Talk:Demotic (Egyptian)

message: I have moved this arcticle back to Demotic (after it was moved to Demotic language). My justification is that Demotic refers to both a language (or phase of the Egyptian language) but also to a writing system. The article discusses to both. Additionally only one page pointed to Demotic language. The other articles pointed to Demotic and referenced both the writing system and/or the language phase (depending on the article). —Nefertum17 09:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move, of course. —Nightstallion (?) 21:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've copied this from the main article where it was placed by User:77.29.241.152
"Please make a citation how it is deshipered? Could you show us some example of Demotic and Coptic (in English transcription) and English below that?
I don't believe that it was properly dechipered, as one symbol in one line sounds one way, and in other line, completly different."
Doug Weller (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decipherment 

message: Observation: The article currently doesn't really address the evolution of the writing system at all from the hieroglyphs. This would seem to be a very interesting aspect of the topic. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution 

message: I didn't see anywhere in the article how may characters there are in the Demotic alphabet.  That seems like a basic fact that should be in the article.  Did I overlook it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.82.215.201 (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of characters? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Demotic (Egyptian). 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/20070205040220/http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/PROJ/DEM/Demotic_Directory.html to http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/PROJ/DEM/Demotic_Directory.html
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) 16:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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 Demotic Font". DRMcCreedy (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding your own fonts clearly breaks item 4 under WP:PROMOTION. DRMcCreedy (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In the edit summary,  says  It's not that you added an external link to a free font, it's that you added a link to your free font.  That's why I referenced item 4 under WP:PROMOTION.  That's why it's self promotion.  The other external links (presumably) weren't added by the authors/owners of those sites.  (If they were, they would be subject to removal as well.)  I understand this is frustrating for you but these rules are in place to keep Wikipedia articles encyclopedic in nature and not massive lists of links to everyone's sites/files. I suggest you contact a site like Omniglot if you want to gain exposure/users for your fonts. DRMcCreedy (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

text: I do not recommend that.  It would be considered sock puppetry. DRMcCreedy (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia has policies.  One of them prohibits self promotion. DRMcCreedy (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

text: I did not remove your fonts.  I removed the links promoting them. Then patiently, and repeatedly, explained why.  DRMcCreedy (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed font section 

message: Hello all! To whomever is listening, I would like to propose splitting this page into two, one for the script and one for the language. This is how it is done on the German Wikipedia. This is better, I would argue, conceptually, and would allow for easier expansion, such as, on the one hand, the relationship between the demotic script and the hieroglyphic (on the script side) and, on the other, linguistic (such as the relationship to Coptic) and sociolinguistic and cultural considerations (such as the domain of Demotic texts which coexisted with hieroglyphic and hieratic texts, on the language side). I don't think there is necessarily enough on the page now to warrant this split happening just yet, but I am interested in drafting out the two new articles in my userspace... -- Joey Cross (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting Demotic? 

message: For the 17:55, 11 August 2020‎ edit I added the most recent and authoritative reference for info on the last Demotic inscription (the Philae graffito), corrected the date (the new reading is the 12th of December) and thus removed the "dubious" tag on the last Demotic inscription. Apologies for forgetting to note that in the Edit summary. -Joey Cross (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last usage of Demotic