Talk:Batak script

Batak script

I object VERY strongly to your moving of this article from its commonly-known English name to "Surat Batak" in which "surat" is (one must assume) just a word for alphabet or script. Please do not do this. I also object to what you have been doing to other scripts, and I will revert them and take this up with the wider community if necessary. Thank you. -- Evertype·✆ 18:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

bi, bo, bu

I do not understand what you write as from where you mention "bi". Bi is made by adding a ° to the syllab (always bottom right for all these "anak surat", children of script). What you write on "bang" is more or less correct. You add something above the syllab indeed, but that is jus t a simple -. I miss "bo" (adding a x) and "bu" (adding a >). Maarten van Thiel The Netherlands — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.82.83 (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 12 January 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:  Done (non-admin closure)  samee  ^talk 12:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

---

• Batak alphabet → Batak script
• Rencong alphabet → Rencong script

The scripts mentioned are derivied from Indic script and behave like an Indic script.

"An alphabet is a standard set of letters (basic written symbols or graphemes) that is used to write one or more languages based upon the general principle that the letters represent phonemes (basic significant sounds) of the spoken language."

"An abugida /ˌɑːbʊˈɡiːdə/ (from Ge'ez: አቡጊዳ ’abugida), or alphasyllabary, also known as avugida, is a segmental writing system in which consonant–vowel sequences are written as a unit: each unit is based on a consonant letter, and vowel notation is secondary."

Xbypass (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Remark. The page was moved from Batak alphabet to Batak script on October 31, 2013, but moved back on June 8, 2014‎ with edit summary "Consistency with other articles about abugidas". Likewise for Kawi script/alphabet, but the latter was moved a third time on March 10, 2015 and is presently at Kawi script. The present situation is that roughly half the abugida aricles has a name like "XYZ script" and the other half like "XYZ alphabet".
  I'm all in favour of consistency (and also of avoiding a slow page-move war), and therefore I think that the discussion should be held more in general for abugida articles, and not just solely here for Surat Batak.  --Lambiam 18:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Opinion It seems like Wikipedia has its own way of distinguishing between a language-specific writing system and a generic one. Please see Arabic alphabet (which is an abjad system, not an alphabetical system) and Arabic script. The former refers to the writing system used to represent Arabic, and the latter to the characters used for Arabic, Persian, Urudu, etc. --Phonet (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  The same distinction is made for Burmese and Latin, but it is not applied uniformly across the board. See for counterexamples Celtiberian script, Jurchen script, Meitei script, Mende Kikakui script, Khitan small script, Naxi script, Old Mon script, Pyu script, Telugu script, and Wolofal script. Maybe we should apply WP:COMMONNAME, which states, "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used". Both a Google books search and a Google scholar search show that "Batak script" is far more common than "Batak alphabet".  --Lambiam 12:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• The relevant conventions are at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (writing systems). – Uanfala (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per User:Uanfala's relevant conventions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (writing systems) as both Rencong and Batak scripts were used for multiple languages and per WP:COMMONNAME comments above. —  AjaxSmack  02:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support, likewise per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (writing systems) and WP:COMMONNAME, which in this case agree.  --Lambiam 11:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support; the present name is a misleading misnomer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.