Talk:Baybayin

Inclusion criteria for External Links

Can someone explain what is "appropriate" for External Links? I added a reference to an online translator I developed and @Drmccreedy: removed it. Yet on the same section, there are links to 2 translators plus links to keyboard layouts, a video tutorial, etc.

I'm all for removing items that are not appropriate, but not what appears to be selective enforcement. Benbo2020 (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Benbo2020: Please read WP:SOAP and WP:COI. WP is not a tool to create a wider audience for your own web page, regardsless of whether it is commercial or non-commercial. And yes, you are right, by the criteria of WP:EL, there are several external links which should not be here. @Glennznl: Let's have a look at them! –Austronesier (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Thanks for the links. WP:SOAP states ″nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section...″ but I get the COI issue. Otoh I think there should be way to refer readers to useful resources. Ideally there would be one external link to a Web directory for Baybayin resources, but I'm not aware that such exists. Suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benbo2020 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Benbo2020: The main obstacle would be WP:ELNO, Nr. 11. We only want to direct our readers to reliable sources. Web directories with arbitrary content lead to the "jungle". Sure, user-generated content and self-published stuff can be awsome, but all too often not quite. The only way to measure this for WP's purposes is by the credentials of the author. –Austronesier (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Thanks for putting that to my attention. I cleaned up almost everything and only kept 2 of those font links from reliable sources. Glennznl (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Needs update

This article needs an update, but it would be inappropriate for me to do it. Three characters I proposed for encoding were added to Tagalog (Unicode block):

• TAGALOG LETTER RA U+170D ᜍ TAGALOG LETTER RA
• TAGALOG SIGN PAMUDPOD U+1715 ᜕ TAGALOG SIGN PAMUDPOD
• TAGALOG LETTER ARCHAIC RA U+171F ᜟ TAGALOG LETTER ARCHAIC RA

Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 11:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: Would you be able to link a source regarding this I can check? CMD (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: My papers [1], [2], [3] cite reliable sources and due to being accepted correspondence with the Unicode Technical Committee I believe have a degree of RS status themselves (although make sure the weight you give them is WP:DUE). Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Diligence with those would be more related to WP:PRIMARY than DUE I think. I've read them before, but nonetheless could you just give me the page numbers for easy checking? Also, is there a way to source acceptance by Unicode? CMD (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: You'd probably most interested in the information on the history of the characters in each paper. Tagalog (Unicode block) lists my papers and the various other documents which accepted them into the Standard. From the minutes of UTC №160:

[160-C24] Consensus: Accept U+170D TAGALOG LETTER RA and U+171F TAGALOG LETTER ARCHAIC RA with properties and glyphs as given in L2/19-258R for encoding in a future version of the standard.

And from the minutes of UTC №165:

[165-C18] Consensus: The UTC accepts U+1715 TAGALOG SIGN PAMUDPOD for encoding in a future version of the standard, as documented in L2/20-272.

Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Also, I wish to add, the degree to which you choose to view my papers as being self published sources is entirely up to you—I consider them as having undergone a quite challenging form of peer review in the Script Ad Hoc and Unicode Technical Committee, and there is a minimum process by which papers are accepted or rejected from the L2 document register as well. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 05:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, CMD said WP:PRIMARY, not WP:SELFPUB. –Austronesier (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

One step back: what do you want to be added? The three characters are already mentioned in the Unicode section. Is it about a prose mention of these in §Characteristics#Characters? In this case, your papers are in fact WP:SECONDARY, as they discuss attestations in various sources, some of them good primary sources (not the tattoo guys, though). –Austronesier (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Emphasize the incorrectness of the term "alibata".

I propose to change the wording "formerly known" to "sometimes known incorrectly", "incorrectly known", or "erroneously known" in the introductory sentence. What are your thoughts? JackH4L (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a useful judgement. These are just terms, and formerly conveys obsolescence already. CMD (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Literature

An ancient Filipino alphabet consisted of seventeen sumbol or they called it "Alibata“ 112.198.112.242 (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

"Baybayin" italicized in article

Is there a particular reason Baybayin (and a few names of other writing systems) appears in italics throughout the article? As far as I know that's not a convention for writing names of scripts in English. If it's a non-English word, what language is it in? Jsaiya (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)