Talk:Magical alphabet

Concerns regarding article

@.Raven I am concerned about this articles overreliance on Omniglot, which consensus suggests is NOT a reliable source. See here, here, and here. Additionally, in order to make the claim that people think an alphabet is magic, we need reliable sources saying so, not just a reference to the alphabet itself. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The alphabet-entries' footnotes to Omniglot are not to establish their "magical" uses (following the wikilinks to their articles will show, and RS-document, those), but to offer alphabet charts and further information. For instance, see the sections Ogham#Neopaganism and Runes#Magical or divinatory use (which in turn links to Runic magic), since those articles were concerning enough to you for you to de-list them. In the case of the Ogham entry, I included a link to "modern Druids", for whose magical use of Ogham see Druidry (modern)#Other practices, first paragraph. Perhaps I should also have included Celtic reconstructionism#Practices, see last paragraph. I drew from such article info (not thin air or my own OR) for the list-entries' short descriptions of who uses them. – .Raven  ^.talk 19:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough - reverted. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I reinstated your change of "Among the" to "Examples of", and credited you in my edit-comment; and also added "Celtic reconstructionists" to Ogham's users, per the above conversation. – .Raven  ^.talk 00:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Are there still 'multiple issues'? If so, what?

@35.139.154.158: On 17 April 2023 you added tags for 'Multiple issues', 'Original research', 'Essay', and 'Tone'. Looking at the article about three weeks later – with additional refs to document details – do you still think any of it is 'OR'? If so, what? Likewise for 'Essay' and 'Tone': would you please be specific about where these problems (still) occur? Or, if any or all of these have cleared up, would you please remove the relevant tags? I don't want to presume, and won't... unless this goes unanswered for a week. – .Raven  ^.talk 02:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@35.139.154.158: That's unanswered after nearly two weeks. Removing the tags now. – .Raven  ^.talk 19:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 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: not moved. The arguments of User:.Raven are rejected based on consensus as established in this discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Magical alphabet → Magical alphabets – The user .Raven (talk · contribs) has started to post comments to my talk page at User talk:LaundryPizza03#Magical alphabet[s] to convince me that the article Magical alphabet, which I moved from the plural on April 23, should be moved back to the plural title. Their argument is that WP:PLURAL applies beause most of the notable examples are derived from a descendant of the Phoenician alphabet. I don't believe their argument, but I have brought this to RM to settle this dispute in a civil and decisive manner. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: What's your case for leaving it at singular? CityOfSilver 17:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

That the magical alphabets are not necessarily related to each other, and that their argument implies that all descendants of the Phoenician alphabet are magical. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Alphabet also being singular. This is about the magical alphabet concept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• > "Their argument is that WP:PLURAL applies beause most of the notable examples are derived from a descendant of the Phoenician alphabet" — Not quite. From the full discussion at User talk:LaundryPizza03#Magical alphabet[s]:

[Raven:] You moved Magical alphabets to Magical alphabet per WP:SINGULAR. May I direct you in turn to WP:PLURAL#Exceptions? — "There are two main types of exceptions to this rule: • Articles on groups or classes of specific things. Some examples: ... • Articles that actually distinguish among multiple distinct instances of related items can be sensibly given a plural title when the alternative would be to create an inappropriately large number of short articles, one on each instance. The various Zeno's paradoxes, for instance, are incorporated into one article, with a correspondingly plural name."

This article is not about a magical alphabet, but about "multiple distinct instances" of magical alphabets. Please reconsider.

[LaundryPizza03:] I'm not convinced that the topic here is a "class" or that it "distinguish[es] among multiple distinct instances of related items", but rather that it is a general concept like Artificial script consisting of several unrelated things.

[Raven:] Mm. Alphabet of the Magi, Celestial Alphabet, Malachim, and Transitus Fluvii (Passing the River) have Hebrew as their "parent system", which makes them "related". Also, the last three of those, plus a greater number besides them, were created by Agrippa, another interrelation. And of course the "Magical" prefix, indicating their use by the community of occultists, makes them topically related. There is no single "the magical alphabet", so the changed title could easily mislead. That the center of the article is a list of magical alphabets, which (if that were all to it) would make the title "List of magical alphabets", also weighs toward the plural.

[LaundryPizza03:] Please start an RM to discuss this issue further. I am still fully confident that WP:PLURAL does not apply, as there are other alphabets with different sources, such as the runes which were originally used for writing Old Norse.

[Raven:] Runes, as you'll see in the infobox, include as "parent systems" Greek, Phoenician, and Proto-Sinaitic. Cf. Hebrew alphabet, which likewise includes Phoenician and Proto-Sinaitic among its parent systems. Related again!

But if you insist, then I will start an RM.

[LaundryPizza03:] But not all descendants of the Phoenician alphabet are considered to be "magical".

[Raven:] That's why the article isn't listing "all descendants of the Phoenician alphabet", just alphabets which are considered to be "magical", their topical relationship — as I mentioned above. Some alphabets are too familiar to have any secrecy in transcription, or the aura of mystique that more rarely seen alphabets provide. Being hard for outsiders (the "uninitiated") to read or understand is a plus for occultists' manuscripts... a relic from the days of heretic-hunts and witch-hunts. If the alphabet has spent most of its existence dedicated to a magical purpose, even better. The divination process Tacitus recorded — and the verses in Hávamál, notably Rúnatal (Odin's finding of the runes) and Ljóðatal (whose charms Osborn and Longland tie to specific runes) — give a strong sense of such a long continued association with what we call magic. Newer alphabets published or written by, and for use by, occultists, likewise have spent their existence dedicated to that purpose.

That's stressing the (plural) subjects' history, which their separate articles can better cover. If we focus on the reader, and what he sees going through article lists, which title will give a more accurate mental picture of the topic discussed there? Magical alphabet looks like it covers just one such alphabet; Magical alphabets promises plurality. Which would you find more interesting if your pursuits included magic?

More at that page. I did not assert "... that WP:PLURAL applies beause most of the notable examples are derived from a descendant of the Phoenician alphabet"; the point came up only because LP called them "several unrelated things".

Also, kindly note that this article's original title was Magical alphabets; I suggest that should be restored. (No move-warring here.) – .Raven  .talk 19:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose move per my comments at User talk:LaundryPizza03. This looks like a completely standard case for WP:PLURAL: a singular concept that is represented by many differently named examples, just like Horse. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't believe anything is gained or lost with or without the inclusion of an 's' in the title. Might as well follow the examples of Horse and Alphabet as stated above, keep it singular and wave a hand to WP:CONSISTENT and WP:TITLECON. ― Synpath — Preceding undated comment added 17:03, 13 July 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.