Template talk:Alphabet

message: All the articles in "Category:Alphabetic writing systems" could (should?) be added into this porges 04:42, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see the need for this navbox. The category already does the same thing better.  — Gwalla | Talk 05:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was intending something like what dab has done, but had a break for a while after so I didn't get around to doing it before he/she did :) porges 03:51, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
The template should arrange the alphabets by relationship (i.e. genetically), otherwise it's just equivalent to the category. I'll try my hand. dab (ᛏ) 14:20, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rearrangement

message: it's difficult to classify alphabets as genetically related, in cases where the characters didn't just evolve through "wear and tear" but a concious act of invention intervened. The alphabets not listed as dependent on Proto-Canaanite are suggested to be original inventions. Glagolitic was invented by one man in the 9th century, but it is obvious that it is partly inspired by the Greek alphabet. So it is quite ok to list it as dependent on Greek, but it should be above, not below cyrillic, since it is slightly older. Armenian is another case of an "invented" alphabet. It its case, there is no clear dependency on earlier alphabets, so I think we should properly leave it listed as an original invention. dab (ᛏ) 07:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Glagolitic

message: Cree can be classified as abugida, but Hangul is an alphabetic writing system. If the purpose of this template is to show the lineage between Western alphabetic systems, how about to consider changing the title? --Puzzlet Chung 04:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We had both Cree and Hangul in the template (abugidas are included; after all, we have Brahmi and Thai), but someone took them out. Perhaps this was because they are not usually considered to be direct descendents of the first alphabet. Personally, I think they both belong, along with Georgian and Armenian. kwami 05:35, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
No matter it is the descendent of another, Hangul should be mentioned when the template is supposed to deal with alphabets. --Puzzlet Chung 02:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think so too. dab (ᛏ) 21:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: All those in favor of restoring Hangul, Georgian, and Cree? kwami 22:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabet POV 

message: Hello,
I have a question to the group. Please don't laugh at this story. Recently I bought a can of ethiopian coffee and was astonished to see  writings on the can in an alphabet that resembled Armenian very much. I could recognize some of the letters as "Armenian". After browsing thru the internet, I suspect the alphabet is Ge'ez. I am not a linguist or historian. Could anybody please enlighten me if there are indeed any similarities between Armenian and any of the Ethiopian alphabets? 
Thanks!! Lynist
:I answered to this earlier, but my computer crashed. I'll answer more completely later, but the short answer is "yes, there are similarities," but they are largely superficial (i.e. it won't help you predict the sound of the letter in the other alphabet), though some scholars propose that Armenian was created after a trip to Ethiopia (in the time of the Kingdom of Aksum) that inspired mesrop. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 02:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  similarites between Armenian and Ge'ez? 

message: ahem, the Proto-Canaanite alphabet is a "minor variant" of what? It is the archetype of all the NW Semitic abjads, and as such of crucial importance of a genealogical chart of alphabets... dab (𒁳) 18:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proto-Canaanite

message: As an editor, I find this template really annoying. It gets in the way of thumbnail images that I want to be displayed with a certain section. It would be nice to have a version of this template so we can dump at the bottom of the article (so those that want to browse by this template can still do so). --Dara (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some articles that use this template AND the Brahmi template... And I would rather have them at the bottom of the page so that the space on the right can be used for thumbnail images that are actually related to the article sections. --Dara (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone make a horizontal version of this template? 

message: I removed Brahmic Family and Kharosthi from this list as they aren't alphabets. They are Abugida. They can be said pseudo-Alphabets, but I believe they aren't anywhere near to be called alphabets. Devanagari have a complex system of compound syllables. They all are more of a syllable scripts...
--Rawal of Jaisalmer (talk) 09:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet you did not remove the other "pseudo-alphabets" Arabic, Hebrew, and Phoenician. I restored the full table (apart from Telugu being non-Brahmic, which is silly). — kwami (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Brahmic Family and Kharosthi  

message: The improvements are based on the following literature: Gábor Hosszú: Heritage of Scribes. It is fully available from the Google Books at http://books.google.hu/books?printsec=frontcover&id=TyK8azCqC34C  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovasscript (talk • contribs) 15:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: These "scripts" are a fiction. -- Evertype·✆ 11:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rovas Scripts 

message: If the Proto-Sinaitic is descended from the hieroglyphs of Egypt, shouldn't that be mentioned in this template?
Anonymous173.57.44.147 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hieroglyphs and Proto-Sinaitic 

message: Use of circa and century is inconsistent. Both are abbreviated as (c.) and this is slightly confusing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.94.241 (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  abbreviations (circa/century) 

message: Unlike Kana, Chữ Nôm, or bofomopo, which is derivation of Chinese character, hangul is NOT derivation of chinese character, but it placed inside chinese family. Should be moved to somewhere else.118.221.204.58 (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why hangul is Chinese family? 

message: I'm not sure how  is related to this template. They both share similar names, but they diverge significantly in their purposes. I've removed it; you are welcome to revert, preferably with explanation here.  eπi (talk | contribs) 19:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Per MOS:SEEALSO: "The links in the 'See also' section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." The term "alphabetize" is a verb who's root is the term "alphabet". It seems reasonable to assume that some people looking for  might go to , in which case having a see also section would help users navigate. The difference between the purpose of the two templates only heightens the need for easy exploration and the inclusion of  in the "See also" section does not appear to have any drawbacks. Hyacinth (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabetize in see also