwise often favored use of the Terminological codes.

1) Why uppercase? 2) this are not official names. IIRC official is codes for bibliographical use which is not bibliographical codes. But the latter may be a minor thing. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it is conventional. Please do not change it, as you will make it less accurate and helpful to users of this article. -- Evertype·✆ 16:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
can you cite sources? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? B stands for Bibliographical. T stands for Terminological. This needs no sourcing. There is no reason to be worried about "official" names. Do you understand anything about ISO standards? Questions like this certainly suggest that you do not. Or, since this is "a minor thing", are you just asking about it because you like people to pay attention to you? -- Evertype·✆ 00:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning by Nandesuka

just to let interested people know: I received a threat by User:Nandesuka Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a "threat" user Tobias Conradi, it's a very sensible attempt to persuade you to stop vandalising this page - your best bet is to pay attention to the warning, otherwise you will end up blocked as a user. MarkThomas 16:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

certainly it is. Please provide a diff for your claim of vandalism. Or otherwise correct your statement. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Does the fact that admins have now been forced to protect what would otherwise be a perfectly straightforward, obscure, uncontroversial and factual page suggest anything to you in this regard Tobias? MarkThomas 19:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka did not refer to your edits as "vandalism", Tobias, but the Three Revert Rule (3RR) applies to all edits, not just vandalism. The idea is that you should discuss controversial edits on the talk page and reach consensus with other editors before applying them to the articles. Clearly your edits to this article are controversial, since parts of your additions been reverted not only by Michael Everson, but also by Jon Harald Søby, Ikiroid, and Mark Thomas. It looks like this whole edit war started with a well-intentioned edit by you, which could be why no administrator has blocked you yet, even though you've restored your edits several times. And of course, since it takes two to have an edit war, Michael came close to violating the rule as well... – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 21:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The thread seems to have gotten somewhat confused. It looks like Nandesuka removed some of Tobias Conradi's comments, but basically... it doesn't look like he was saying that Nandesuka accused him of vandalism. That was directed to MarkThomas, who (along with Evertype), actually did do so. Which was both incivil and incorrect as disputes over content are not vandalism. There needs to be alot less accusation, assumption of bad faith, and hostility all around here. Ikiroid has been trying to make reasonable compromisse suggestions, but that isn't going to get very far when the primary disputants are more focused on insulting each other than coming up with something which everyone can live with. --CBD 05:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Always capitalized?

Are these ISO codes supposed to be capitalized all the time or can they be lowercase? 76.16.187.218 (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

They are case-insensitive, but the initial capital letter and three following small letters are recommended. By me. -- Evertype·✆ 14:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yi script

Yi script gets a code 460. However, classical Yi language was logographic. Do it need to get another code, or is 460 an inappropriate designation? -✉ Hello World! 05:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. -- Evertype·✆ 14:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

HTML lang and xml:lang attributes

Can these codes be used in HTML lang and xml:lang attributes? If so can they be used independently of language codes? Are <span lang="te">, <span lang="te-Telu">, and <span lang="Telu"> all equally valid?

Can they be used in CSS selectors?

If so can selectors work with just the language code or just the script code or must they match exactly as specified in the HTML attributes?

How good is current browser support?

— Hippietrail (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2008 (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 Linear A and Linear B 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 -->.) Jon Harald Søby 21:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

remove it from the cat if you think these things are not scripts. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


Just stumbled over this interesting script (developed in the 20th century?) that can be used to write “the Zaghawa Beria language”. The short text does not make clear whether the script has a name, whether there are any people who can read and write it other than its developers, and whether the PDF sample consists of random letters or real language. If somebody knows more about it, a Wikipedia stub would be great.-Wikipeditor (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there an unzipped machine readable version available?

It's very handy for programmers to be able to access plain text machine readable versions of standards so they can convert them into data structures for further use.

While ISO 639 and ISO 3166 are available in such a form ([1] and [2]), ISO 15924 seems only to be available in zipped form ([3]). This complicates any software that wishes to stay up to date by periodically referring to the ultimate sources for current standards as unzipping is not easy to achieve in some environments such as JavaScript.

Is there a location for ISO 15924 in unzipped form somewhere? — Hippietrail (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge from List of ISO 15924 codes

 Done
Propose merging the page List of ISO 15924 codes into this one.

  • The list is indeed only a list (with about 150 records), and does not add anything as a separate article. btw, I just made the list a collapsable table.

-DePiep (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Merged: the List is merged into this page. The merged page changed into Redirect. Talk and History stays at List of ISO 15924 codes. -DePiep (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Scripts without ISO 15924 code

Category:Scripts without ISO 15924 code currently contains the following pages: Gugyeol, Gupta script, Hentaigana, Klingon alphabets, Laṇḍā scripts, Old Uyghur alphabet, Proto-Sinaitic script, Szarvas inscription. This category discussion has concluded that the category should not exist, but it is not clear whether this information (especially as uncited) can be integrated into this article. DexDor (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

What's an "inherited script"?

That's all the info Unicode gives for some glyphs; have no idea what it means. — kwami (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Read Unicode’s Technical Report 42 (Unicode Script Property): “Inherited—for characters that may be used with multiple scripts, and that inherit their script from the preceding characters. These include nonspacing marks, enclosing marks, and the zero width joiner/non-joiner characters.” LiliCharlie (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Japanese

"Japanese" ("Jpan") refers to "Hani", "Hira" and "Kana", all of which say "L-to-R", yet Japanese is also commonly written vertically e.g. in books and newspapers.

Using "Kana" to mean "Katakana" is highly confusing since the word "kana" refers to both hiragana and katakana (see Kana). Is this ISO terminology over which we have no control or can it be changed? 109.146.248.31 (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Various East Asian writing systems, including Japanese, Chinese and Korean may be written either horizontally left-to-right or vertically in columns running right-to-left, but from a Unicode perspective kanji/hanzi/hanja, hangul, hiragana, and katakana are all classified as having LTR directionality. In ISO 15924 'Kana' is a four letter mnemonic code representing katakana (see http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/iso15924-codes.html), and it should not be used as a term for katakana in running text here on Wikipedia. BabelStone (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
"Kana" should not be used as a term or code for katakana (alone) anywhere. If it is, that is unfortunate. 109.146.103.153 (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
BTW, the LTR thing was an issue at Japanese writing system where it apparently caused, though some complicated interaction, the writing direction in the language infobox to read "Left to right", which is misleading. However, another editor has now fixed this to read "mixed", I know not how. 109.146.103.153 (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
... however, I have just noticed that hiragana and katakana also say "Left-to-right" in the language box, presumably for the same reason. 109.146.103.153 (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Kana may look unfortunate to you, yet it is the valid ISO 15924 code for Katakana.
In article Japanese writing system template {{Infobox writing system}} calls template {{ISO 15924 direction}} with ISO 15924 code Jpan, and {{ISO 15924 direction}} returns Varies. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
It isn't just me. "Kana" means hiragana + katakana. Any source will tell you that. The people at ISO made a bad choice, that's all. If they wanted the partner code to "Hira" then it should have been "Kata". Perhaps someone made a typing slip that went unnoticed and then could never be corrected. 109.146.103.153 (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
... but going back to the other point, is there anything that can be done now to fix the issue whereby hiragana and katakana articles both say "Left-to-right" in the Infobox? 109.146.103.153 (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  1. Kana here is an ISO code, not the Romanization of Japanese 仮名.
  2. Yes, those could be changed by editing {{ISO 15924 direction}}. However I don't think the value Varies for ISO 15924 script Jpan is correct (or even defined), so I have started a discussion. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Iberian scripts

I can't find the Iberian scripts in the standard. Are they considered as under another code? Is there a reason why they don't have been assigned a code? --Error (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

These questions have nothing to do with Wikipedia. Please contact the ISO 15924 Registration Authority if you have any questions about ISO 15924 codes or if you wish to request a new code. BabelStone (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The criteria for including or not a script would be matter for the article if they are known. It seems that's not the case. --Error (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Mong

The entry on Mong indicates that this includes Clear and Manchu scripts as well, but the normative text file just states: 

Mong;145;Mongolian;mongol;Mongolian;3.0;2004-05-01

And since Clear and Manchu are different scripts that would mean they actually haven't got a four letter code. Or are they considered similar enough? To my eyes they look as different as Greek and Cyrillic though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The Unicode Standard has this to a say in Chapter 13.5: "The Mongolian block unifies the traditional writing system for the Mongolian language and the three derivative writing systems Todo, Manchu, and Sibe". So I'd say ISO 15924 "mong" covers Clear and Manchu. DRMcCreedy (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Todo script is the Unicode/ISO 15924 term for Clear script, and all Unicode characters whose name starts with MONGOLIAN LETTER TODO have the script property Mong/Mongolian. — More Unicode documents on Mongolian including Todo can be found on their Topical Document List: Mongolian. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It is interesting to think that if the dice of fate had landed somewhat differently, the Latin, Greek and Cyrillic o might have had the same codepoint...

Regardless, I think that a reference should be inserted in the article that clearly states that Mong also applies to Clear/Todo and Manchu. Unfortunately none of the pages you've shown me really serves this purpose. For example, chapter 13.5 doesn't mention four letter codes at all and the ‘derived scripts’ language they use could be taken either way I suppose. The fact that all Mongolian/Clear/Manchu codepoints have the Mong script attribute doesn't mean much either, since it is possible for a script to need some characters tagged with a different script attribute. Even if we ignore Zyyy characters, Hant (traditional Chinese) even if we go by HanType rather than Script needs both Hant and Hani characters. Latf (fraktur) and Latg (gaelic) variants of Latin require only Latn characters. Yes, it's consistent with Clear and Mancho using the Mong code. But it's also consistent with no script code being assigned to those, yet. Therefore the script attributes cannot be used as a reference. So what we need is a normative text that unambiguously states that the script code for these scripts is Mong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

You're right that some scripts use characters designated with a different script attribute. This is handled by adding four letter codes via ScriptExtensions. For example, U+1805 MONGOLIAN FOUR DOTS is used by both Mong and Phag. I wouldn't expect the ISO 15924 documentation to be so specific that it lists out Manchu and Clear/Todo for the Mong code. You can contact the ISO 15924 Registration Authority to verify what Mong covers or to request new codes. DRMcCreedy (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Large overview table, question

In section ISO 15924 § List of codes, there is the ~200 row table {{ISO 15924 script codes and related Unicode data}}. All fine.

Over here, I propose to remove the Unicode columns "Version" and "[number of] Characters". If you are interested, please join the talk there. -DePiep (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:ISO_15924/Archive_1&oldid=1135021826"