Talk:Gadabuursi Somali Script

Any relation to the Greek alphabet?

Disclaimer, I'm not a linguist nor a Somali speaker. Looking at the symbols displayed and their Latin transliterations, I wonder if some of them are derived from Greek and Latin letters? This is purely uneducated speculation, but if there is any connection it would be interesting to know that. 2601:441:4400:1740:A58F:9116:857A:AB26 (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Article title

Currently it's "Gadabuursi Somali Script", all first letters capitalized as befits a book or article title – but Wikipedia sets its article titles in 'sentence case', which should make this "Gadabuursi Somali script", as only the first two words pertain to proper names.

Also, the word "Somali", though descriptive, is used when referring to this letter-set only in the title of I.M. Lewis's 1958 article "The Gadabuursi Somali Script", where it is properly descriptive, and also probably whence the WP article title came. But we're not writing about his article, we're writing about the referent; and in his article text even Lewis calls it "the Gadabuursi script" – or, as a section title, "Gadabuursi Orthography", note befitting caps – both p. 142. If we're following his example, "Gadabuursi script" is sufficient identifier for discussion. Borrow usage from his text, not his title; we do not title our work on King Arthur "The Once and Future King" just because T.H. White did.

Finally, even though Lewis used the word "script", and indeed all alphabets are scripts, the more specific term is "alphabet", and per WP:NCWS if it's "language-specific" (not used across multiple different languages like the Arabic and Cyrillic scripts) then it's an alphabet – if not an abugida, syllabary, or ideographic/logographic script, which this is not. As this has been used only for the Somali language, "Borama alphabet" (its earlier title here) was correct per this convention, and a bit more WP:COMMONNAME (64 google-hits, vs just 44 for "Gadabuursi script" – including Wikipedia and clones/copies).

I propose either "Gadabuursi alphabet" [45 ghits] or (resuming its original title) "Borama alphabet", and let redirects handle the other names that might be searched for. Discussion? – _•Raven  ^.talk 19:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

You are, agaain, purposefully misunderstanding NCWS. Just stop the bullshit. — kwami (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Direct quote from WP:NCWS#Alphabets: "'Alphabet' is used for language-specific adaptations of a segmental script, usually with a defined sorting order and sometimes with not all of the letters, or with additional letters:" [followed by list of examples]. Are you suggesting that Gadabuursi is not "specific" to the Somali language? – _•Raven  ^.talk 17:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I took care of the capitalization, as that was clearly supported by our naming conventions. — kwami (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 13 April 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. The only objection is in reference to an RFC that would have no impact on this article regardless of the outcome. UtherSRG (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Gadabuursi Somali script → Gadabuursi alphabet – See: • Clair, Kate; Busic-Snyder, Cynthia (2012-06-20). "Key Concepts". A Typographic Workbook: A Primer to History, Techniques, and Artistry. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 347. ISBN 9781118399880. alphabet: a set of visual characters or letters in an order fixed by custom. The individual characters represent the sounds of a spoken language. ... alphabets (called alphabets) which consist of separate vowels and consonants....
• "alphabet". Merriam-Webster [online]. 1.a. a set of letters or other characters with which one or more languages are written especially if arranged in a customary order
• WP:NCWS#Alphabets: "'Alphabet' is used for language-specific adaptations of a segmental script, usually with a defined sorting order and sometimes with not all of the letters, or with additional letters:" [followed by list of examples].
• Note that Gadabuursi is "language-specific" to the Somali language.
• See also what Omniglot calls it.
• Alphabet and script articles don't generally include the language name if there is another identifier (e.g. Kaddare alphabet/script, Osmanya alphabet/script; vs. Russian alphabet/Cyrillic script, Arabic alphabet/Arabic script). – _•Raven  ^.talk 03:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I count 7 separate move requests for the same redundant reason. Raven should respect the ongoing discussion on changing the wording of WP:NCWS, which may address this exact question. This article should be moved, or not, depending on the outcome of that discussion; an independent move here might need to be reverted if that discussion doesn't go Raven's way. Also, the fact that Raven continues to repeat the same misleading claims about NCWS indicates that they still fail to understand what it says, despite it being explained to them multiple times. — kwami (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  (1) "I count 7 separate move requests..." - on 7 separate article talkpages, each concerning that article alone. This is recommended procedure after a move is reverted, so you should have posted these requests (in the other direction) after your move was reverted – not reverted the reversion: it's supposed to be BRD, not BRRD.
  (2) "This article should be moved, or not, depending on the outcome of that discussion; an independent move here might need to be reverted if that discussion doesn't go Raven's way." – ❌FALSE. This request cites the current text of WP:NCWS#Alphabets as it stands, so it is unaffected if that RFC fails. It is also compatible with the RFC's proposal(s), so it is unaffected if that RFC succeeds. In other words, it doesn't "depend[] on the outcome of that discussion" at all.
  (3) "... the same misleading claims about NCWS...." – ❌FALSE. Clicking that link to WP:NCWS#Alphabets will confirm that my quote above was verbatim, word-for-word, accurate. – _•Raven  ^.talk 00:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• As I understand it, in the absence of consensus, the stable status quo ante is resumed. In that case, the 8-year-long "Borama alphabet" has best claim, because even the word "Gadabuursi" is a recent addition. – .Raven  ^.talk 05:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I originally closed this RM with the following result: no consensus. There is an ongoing RfC that is currently debating about this article and other similar articles' titles. As the RfC has not reached a consensus yet, this page will not be moved. Per a discussion in my talk page, I'm reopening it and requesting another page mover to decide what to do. MaterialWorks (contribs) 19:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus, "If objections have been raised, then the discussion should be evaluated just like any other discussion on Wikipedia: lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens (though like AfD, this is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority). However, sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if no consensus has been reached, the closer should move the article back to the most recent stable title. If no recent title has been stable, then the article should be moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." [underline added; two further explanatory paragraphs not quoted]  The underlined situation appears to be the case here.

As noted at the RfC at NCWS, "Since [the page move requests mentioned] cite and quote the current text of WP:NCWS#Alphabets, they are unaffected if this RFC fails. Since they are also compatible with this RFC's proposal(s), they are unaffected if this RFC succeeds. In other words, they are unaffected by this RFC either way." [italics as in orginal] The RFC affects only alphabets for specific uses which are not language-specific (e.g. ISO basic Latin alphabet, International Phonetic Alphabet), and clarification of multi-language general alphabets (arguably N'Ko, though that is specific to Manding languages, and preceding discussion had said "language specific" could mean to "one or more languages").

Gadabuursi, however, is a single-language [Somali] alphabet – unambiguously covered by the current definition: "'Alphabet' is used for language-specific adaptations of a segmental script, usually with a defined sorting order and sometimes with not all of the letters, or with additional letters". – .Raven  ^.talk 00:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stop. Just stop.

No sooner is the above request closed (as 'moved') and the page actually moved back to 'alphabet', and the text edited to match, than @Kwamikagami: begins reverting to their own preferred version of 'script', again without discussion or consensus, as before. This looks like the beginning of more POV edit-warring. Stop now. There's a procedure at this stage for seeking consensus to support opposed moves and reversions. Follow it. – .Raven  ^.talk 02:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

This isn't about the move, it's about your pointlessly censoring information from the text. And I don't buy your pretense that you're too stupid to understand a topic that you've spent so much time debating. I mean, is Kaddare not alphabetic just because your move request there failed? Though of course you've argued elsewhere that if your request fails, that's just as much proof that you're correct as if it succeeds, clear evidence of arguing in bad faith. Anyway, rather than playing the idiot with you, I've tagged the lead for the missing info: which script Gadabuursi is an alphabet of. — kwami (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

> "This isn't about the move, it's about your pointlessly censoring information from the text." — "Censorship" now? What was it when you were deleting the bare word "alphabet" from the titles and texts of all these articles about single-language alphabets, without discussion or consensus? While thumping as your rationale "WP:NCWS" although WP:NCWS#Alphabets flatly contradicted you? And deleting refs with WP:RS sources when they were cited to support the word "alphabet"? Oh, it's not "censorship" when you do it? Just when your non-consensus moves and edits get reverted? Well, why not seek consensus on the talkpages? Why leave that to me alone?

On page after page, you've replaced wikilinked alphabet (=an actual article) with wikilinked alphabetic script (=a #Redirect to alphabet, no #section specified). The term "alphabetic script" occurs twice in that article, once while saying "Cyrillic is one of the most widely used modern alphabetic scripts...", once while saying "Most alphabetic scripts of India and Eastern Asia descend from the Brahmi script..." It is neither defined, nor specifically differentiated from "alphabet", in that article.* I question the helpfulness of those edits, compared to linking directly to alphabet.

* Off-WP, the most frequent definition of alphabetic script, "a writing system based on alphabetic characters", also does not clearly distinguish it from an alphabet, save that definitions of "alphabet" usually also mention "arranged in a customary [or fixed] order" — suggesting that order may be absent from an alphabetic script.

This distinction makes sense in the case of Cyrillic, a script covering several languages' alphabets with different added characters, so the set and its order vary. But in the case of a single alphabet like Gadabuursi or Vah or Osmanya or the others whose moves by you have been reverted, there is one customary or fixed order (apiece), so "alphabet" fits better than "alphabetic script".

> "I mean, is Kaddare not alphabetic just because your move request there failed?" — "The result of the move request was: moved. The only objection is in reference to an RFC that would have no impact on this article regardless of the outcome."

> "I've tagged the lead for the missing info: which script Gadabuursi is an alphabet of." — You know very well there are no other alphabets using these characters; they are for a single language, which fits WP:NCWS#Alphabets: "'Alphabet' is used for language-specific adaptations of a segmental script, usually with a defined sorting order and sometimes with not all of the letters, or with additional letters". And as you said previously on WT:NCWS:

"... Any alphabet article is likely to have some background info on the script, esp. if the script is predominantly a single alphabet, and I don't see how calling in an 'alphabet' would make the article hostile to such info...." — kwami, 12:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Must we not take you at your word? – .Raven  ^.talk 03:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 February 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 16:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Gadabuursi Script → Gadabuursi Somali Script – The reason is that most sources such a I.M Lewis and others used this name: Gadabuursi Somali Script. Here are some sources:

[[1]]

[[2]]

The most well studied sources have used this name so therefore I would like it to be moved to Gadabuursi Somali Script. MustafaO (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.