Template talk:Writing systems in India

Design

The current design used in this template enables the template to be seen in both desktop version as well as mobile phone version of any wikipedia page that has this template. This will help in enhancing the readership of the relevant articles from both mobile phone as well as desktop using wikipedia readers. Please don't change the design on the template without any discussion. --Haoreima (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Convert to navbox?

User:Uanfala has removed this sidebar from three articles with edit summaries like "doesn't add value to the already existing sidebar". I don't see how that's true: The other sidebars don't provide links to any of the other official writing systems. One could find one's way, in bits and pieces, to some of them by clicking links in the line of descent in the infobox and then exploring sibling and cousin systems from there, but that's not the same thing. I believe the navigation provide by this sidebar is useful.

However, these articles all already have lengthy infoboxes and numerous other sidebars and graphics on the right immediately following it. At Tamil script, the sidebars in the lead alone don't end, as displayed in my desktop browser, don't end until the middle of the second named section, where the sidebar coded at the beginning of the first named section finally appears. The seventh sidebar/graphic after the infobox is the first one to begin in its intended section. With this sidebar in place, even that one didn't begin until the second subsection of that section.

Although I'd hate to lose the nice graphic in this box, I'm thinking that it would more useful and practical to convert this to a horizontal navbox to be placed at the bottom of the pertinent articles. Largoplazo (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it from Devanagari, Gurmukhi and Tamil script. Personally, I don't think the sidebar is a good idea to begin with: I don't think "common scripts for languages with official status in India" is a particularly encyclopedic grouping. I'd rather achieve a simialr goal by having Brahmic sidebar (despite the difference in scope) use some annotation (or different formatting) to highlight commonly used scripts. Also, this template is a sidebar, but appears to intentionally avoid being formatted as a sidebar, so that it's forced to display on mobile as well (see above section). But sidebars are omitted on mobile view for a reason (they take up a lot of space at the top, with very little direct benefit for each individual article). – Uanfala (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest a consensus of some editors or an RFC instead of removal of the template from the article, based on a single person's decision, until and unless there's a wikipedia policy which endorse the removal. Whatever be the concerns of you, guys, but please don't alter the present format inside this template. It's especially designed to be made visible in both desktop and mobile versions. Template:Ancient Greek religion is present just below the infobox in the page Zeus. Similarly, this template, I hope, should be present just below all its deserved articles' infoboxes. --Haoreima (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Haoreima: There was no consensus for including the template in the first place, nor even any discussion as far as I can tell; it was added unilaterally by you, so even without considering the arguments, just from an a priori standpoint, this argument falls flat. When you consider the arguments, the case for keeping this template is even worse.

When the article version of this template (Official scripts of the Republic of India) was AfD'd, I suggested trying to salvage the article by moving it to (something like) Writing systems of South Asia, but you madr no attempt to engage with this suggestion.

The fact is that there are incredibly few languages that are explicitly singled out as official by any Indian government, national, state, or local— basically just 3. You conceded as much at the article AfD. There is no need for a template for 3 languages that are connected only on the flimsiest of bases.

Again, if you want to salvage this template, you might be able to make a case for it to be something like {{Writing systems of South Asia}} instead. But the case for this is much weaker than for the article. {{Brahmic scripts}} as Uanfala suggested seems like a better choice, IMO, although I could see the case for either. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I see @Uanfala's arguments. But scripts have a political component. An example is available in Boro language (India)#Writing system and script movement. So a grouping of "Indian scripts", where not all are Brahmic, too makes sense. Chaipau (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

FYI, @Fylindfotberserk, @Austronesier. Chaipau (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Pepperbeast has nominated it for deletion, apparently only 3 of the scripts have "official standing". We can move this one to Template:Writing systems in India. Note that Brusquedandelion proposed a page titled "Writing systems of South Asia" here, may be relevant to this discussion. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Fylindfotberserk, Chaipau, Haoreima, Largoplazo, and Uanfala: See also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_17#Template:Officially_used_writing_systems_in_India. @Uanfala hasn't edited for almost a year, but maybe this ping will remind him that his wisdom and input was highly appreciated by many here in WP. –Austronesier (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Austronesier, for pointing out that @Uanfala has neither edited nor engaged in discussions in a year. This is a great loss. I don't know the situation that led to his blanking his page, but shall try to reach out to him.

@Fylindfotberserk, it was Pepperbeast's deletions that brought me here. I agree. This could be moved to Template:Writing systems in India.

Chaipau (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Chaipau @Austronesier your comments here are not consistent with your votes in the AfD. Could you please update your posts there to reflect this? Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

"Not consistent"? How so? You might have misinterpreted the fact that Chaipau and I are capable of holding peopling in esteem that have different opinions. –Austronesier (talk) 07:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)