Talk:Oduduwa script

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Oduduwa script was invented in 2016 or 2017 for the Yoruba language of Nigeria and Benin? Source: Adéṣínà Ọmọ Yoòbá (10 March 2020). "This chief hopes Yorùbá speakers adopt his newly invented 'talking alphabet'". Global Voices.
  • Reviewed:

Created by Kwamikagami (talk). Self-nominated at 06:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Oduduwa script; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Thank you for creating this article! Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Africa is pretty spotty. The article needs some work before it would be ready for DYK. There are only two sources, and much of the article is still unsourced. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It is sourced. Yes, there are only two, but they cover the article. — kwami (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: It looks like inline citations (and more of them) have been added, thank you for doing that! I wonder if the BBC articles in the External links section can be used as references to add info to the article as well. I think it would improve the strength of the sourcing a bit, and they can be put in Google Translate even if we don't have a Yoruba speaker on deck right now. Overall I think this nom looks good so far. I added some subheadings to structure it a bit, but I'll understand if you wanna switch them up a bit. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps.

I hesitate to suggest an image, given the objection below, but if one would be useful, the name "Oduduwa" in Oduduwa script is . I added it to the info box per other script articles. — kwami (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

OK this is shaping up. I just have a few notes about the sources. Also, I'm not sure that there should be inline .svg images in the article. BuySomeApples (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

1. The Global Voices article doesn't seem to support the claim that the language is written from right to left.

2. The GV source also doesn't seem to explicitly state that the Oduduwa script is inspired by Latin orthography. In fact, it doesn't really say anything about the orthography of the language, so probably can't be used to cite technical info about it. Is there a different source for these facts?

3. "It has received support from other chiefs of Yorubaland in both countries as an adjunct to or possible replacement of the Latin script." I didn't see where in the sources it specifies this.

4. I don't think World Script Explorer is a reliable source, it seems like it cites Facebook and Wikipedia. BuySomeApples (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

We used images for Kaktovik numerals. When they were added to Unicode, I removed the images (Unicodified them), but people complained that they couldn't read the article. And our articles on all other scripts show the letters that are being discussed. We should do the same.

@Kwamikagami: OK that makes sense. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

All illustrations of the script show it being right to left. The 'reminder letter' is written right to left, and in the video you can see the teacher writing right to left.

This is a bit WP:OR or at least WP:SYNTH. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

No, it's a simple description. If there were an alphabet with the 26 letters of the basic Latin alphabet and 2 more, we could say it has 28 letters. See WP:BLUE. — kwami (talk)

I don't know of a different source, but the parallels to Nigerian Yoruba alphabet are transparent. A bit 'sky is blue'.

This is definitely WP:OR I'm afraid, and I think without a source it might have to be removed. It's a bit too technical to fall under WP:BLUESKY since I don't think that would be obvious to most readers. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Because all the sources talk about how this script is separate from the Latin script, we do need a source for the claim that it is based on Latin orthography. I believe you, but that's not enough to meet WP:V. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It's in the very title of the 2nd ref. And in the 1st, there's "in the company of prominent traditional rulers in Yorùbáland and the diaspora ... to solicit support".

Neither the title nor the sentence you're quoting directly says what the source says but it's definitely fixable. Can you shorten the sentence to "The language has received support from other chiefs of Yorubaland in both countries." BuySomeApples (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

They also talk about the difficulties in its replacing the Latin script. — kwami (talk)

Yes, but not about using it as an adjunct or full replacement of it. If you can rewrite it to stick to the source's content, that would make sure there are no issues. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing to rewrite. Discussions about replacing Latin with Oduduwa are obviously discussions of the replacement of Latin with Oduduwa. The alternative is to use it as an adjunct. — kwami (talk)

@Kwamikagami: That would seem like a possible policy and a possible alternative, but if it doesn't say that then we can't say that in wikivoice. The article either has to be edited to say only what the sources say, or this nom will have to be failed. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

An article is not a series of quotations. We rewrite, summarize and distill the information in our sources. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be editing here. — kwami (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Distilling a source is one thing but this is information that simply is not stated in the sources, you're inferring a lot here. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

World Script Explorer is the only source of a font that I've been able to find. Whether it cites WP is rather beside the point, as they didn't get the font from us. If we do remove that ref, I'll need to remove the description of tone marking, and say only that tone in not marked in known texts. That might be best, actually. — kwami (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

It would probably be best to remove it since the "Linguistic information" section can't be considered reliable and any analysis of its font would be considered original research on your part. I'm not sure if the article will still meet the wordcount requirements once these changes were made, but as long as it hits about 1500 that's fine. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly not OR to describe the contents of a source. It may be a problem of RS. — kwami (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It does become OR if you're analyzing it to come up with information that isn't explicitly stated in text, and the text content of that site is surely not an RS. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Looking at a lot of the sources, I can see where you're coming from because a lot of it might seem self-evident to you since you're familiar with this area. Because this is going on the front page, sourcing and verifiability is very important so it's best to stick closely to what is explicitly stated by RSes. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Challenging it as a RS is one thing. I agree with you there. But denying that sources say what they say is just silly. — kwami (talk) 05:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not silly to conclude that basing information off your analysis of a font, which is found on a site that is non-RS isn't good enough for DYK. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: If these issues can't be fixed then I'm going to have to fail this nom. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said it's silly to dismiss a claim as OR when it's in the source. — kwami (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: It doesn't count as being in the source unless the source says it. What you're saying about Oduduwa tone marking might be accurate but your analysis of an online keyboard/font is OR at best. Something becomes OR once you look at a source or sources, apply reasoning to it and then reach a conclusion that isn't stated by the source. It might seem obvious that Oduduwa script must be inspired by the Latin alphabet, but none of the sources say that. They all talk about it as something distinct from Western alphabets. It seems like the discussions involving the Yoruba chiefs would include using it as a replacement or adjunct, but the sources don't say that themselves so we can't make inferences. I'm sorry but don't know enough about this script to edit the page and I wouldn't want to edit war with you anyway, so unless these issues get fixed I'm gonna have to fail the nom. It just isn't ready for DYK like this. BuySomeApples (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of article image copyrights

Question Please check if the Oduduwa symbols, used to illustrate the page, are under copyright or not. Dahn (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC) You cannot copyright letters, so that's not an issue. — kwami (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC) I don't see why not, since these are someone's original creation in very recent times. What license where they released under, and what provisions of the Beninese law do they fall under? Dahn (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC) Whether you can see it is irrelevant -- if you don't understand how copyright works, you shouldn't be making objections on the basis of copyright. You can't copyright simple geometric designs such as letters. Otherwise I could copyright my handwriting and sue anyone whose handwriting looks like mine for copyright infringement. Some people invent scripts and claim they're under copyright, but there is no legal basis for that. You might check WP:COPYVIO for details. — kwami (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC) @Kwamikagami: I am not sure it is irrelevant in context, as the simple claim "you cannot copyright letters", as much as I would like to believe is true, has to reflect some standards -- including, in this case, the applicable law of Benin. There is nothing clarifying that these letters, or in fact "simple" geometric designs, are not under copyright; and, in any case, they would have to also be in the public domain in their home country. Dahn (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Check the past 20 years of copyright discussion on WP. Unless you have some reason to think that we've been wrong for decades, and that much of the material on WP and Commons needs to be deleted as copyvio, I don't see how that is relevant to this thread. Reminds me of the times I colored in a Commons map of the world and it was deleted as copyvio. You need some reason to think your objection has some relation to reality. — kwami (talk) 10:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC) @Kwamikagami: How about you support your view with something tangible (for instance: which discussion? link one that would apply to this case). As for me, I have clearly stated the "relation to reality": any original creation is copyrighted unless there is a valid reason to assume that it is not (such as: it is not copyrighted in either its country or origin or in Florida -- a cornerstone of Commons upload policies; or: it was released into the public domain by its creator). It should presumably be easy to indicate such a reason, instead of beating around the bush. For instance, it should be easy to indicate how norms regarding the threshold of originality relate to a new alphabet (not just a typeface), or how they are interpreted by Benin. Dahn (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Commons:Threshold of originality applies to simple geometric shapes, the Commons accepted examples are far more complicated than those. CMD (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC) @Chipmunkdavis: Per that page: "However, per precautionary principle, the image should be deleted if there is significant doubt that the image is not copyrighted." The page also has a map, showing what we do for countries such as Benin: no information on whether they accept the ToO, so we assume that they do. Sorry, but this doesn't hold water. Dahn (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC) I do not have significant doubt about these images. At any rate, none are part of the DYK nomination, and are not intended to appear directly on the main page. If you believe they are copyrighted, please raise this on Commons. CMD (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC) I don't think it matters if you are I do, but if there is an objective reason; also note that the standard is not "deleted if copyrighted", but "deleted if unclear if copyrighted or not". If you read right to the end of my previous reply, you'll see the second part. As for the rest: allow me to remind you that checking to see the proper licensing of images in the article is a DYK requirement. It is not on me to start a discussion on another project. Dahn (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Checking image licences is not a DYK requirement, the only image that needs checking is the one being proposed to appear with the hook. CMD (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Dahn, it's the "simple typefaces" where we have to worry about copyright. The fonts themselves are copyrighted, because they require substantial creative effort to produce. But writing systems are public domain. I'm not aware of a single writing system that's ever been subject to copyright. This includes Klingon, which would arguably be the artistic property of a movie studio, which would certainly enforce copyright. Yet we included Klingon on the WP logo for years. Same with tengwar and the Tolkien estate. — kwami (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC) @Kwamikagami: It seems that the reason why Klingon is assumed not to be copyrighted is because the creator has never claimed copyrights, even when it was asked about it (see here). I'm not sure under what assumption Tolkien's letters are held as public domain -- I did a search and it seems to be a circular-reference cesspool that leads back to people assuming the letters are in the public domain, but suggesting, in-between the lines, that they are not entirely sure either way. I checked the general claim: the law on whether fonts can be copyrighted is varied (again, for this case, we would have to know its legal interpretation in Benin, not just in the US); as noted here, the original designs of the fonts, namely the typefaces, can be, and often are, copyrighted. Dahn (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC) I know for instance that the law in Romania does not extend copyright to simple (and short) reproductions of printed or handwritten text, which is why you can upload a Romanian's autograph or facsimile on Commons (provided it is written down in Romania). However, if a Romanian were to create his own alphabet in 2023, there is no way in which the law could be construed to mean that the new alphabet is free to copy and use. Dahn (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Commons has a PD tag for letters etc. That means I could have used actual photographs of Oduwara text in the hook and it would pass our copyvio requirements. If you think that's in error, you can take it up with Commons, but meanwhile it's irrelevant for DYK. — kwami (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Unless the OR issues are addressed then the nomination can't be approved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)