Talk:Kharosthi

Page name contains undisplayable character

This is an example of a Wikipedia title that won't display properly on my computer. Even though I have a UNICODE font downloaded (which I imagine most English users won't) I still see "Khar**hi" where the * is an open rectangle denoting a missing character.

I can understand the importance of faithful preservation of foreign references in English text, although it leads to supposedly English-language articles that are unpronounceable by English speakers and often unrenderable on computers configured for English speakers.

If the English Wikipedia is going to run the gamut of foreign language characters, it would be nice to provide a simplified download and installation of the font(s) required to display those characters. User:24.147.11.214 13:08, 25 October 2005‎ (UTC)

• I strongly agree with the above unsigned suggestion. Can anyone please make any suggestions as to how we can get more diacritics added to the characters availabel for editing WP articles? John Hill (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• The whole alphabet table does not display on my browser either. The entries should preferably be images, with the UNICODE characters besides them (or in a separate table), possibly linked to entries in some UNICODE database. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• *

File:PhiloxenusCoin.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PhiloxenusCoin.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived 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: not moved. Non-admin closure TBrandley 20:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Kharosthi → Kharosthi script –

• Other script articles also have "script" in their titles e.g. Cyrillic script. Khestwol (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not completely opposed to this, but it warrants discussion. Cyrillic script is WP:PRECISE because there are other uses of "Cyrillic." That doesn't seem to be the case here. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Why? If there is no ambiguity, there is no need for "script". Cf. Devanāgarī, Kanji. —  AjaxSmack  02:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's far too much unnecessary in-title disambiguation within Wikipedia. Imc (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2013 (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.

How Kharoshti is not Brahmi derivative?

Kharoshti script is abugida just like the rest of brahmi derivatives. either brahmi is derivative of kharoshti or vice versa, there is no chance of two abugidas from indo aryan family having distinct origins. Kharoshti is brahmi derivative just like all the rest of indian scripts, biased scholars are just not accepting this very simple fact.Rameezraja001 (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

You'll need to come up with citations to support your "very simple fact". Verifiability is how Wikipedia functions. DRMcCreedy (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer disruption

A chronic sockpuppeteer, recently added POV content already present in the article. While reverting the edits that the sock had done in multiple articles, I did the same here per WP:DENY. They were restored without explanation, the sock edit inserted: ""Indo-Bactrian" script was an writing system originally developed in present-day northern Pakistan, sometime between the 4th and 3rd century BCE" into the lead. While the latter part is clearly WP:POVPUSH (already present in the article with a better flow as "used by various Indo-European peoples in present-day northern Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan. It was used in Central Asia as well. An abugida, it was introduced at least by the middle of the 3rd century BCE, possibly during the 4th century BCE, and remained in use until it died out in its homeland around the 3rd century CE."; the alternative names of "Indo-Bactrian", "Indian Pali" and "Arian Pali" as cited in the article are very uncommon (e.g. Kharosthi at the Encyclopædia Britannica) to merit inclusion in the lead.

While removing the obvious POVPUSH duplication, I have shifted the alt names to the hist section. Gotitbro (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I misread "Indian Pali" as an alt name for this script but the rest of the comment stands. No way is doing away with sockpuppet edits and trying to settle the content is disruptive (WP:STABLE and DENY have already been cited). You can try and reach a consensus here, WP:EDITWARRING is not going to get anywhere. This specific holding on to the edits of a sock should not be a priority. @Khestwol, Kashmiri, पाटलिपुत्र, and Uanfala: inviting past contributors for comments. Gotitbro (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)