Talk:Proto-writing

Vandalism from 2017

This page has been vandalized by a user in 2017 [1] S/he changed CE to BCE without any citation. I will reverse it--Gogolplex (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Jiahu symbols dated to 6000 BC probably is wrong.

Jiahu symbols dated to 6000 BC probably is wrong.

It has referrances that is later, maybe 4000 BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE0:C700:2:687C:E90D:DA70:B07D (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Adinkra symbols

Do they qualify or are they not developed enough? 37.47.225.219 (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: SLLC280 Mythology of the Oppressed

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sbaumstark, Advait vartak, KathrynB2, Tdmillington, Aadeshk, IntergalacticCiv (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by IntergalacticCiv (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Dispilio tablet

This article links to Dispilio tablet. That article seems to have serious problems regarding sourcing and notability. Though not a formal AfD (yet), I have here to delete that aricle. Please chime in there if you have an opinion (or help improve the article)! Nø (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Proto-writing dependent’s

should writing be added into an info box as a descendent of porto-writing to connect them both ways as all independent inventions of writing are linked to porto-writing. Legendarycool (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

No. For one thing, most proto-writing has not produced writing. For another, infoboxes are not inherently useful. Remsense诉 22:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

{{Infobox writing system}} is particularly inappropriate, as this article is not about a writing system, but rather a whole range of systems, none of which are writing. Kanguole 23:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

My point is that independently developed writing systems link to proto-writing so should proto-writing should connect to them as they are a descendent of proto-writing. The point that you make about this page not being about writing is technically correct but it still very much connects to writing. As for the point about most proto-writing never developing into writing, I know that—the issue could be solved by some sort of disclaimer. Lastly if I shouldn’t use the Template:Infobox writing system then what else could I use to quickly and concisely show what proto-writing on rare occasions turned into?

P.S. dispite this disagreement I truly hope both of you have a fantastic day! Legendarycool (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The article title does that. Anything else can go in the text of the article. Kanguole 11:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

My main point is that writing systems connect to this article so this article should link to writing systems. Legendarycool (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

My main point is that you are actually misleading readers by using an infobox in this way. The Writing system article is linked, and the connection is adequately explained in the text. Infoboxes are not inherently useful, like I've said above. Remsense诉 00:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain why it is misleading and isn’t the infobox ment to give accessible and concise information.

hope you are have a good day despite this misunderstanding. Legendarycool (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to provide a more complete run-down of the issues I see here:

1. {{Infobox writing system}} is, as it says, meant to be used for writing systems. This article is neither about writing nor about one system, but using this infobox will lead readers to treat the subject as both as those.
2. Again, most proto-writing systems invented by communities throughout history do not give rise to true writing systems. Presenting a single "proto-writing" as the ancestor of a single "writing" in such a simplistic manner is ultimately rather misleading. It's vaguely like:
   • Proto–Indo-European
     • North Germanic
3. Because the infobox was not designed to be used on this article, one immediately has to shoehorn concepts that don't fit when using it. Listing proto-writing as belonging to the "Asemic writing" family is even more confused than listing writing as its subfamily. These are not phylogenetic groupings, they are only abstractly related.

Point being, this is not information that can be presented neatly as quick facts an infobox, so we haven't included one. Instead, prose is the best medium: in this case, if one wishes to understand, it's best that they read the article. We can only concisely present facts if we don't mangle them in the process. Remsense诉 06:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I will give my feedback with your points.

1. I do agree… but is it right to link to proto-writing as the ancestor on the info-boxes for writing?
2. I already understood that but I now understand that you are saying others may be confused. The example was a bit confusing though.
3. for the 3rd one I agree.

overall you have eloquently explained your point and I agree. The only issue I have is what to do about writing systems linking to this page. The best solution I can think of would to add a list of independently discovered scripts and instead of having (proto-writing) it would have independently created? Legendarycool (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)