Talk:Kaddare alphabet

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: moved. The only objection is in reference to an RFC that would have no impact on this article regardless of the outcome. UtherSRG (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kaddare script → Kaddare alphabet – Undo the revert of a reversion, to status quo ante of 13 Feb 2019, i.e. this is BRRD. See:
• Clair, Kate; Busic-Snyder, Cynthia (2012-06-20). "Key Concepts". A Typographic Workbook: A Primer to History, Techniques, and Artistry. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 347. ISBN 9781118399880. alphabet: a set of visual characters or letters in an order fixed by custom. The individual characters represent the sounds of a spoken language. ... alphabets (called alphabets) which consist of separate vowels and consonants....
• "alphabet". Merriam-Webster [online]. 1.a. a set of letters or other characters with which one or more languages are written especially if arranged in a customary order
• WP:NCWS#Alphabets: "'Alphabet' is used for language-specific adaptations of a segmental script, usually with a defined sorting order and sometimes with not all of the letters, or with additional letters:" [followed by list of examples].
• Note that Kaddare is "language-specific" to the Somali language.
• See also what Omniglot calls it. – _•Raven  ^.talk 03:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I count 7 separate move requests for the same redundant reason. Raven should respect the ongoing discussion on changing the wording of WP:NCWS, which may address this exact question. This article should be moved, or not, depending on the outcome of that discussion; an independent move here might need to be reverted if that discussion doesn't go Raven's way. Also, the fact that Raven continues to repeat the same misleading claims about NCWS indicates that they still fail to understand what it says, despite it being explained to them multiple times. — kwami (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (1) "I count 7 separate move requests..." - on 7 separate article talkpages, each concerning that article alone. This is recommended procedure after a move is reverted, so you should have posted these requests (in the other direction) after your move was reverted – not reverted the reversion: it's supposed to be BRD, not BRRD.
  (2) "This article should be moved, or not, depending on the outcome of that discussion; an independent move here might need to be reverted if that discussion doesn't go Raven's way." – ❌FALSE. This request cites the current text of WP:NCWS#Alphabets as it stands, so it is unaffected if that RFC fails. It is also compatible with the RFC's proposal(s), so it is unaffected if that RFC succeeds. In other words, it doesn't "depend[] on the outcome of that discussion" at all.
  (3) "... the same misleading claims about NCWS...." – ❌FALSE. Clicking that link to WP:NCWS#Alphabets will confirm that my quote above was verbatim, word-for-word, accurate. – _•Raven  ^.talk 00:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No other comments besides the original mover (kwami)'s, so far. As I understand it, in the absence of consensus, the stable status quo ante (in this case "Kaddare alphabet") is resumed. – .Raven  ^.talk 05:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I originally closed this RM with the following result: no consensus. There is an ongoing RfC that is currently debating about this article and other similar articles' titles. As the RfC has not reached a consensus yet, this page will not be moved. Per a discussion in my talk page, I'm reopening it and requesting another page mover to decide what to do. MaterialWorks (contribs) 19:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus, "If objections have been raised, then the discussion should be evaluated just like any other discussion on Wikipedia: lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens (though like AfD, this is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority). However, sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if no consensus has been reached, the closer should move the article back to the most recent stable title. If no recent title has been stable, then the article should be moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." [underline added; two further explanatory paragraphs not quoted]  The underlined situation appears to be the case here.

As noted at the RfC at NCWS, "Since [the page move requests mentioned] cite and quote the current text of WP:NCWS#Alphabets, they are unaffected if this RFC fails. Since they are also compatible with this RFC's proposal(s), they are unaffected if this RFC succeeds. In other words, they are unaffected by this RFC either way." [italics as in orginal] The RFC affects only alphabets for specific uses which are not language-specific (e.g. ISO basic Latin alphabet, International Phonetic Alphabet), and clarification of multi-language general alphabets (arguably N'Ko, though that is specific to Manding languages, and preceding discussion had said "language specific" could mean to "one or more languages").

Kaddare, however, is a single-language [Somali] alphabet – unambiguously covered by the current definition: "'Alphabet' is used for language-specific adaptations of a segmental script, usually with a defined sorting order and sometimes with not all of the letters, or with additional letters". – .Raven  ^.talk 00:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note - for this and other recent RM's (and I haven't checked if anybody else mentioned this elsewhere) that Omniglot has been referenced in a few WP:RSP discussions regarding reliability, and the (very limited) consensus so far is that it is not. Like Wikipedia, however, some pages may have sources which may be reliable themselves. ASUKITE 16:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions note that Simon Ager tends to cover the topics that interest him, rather than attempt to cover every writing system or language in the world.

This means that for statistical comparisons (relative numbers of types), don't rely on Omniglot.

However, no-one has faulted him on maintaining factual accuracy in the topics he does cover, because he does accept corrections and other information by email. – .Raven  ^.talk 14:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]