Talk:False writing system

As far as I know, it's not definitively known that the writing in the Voynich Manuscript is a false writing system. --Brion 07:56 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC)

"Artificial"?

To the best of my knowledge, all alphabets are "artificially constructed". One does not, after all, find them growing from trees, or lying around on beaches.

The definition of "false writing system" given in this article makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There are 'writing systems and codes/ciphers which are established and generally accepted' of varying ages (modern ones would include road signs, scientific-mathematical systems, written Morse code and possibly even Klingon). there are 'background texts/necessary documents within stories (treasure maps being a prime example) and artistic and other constructs, and 'things which are meant to deceive for malicious purposes.' Presumably the intent of the article is to cover the latter uses and to create a listing. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm very suspicious of this entire entry: the Codex Seraphinianus and Voynich Manuscript each may or may not be fake, but there's currently no way of knowing. Moreover, the phrase "false writing system" seems to exist only in this Wikipedia page and other pages derived from it. As such, I can't help but feeling that this page is itself some kind of fake. Proposed for deletion. Nickpelling (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The author of the Codex Seraphinianus said it was just an artistic work and the language contained in it is not real. The Voynich Manuscript still remains a complete mystery, though. As to the article's concern: yes, it is poorly written and unsourced. But the concept it is trying to explain certainly exists: writing systems with no meaning are used in comics and many artistic works (asemic writing is an example). I would both rewrite the article and search for sources, but deleting? I wouldn't do that. - Alumnum (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggest this article to be merged into asemic writing. This article discuss about the same thing the longer one does. - Alumnum (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I also endorse this merger. This article is only a poorly written stub-class that carries no relevance on its own. Merging it with Asemic writing may provide more context for this article. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 01:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't refer to anything, gives unsourced comments and opinions, and doesn't obviously add anything useful to the topics of cryptographic writing and/or asemic writing. Hence I still think deleting it would be a genuinely better outcome than merging. Nickpelling (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)