 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sources
editI have not actually seen Reisenberg & Kaneshiro first hand; this should really be checked with that article. kwami (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have seen Reisenberg & Kaneshiro, albeit several years ago. As I seem to recall, it considers there to be two entirely separate Woleai scripts, the first one incomplete and inadequate for representing the language, and the second one containing many, many more glyphs and capable of faithfully representing the language. I remember being surprised when Omniglot first put up a page about the scripts, treating them as a single, deficient script with letters of all or mostly Latin origin, which did not seem to be the opinion expressed in Reisenberg & Kaneshiro. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- They are not two entirely separate scripts and are used mixed together. The distinction has only value in terms of the original of the two sets of characters. -- Evertype·✆ 08:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well thanks again for enlightening us all. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- They are not two entirely separate scripts and are used mixed together. The distinction has only value in terms of the original of the two sets of characters. -- Evertype·✆ 08:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Woleaian chart
editThe image used on this page was taken without my permission or knowledge from a document I authored, and is not attributed as my work. I am really rather annoyed by this. -- Evertype·✆ 18:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe you should take it up with the site that we got it from, which attributes it to Brown 1914.[1] kwami (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- I do not find the image on that site. And at the image's page on Commons I find that you seem to have taken a screen shot of my code table and posted it stating that there is no author or date and that it is Public Domain. Since the Spanish site does not have the image, I do not know why you have pointed me there. Omniglot used the glyphs but rearranged them and gave attribution. I don't understand what it is that you were thinking, but the tags that you put on the image are wrong. So what's up? -- Evertype·✆ 22:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought you were talking about the other image. (Since you spoke of "the" image, I took it to mean the image I saw when I looked at the article.) Well, I did give attribution, and linked to the source. (I figured you were pretty much synonymous with Unicode anyway.) Also, AFAIK, it's public domain because you can't copyright a script. I may be wrong there, but that was my reasoning for what I did. As for author and date, I was interpreting that as the author and date of the script, since that's where the originality lies. I must have been looking at those from a copyright POV rather than for the image per se. I didn't mean to annoy you, nor to deny you credit. kwami (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- I am not "synonymous" with Unicode. The Unicode Standard and ISO/IEC 10646 are formal specifications, and what is in those is standardized for use by everybody. The proposal document was written by me, and is made available for consultation on my web site. That doesn't place it automatically in the Public Domain. The copyright is on the document, not the script, so, with all due respect, your reasoning was faulty. But apology accepted; we can make some changes about attribution and all will be well. -- Evertype·✆ 11:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, Evertype, if you want to retain copyright, then you need to have the image deleted from Wikicommons (where it is posted as "public domain") or else anyone can legally use it from there without notifying you. In order to use it here, then the chart needs to be typed de novo because Wikipedia does not allow any copyrighted images. (Taivo (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC))
- Actually, Taivo, I understand what Wikipedia allows. The image on commons is no longer listed as PD. -- Evertype·✆ 14:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I never even noticed that it wasn't posted at the Unicode website! kwami (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- The important thing is that you, Evertype, the creator, are happy with the attribution outcome. (Taivo (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC))
- Actually, Evertype, if you want to retain copyright, then you need to have the image deleted from Wikicommons (where it is posted as "public domain") or else anyone can legally use it from there without notifying you. In order to use it here, then the chart needs to be typed de novo because Wikipedia does not allow any copyrighted images. (Taivo (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC))
- I am not "synonymous" with Unicode. The Unicode Standard and ISO/IEC 10646 are formal specifications, and what is in those is standardized for use by everybody. The proposal document was written by me, and is made available for consultation on my web site. That doesn't place it automatically in the Public Domain. The copyright is on the document, not the script, so, with all due respect, your reasoning was faulty. But apology accepted; we can make some changes about attribution and all will be well. -- Evertype·✆ 11:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought you were talking about the other image. (Since you spoke of "the" image, I took it to mean the image I saw when I looked at the article.) Well, I did give attribution, and linked to the source. (I figured you were pretty much synonymous with Unicode anyway.) Also, AFAIK, it's public domain because you can't copyright a script. I may be wrong there, but that was my reasoning for what I did. As for author and date, I was interpreting that as the author and date of the script, since that's where the originality lies. I must have been looking at those from a copyright POV rather than for the image per se. I didn't mean to annoy you, nor to deny you credit. kwami (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- I do not find the image on that site. And at the image's page on Commons I find that you seem to have taken a screen shot of my code table and posted it stating that there is no author or date and that it is Public Domain. Since the Spanish site does not have the image, I do not know why you have pointed me there. Omniglot used the glyphs but rearranged them and gave attribution. I don't understand what it is that you were thinking, but the tags that you put on the image are wrong. So what's up? -- Evertype·✆ 22:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Woleaian script
editIi think the term Woleai script is more congenial. -- Evertype·✆ 17:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, it may be. Also 5 refs in Google books, vs. none for the current title, & 3 for "Woleaian alphabet", tho at least one of the latter refers to the Latin alphabet. — kwami (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)