Talk:Hieratic

message: --------------
What is the DIRECTION of writing?  right to left?  left to right? vertical?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.7.247.24 (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

message: Re: standardisation of horizontal writing. "This may have been to prevent the scribe's hand from smudging his work (1), but it also may have been to facilitate easier consultation of a rolled document, as well as increasing writing speed (2)." 
Argument: Author makes invalid speculation (1) and (2). 
Proposed action: Delete this line.
1. Smudging of work has nothing to do with vertical or horizontal scripting. It is caused by the direction of the script between left and right conflicting with the hand used by the writer. It will happen in all forms of writing where the stylus is grasped close to the page and this conflict occurs. A typical example occurs in classrooms (left > right script) when a left-handed person writes English in pen and smudges their work. If the same person wrote in vertical script their writing would still smudge unless the ink dried rapidly because the columns still would run left>right and the writing hand would still brush over the existing writing. Smudging would similarly occur if a right handed person wrote right>left either horizontally or vertically without due care.
2. The author's argument is only true if a scribe using vertical script would orient their 'page' in portrait format, rather than in landscape. By changing the page layout to a (horizontally scrolling) landscape format when using vertical script, there is essentially no difference in the speed by which one may draft or consult a rolled document. This layout has the same advantages as horizontal script in a (vertically scrolling) portrait layout so long as the reader/writer is equally familiar with both. HMS DigDug (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Changes

message: Well, the article has improved a lot, but it is still "start" class. It is still missing important information, such as how the script actually records the language (how similar is it to hieroglyphics?) and the "influence" section needs to be finished. An article can only be "B" class when all but the most minute details have been included. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reassessment

message: The image to the left indicates left-to-right writing, which seems like erroneous: the src at omniglot.com claims that Hieratic was right-to-left writing. The image is misleading, so I removed it from the article. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Image removed

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hieratic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061009200956/http://eprints.ouls.ox.ac.uk/archive/00001055/ to http://eprints.ouls.ox.ac.uk/archive/00001055/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed the link for "Reformed Egyptian" from "See Also," as this is not an actual language.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasquatchwithalopecia (talk • contribs) 18:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Reformed Egyptian" 

message: Hello .  I removed your Hieratic#Font and Demotic (Egyptian)#Font additions because adding an entire section describing an external link isn't acceptable Wikipedia practice.  Per Wikipedia:External links: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article."  I don't know if you're associated with the fonts but the sections come off as WP:PROMOTION.  If these aren't your fonts (per WP:ADV), and you feel they fall under the guidelines of what can normally be linked, I suggest you add the links to the external links section as a single line, like "Free, non-Unicode Hieratic Font". DRMcCreedy (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI: This discussion has moved to Talk:Demotic (Egyptian)#Removed font section. DRMcCreedy (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed font section