Talk:Square Hebrew

The Hebrew text that was here was merely a Hebrew version of the article. Like the article, it appeared to have been translated from the article on Spanish Wikipedia. It served no purpose here. In Hebrew Wikipedia, there is no article called "כתב מרוב". In the article on Cursive Hebrew (It was a nightmare getting those brackets in the right place!), the phrase is linked to Aramaic alphabet. I suggest that we merge this article into either Hebrew alphabet or Aramaic alphabet. As it stands, it is a very poor translation of the Spanish original, with many clearly Spanish transliterations from Hebrew; it even had Spanish inverted question marks until I removed them. Anything useful here or in the Spanish could be included in the merged article, with a redirect from this title. Really, if this topic on the Hebrew language does not warrant an entry on Hebrew Wikipedia, it is hard to justify its separate existence here. RolandR 14:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've encountered a certain blurriness of terms concerning "Square" and "Aramaic" letters; both terms seem to sometimes refer to standard modern Hebrew print glyphs, as opposed to the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet and cursive Hebrew, but "Aramaic" refers also to the Aramaic alphabet: a separate concept. Merging into Aramaic alphabet is therefore out of the question. Also, merging this article into Hebrew alphabet in its present from would devalue that article severely. On the other hand, a separate article extensively reviewing the set of standard modern Hebrew print glyphs historically and religiously could be informative and valuable. Dan ☺ 14:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This page should be deleted. The standard Hebrew alphabet article is about the "square" Hebrew scipt. This article is slapdash and poorly written. There is no reason for it to exist.CharlesMartel (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)CharlesMartel

I agree that this article is badly written, however it currently offers am account of how the square script is regarded from the Jewish traditional-religious point of view, a topic not covered in Hebrew alphabet. Dan ☺ 19:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That may be, but that merely reveals a deficiency in the Hebrew alphabet article, I believe, and is not justification for a seperate page. I'll relocate the pertinent material to the page.CharlesMartel (talk) 04:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)CharlesMartel

I would find merely "relocating" undesirable. If you have the time and energy, rewrite the material and upgrade it to a satisfactory quality fitting the rest of Hebrew alphabet, if you don't, leave it here until someone else does. And I disagree about this subject not warranting a separate article. It's completely commonplace in Wikipedia to have a smaller article covering a partial aspect of a theme of a larger article, and we don't need to make the main article more cumbersome than it is by expanding on these traditional-religious aspects as extensively as done here. Dan ☺ 20:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, it's acceptable to have a seperate article for a sub-theme of a larger one. But this isn't that. We have two articles about the same subject--one of which is comprehensive and well written, the other of which is narrow in scope and filled with improper style and grammar. This article doesn't preport to be about the "traditional-religious" aspects of the alphabet, it's presented simply as an article about the square script. Again, "Hebrew alphabet" (without qualifier) means the same thing as "square Hebrew" or "square script", and there's already a good article about that. I've added a section to the Hebrew alphabet article about the alphabet in Jewish religion.CharlesMartel (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)CharlesMartel

Nicely written! Enjoyed reading it. ✌ Dan ☺ 22:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)