Talk:Baybayin

message: Was RA really the same or considered the same as the DA sound in pre-Hispanic Tagalog?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jondel (talk • contribs) 05:06, 15 April 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an expert but I'm think pre-Hispanic Tagalogs don't distinguish between the /da/ and the /ra/ sound. This ambiguity even exists to this day. Dumaraan is the more correct form although dumadaan is acceptable. We also have dumarating instead of dumadating. Dito and rito are also equivalent. Some other examples: nagdadasal/nagdarasal, dinadagdag/dinaragdag, dumadagsa/dumaragsa. --seav 15:32, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
Tagalog letter ra (u+170d) has been encoded in Unicode 14! Baokhang48812002 (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: RA sound

message: Please who ever knows how to put the baybayin writing within this article please do it because there is no lettering, wikipedia can't support the baybayin text so it only shows boxes.Manager0916 (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See the links at Baybayin#Font downloads. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Elrich Nelle Largo 49.149.66.186 (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

text: try just adding pictures, i'm sure i did that on a programming thing Xxdreamyyxx (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: this was twelve years ago- Xxdreamyyxx (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Baybaying text support

message: :try just adding pictures, i'm sure i did that on a programming thing Xxdreamyyxx (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: this was twelve years ago- Xxdreamyyxx (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: 2022

message: The Tagalog alphabet is a better and more familiar name, I believe, then Baybayin; for instance, it's the Unicode designation. I propose to move this article. Evertype 10:55, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
:Baybayin or alibata is the term being used in the academe. Many Filipinos are familiar with this term. I think there is no such thing as Tagalog alphabet. Baybayin was used not only by the Tagalogs but other ethnic group as well. Although, the apperance and style differ from one group to another.  The modern Philippine alphabet that is being used by all languages in the country is called Filipino alphabet, which uses the Latin letters. --Jojit fb 5 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)
::I don't believe that is correct. The Philippine scripts include Tagalog, Tagbanwa, Buhud, and Hanunoo. I have more materials which use the term "Tagalog script" than "Baybayin". (I am fine with preferring "script" to "alphabet". This script was encoded in the Unicode Standard as Tagalog, and the experts who consulted with us did not prefer the term "Baybayin". Evertype July 5, 2005 15:27 (UTC)
:::Spaniards in the 16th century called it "Tagalog letters" even though it was used by other languages such as Ilokano and Bikolano. Baybayin was an old Tagalog term to refer to any writing system.  On the other hand, alibata was a term used by Paul Versoza in 1939. In Philippine schools, alibata and baybayin are the most common terms used when referring to this script.  Even in Google search, alibata and baybayin are more common than "Tagalog script" and "Tagalog alphabet". From the POV of Filipinos, they won't understand if you say the term "Tagalog script" or "Tagalog alphabet".  They might confuse it with the modern Filipino alphabet. I might agree if we make a redirection pages for "Old Tagalog script" or "Old Tagalog alphabet" but the main article would still be "Baybayin". --Jojit fb 6 July 2005 05:19 (UTC)
:::Also, you may want to indicate in the article that some experts did not prefer the use of "Baybayin" as Unicode Standard. --Jojit fb 6 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)
::::Hmm, any links to that information "that some experts did not prefer the use of 'Baybayin' as Unicode Standard"?? --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 08:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Evertype, it is correct.  "Baybayin" is the name of our writing system or script.  "Tagalog" is the name of the language and people living in the Tagalog region.  "Tagbanwa, Buhid, and Hanunoo" scripts all came from the Baybayin script, you could say that it was a branched-evolution.  "Baybayin" script is known to have been used to write in all (or most) Philippine Languages - Tagalog, Cebuano, Bikol, Ilokano, Kapampangan, and the list goes on.  The first and only time that Baybayin was called the Tagalog Script was because of Unicode.  Either we follow the non-Filipinos in this matter or we follow those very people whose roots came from it.  --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 08:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

text: No.  "Baybayin" is the writing script.  "Kapampangan", "Tagbanwa", "Hanunoo", "Buhid", and "Bisaya" are variations of "Baybayin".  If you create a family-tree of it, Baybayin is the tree, all the rest are the branches.  Call it the "Baybayin Family" to make it easy to understand.  The UP guys (if I remember correctly) submitted "Tagalog" to the Unicode consortium to differentiate the "original/parent style" to its children like Hanunoo, Buhid, sulat Kapampangan, sulat Bisaya, and Tagbanwa. 222.127.223.70 (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Baybayin is similar to the Sanskrit in that there are different local/regional styles.  A local/regional style doesn't stop being Sanskrit just because they added/changed something else.  Baybayin is the same, the local/regional styles like sulat Kapampangan, sulat Bisaya, Hanunoo, Buhid, Tagbanwa, does not stop being Baybayin.  These are still Baybayin, just a local/regional style.  To avoid confusion, the people behind the submission of Baybayin to the Unicode consortium opted for the local/regional style-name hence, Tagalog script in Unicode. 222.127.223.70 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I strongly disagree with the argument presented that the International weighs more than the local.  The International scene most of the time only relies on second and third and even fourth level sources.  They want to write a book under the pretense of "keeping a record of things".  They will use whatever term they want based on what they understood from their perspective.  They first encountered the Baybayin Family when they landed in the Tagalog region, why?  Because they know that for them to conquer Las Islas Filipinas, they need to control the heart of the islands - the Tagalog region, or as the Chinese recorded: Empire of Luzon.  Now if you are going to keep arguing about the International terminology outweighing the correct and accurate name of the writing script, then you should know that the term Baybayin was actually coined by the Spanish conquerors.  At the end, Baybayin still is the correct term because it has always been the International terminology for the Baybayin FAMILY. 222.127.223.70 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed renaming 

message: The sample transcription of "Wikipedia" into Baybayin is wrong. It reads: "Wi Ki Pi Di A" with a glottal stop on the final syllable "A". The final syllable ought to be "Ya". Boreanesia 22:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Transcription 

message: The name Tagalog script is not' confined to the Unicode standard; it is quite common in materials in English and other languages (like Dutch for instance). In my opinion it is a more useful name than Baybayin or Alibata, both of which are "generic" terms which may have meaning to local speakers but have little international utility. The fact that the former means 'spelling' and the latter just 'alphabet' shows that they are generic terms. Whether the script is used for languages other than Tagalog is irrelevant; the Arabic script is used for Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Sindhi, Pashto, and many other languages. I find the reversion of my recent edit inappropriate, but thought I had better begin the discussion here. -- Evertype·✆ 18:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The languages used for a script is relevant since they show the script's history. I think the name Tagalog script is inaccurate since it might give the wrong impression that this script originated from Tagalog speakers. Unlike with the Arabic script and the Latin alphabet, both of which have evidence that suggest that they originated from Arabic speakers and Latin speakers respectively, there is no evidence that suggest that Baybayin originated from Tagalog speakers. For all we know the script might have originated from speakers of the Kinaray-a language. 23prootie 14:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops! I found a site that implies a Tagalog origin , but I guess to be fair to the other languges, I think the name should stay.23prootie 17:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, the usual name for this script is Tagalog. I believe we should move this to Tagalog script; this term is not inaccurate. You have seen that it was first devised for that language; "fairness" to the other languages really isn't relevant. The most common English name should be preferred, not words in another language which mean 'spelling' or 'alphabet'. Can we agree? If not, I can propose the move and let the community decide. -- Evertype·✆ 10:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Then let's use Alibata because that is the term that everyone recognizes and is officially being taught in schools, universities and written in text books.  Alibata unifies all.  My vote goes to Alibata going by your and Evertype's argument.  222.127.223.70 (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagalog script 

message: JL09 has twice deleted the re-spellings in the Tagalog script. Given the fact that this article is ABOUT the script, there seems little reason to support his deletions. -- Evertype·✆ 19:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No reason to delete the script examples 

message: The following is an extract from the first section:
Some have attributed it the name Alibata,[3] but this name is incorrect. (The term "Alibata" was coined by Paul Rodríguez Verzosa after the arrangement of letters of the Arabic alphabet[4] alif, ba, ta (alibata), “f” having been eliminated for euphony's sake." ) Verzosa's reasoning for creating this word was unfounded because no evidence of the Baybayin was ever found in that part of the Philippines and it has absolutely no relationship to the Arabic language. Furthermore, no ancient script native to Southeast Asia followed the Arabic arrangement of letters, and regardless of Verzosa's connection to the word alibata, its absence from all historical records indicates that it is a totally modern creation. The present author does not use this word in reference to any ancient Philippine script.
The style of the writing, and especially the final sentence, gives me the very strong impression that this is copied directly from a book.  As a bit of googling shows, everything from "Verzosa's reasoning" is copied directly from http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/bayeng1.htm, which is blatant copyvio.  I am therefore removing it.
There's also a broken quote (a closing quote but no opening quote), and the information about creation of "alibata" seems to me to be in the wrong place (I'd have moved it even if it wasn't copyvio).  Finally, "this name is incorrect" seems dodgy (though I don't have any knowledge of the subject) because if any significant use is made of it, it's a name.  Whether or not it's indigenous, traditional, approved by scholars or anything else is largely irrelevant, as long as it's in use.  Obviously if not then it doesn't need to be there, but someone's provided a source that looks okay at a glance. -- Shimmin Beg (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with opening section 

message: Hey "Kiwehtin", if you don't mind, educate yourself first before reversing my edits, as well as read what I wrote in the history, it isn't Kapampangan.  If you want the Kapampangan script, create an article on the script referred to as "Kulitan"(not to be confused with the tagalog term).  As well as for the other ethnic group's respective scripts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.82.28 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagalog "Baybayin" is NOT KAPAMPANGAN, nor is it the other scripts 

message: the image is public domain and can be uploaded
http://books.google.com/books?id=uUhiAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA361#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ᜀᜅ᜔ ᜎᜑᜆ᜔ ᜈᜅ᜔ ᜆᜂ ᜀᜌ᜔ ᜁᜐᜒᜈᜒᜎᜅ᜔ ᜈ ᜋᜎᜌ ᜀᜆ᜔ ᜉᜈ᜔ᜆᜌ᜔ᜉᜈ᜔ᜆᜌ᜔ ᜐ ᜃᜍᜅᜎᜈ᜔ ᜀᜆ᜔ ᜃᜍᜉᜆᜈ᜔‖ ᜐᜒᜎ ᜀᜌ᜔ ᜉᜒᜈᜄ᜔ᜃᜎᜓᜂᜊᜈ᜔ ᜈᜅ᜔ ᜊᜓᜇ᜔ᜑᜒ ᜀᜆ᜔ ᜇᜉᜆ᜔ ᜋᜄ᜔ᜉᜎᜄᜌᜈ᜔ ᜀᜅ᜔ ᜁᜐᜆ᜔ᜁᜐ ᜐ ᜇᜒᜏ ᜈᜅ᜔ ᜉᜄ᜔ᜃᜃᜉᜆᜒᜍᜈ᜔‖
Someone should just make a picture out of it  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.11.64 (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Picture of the Lord's Prayer in Baybayin Visayan (Bisaya) 

message: The article cited as the source for the section is slanted toward hyping the lecturer and his rather dubious claims that, among other things, the markings on the Manunggul Jar are Baybayin writing, that the letters were copied from various features of the Giant clam, and that they have some kind of "inherent subtle energies": "He showed two pictures of plants of the same kind, one grew way taller and healthier than the other. This one has been growing in water “powered” with a symbol from Baybayin, while the smaller plant was submerged in plain water." This is not a reliable source. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Possible earlier occurrence" section looks dubious 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Baybayin. 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/20100611000944/http://www.baybayin.com:80/tutorials/baybayin-history/ to http://www.baybayin.com/tutorials/baybayin-history/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130524083452/http://www.ust.edu.ph/index.php/landmarks/835-ust-archives.html to http://www.ust.edu.ph/index.php/landmarks/835-ust-archives.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080823214513/http://www.bibingka.com:80/dahon/tagalog/tagalog.htm to http://www.bibingka.com/dahon/tagalog/tagalog.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716075842/http://www.siuala.com/read_blog.php?id=15 to http://www.siuala.com/read_blog.php?id=15
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201135616/http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/basic_16/HB00160.pdf to http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/basic_16/HB00160.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012072649/http://www.baybayin.com:80/how-to-write-baybayin-alibata/ to http://www.baybayin.com/how-to-write-baybayin-alibata
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110202182136/http://baybayinlibrary.com/ to http://www.baybayinlibrary.com
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101231035914/http://www.baybayin.com:80/downloads/ to http://www.baybayin.com/downloads
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Baybayin. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5rpLR9aNS?url=http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/bayeng1.htm to http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/bayeng1.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.baybayin.com/tutorials/baybayin-history/
*Added  tag to http://www.baybayin.com/ust-baybayin-collection-shown-to-public/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716075842/http://www.siuala.com/read_blog.php?id=15 to http://www.siuala.com/read_blog.php?id=15
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5rpLR9aNS?url=http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/bayeng1.htm to http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/bayeng1.htm
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5s839CWeO?url=http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/paterno.htm to http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/paterno.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.baybayin.com/how-to-write-baybayin-alibata/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.baybayin.com/downloads/
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) 11:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Baybayin. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/bayeng1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101226183127/http://www.bahasa-malaysia-simple-fun.com/bahasa-melayu-kuno.html to http://www.bahasa-malaysia-simple-fun.com/bahasa-melayu-kuno.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/bayeng1.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/paterno.htm
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) 18:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't know what's this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.140.191 (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something related to Angono Petroglyph? 

message: I propose that this page be locked against Anonymous and less than 4 years accounts from doing any edits.
—ᜌᜓᜃᜒ (Yuki|雪亮) (talk | Contribs) 13:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock the page against Anonymous and new account editing 

message: Jumark, Buhid, Hanunoó, and Tagbanwa are not "sisters" of Baybayin, they are all Baybayin. Baybayin-Buhid, Baybayin-Hanunoó, Baybayin-Tagalog, and Baybayin-Tagbanwa, are all Baybayin. Please read an already sourced material here: https://www.quora.com/Is-Baybayin-really-a-writing-system-in-the-entire-pre-hispanic-Philippines-Whats-the-basis-for-making-it-a-national-writing-system-if-pre-hispanic-kingdoms-weren-t-homogenous/answer/Christopher-Ray-Miller —ᜌᜓᜃᜒ (Yuki|雪亮) (talk | Contribs) 03:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jumark, please do not add back a reverted edit until we have discussed it and agreed on something. As of now I left it as-is but it should be reverted back again. Thank you. —ᜌᜓᜃᜒ (Yuki|雪亮) (talk | Contribs) 09:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll support the revert. Btw, C.R. Miller is definitely an authority on Indian-derived scripts, but shouldn't we work with a better source than a Quora post? I'd suggest his "Devanagari's descendants in North and South India, Indonesia and the Philippines". And even better for this article: Norman de los Santos' "Philippine Indigenous Writing Systems in the Modern World". It's an unreviewed conference paper, but gives a great overview of the topic. – Austronesier (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, definitely we can use other sources. Christopher and Norman are great authorities about Baybayin and its scope. Great find by the way, a detailed breakdown and explanation of Baybayin and its variants, dispelling further the assumption that Baybayin is Tagalog only. —ᜌᜓᜃᜒ (Yuki|雪亮) (talk | Contribs) 12:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

text: If it is like that, so when I make article in Bikol Sentral Wiki, I will put, Basahan Tagalog, Basahan Kulitan, Since Basahan is a collective term in Bikol for those written scripts in the Philippines, according to Lisboa. -- ᜰᜲᜫᜲᜨ᜴ ᜢᜩᜲᜰᜳᜧ᜴ (Talk)  04:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sisters" 

message: Baybayin is the collective term for Abugida scripts that are used in the Philippines. It is an umbrella term, a hypernym.
The parent system of Baybayin is Kawi script, while its child system of it are Tagalog scripts, Sambal script, Kur-itan script, Kulitan script, Basahan script, pangasinense script, Hanunuo script, Buhid script, Tagbanwa script, Ibalnan script, and Badlit script.
Suyat on the other hand are the proposed collective term for the Philippine scripts in the Philippines, not just Alphasyllabary (Abugida), but also the other writing systems such as Syllabary and Consonantary (Abjad).
In Syllabary Philippine had Iniskaya or Eskaya script, and in Consonantary (Abjad) there are Jawi script and Kirim script (Batang Arab). Zzardie06 (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Experts like Miller and Morrow have stated that Baybayin was one single writing system with various local variants, however these local variants had fewer differences between them (for example Tagalog Baybayin vs Bisayan Baybayin) than the different hand writings of Baybayin in one single region. This is also easily seen in comparison charts found on Morrows website. In addition, the Spanish colonial writers also treated Baybayin as one single script and stated that it spread from Luzon to other regions such as the Visayas only after their arrival, this time frame is too short to talk about "different scripts". In my opinion, to clear up the confusion we should make it clear in the article that all these different languages use a variant of Baybayin, and not a completely different script. So for example "Tagalog Baybayin" and "Bisayan Baybayin/Badlit", not "Tagalog script" and "Bisayan script". Glennznl (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baybayin (Abugida scripts in the Philippines) 

message: Shouldn't we better commit ourselves to better sources for this topic? It is not contemporary history or a web meme, so news sites like CNN and all those blogs are not WP:reliable sources, although I would probably make an exception with font-related questions. For anything else, only peer-reviewed scholarly sources should be used, and material that can not be supported by such sources is deletable. This topic is an important piece of Philippine heritage that deserves quality coverage. –Austronesier (talk) 10:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The article had a lot of incorrect and low quality information from low quality sources. I have been busy reviewing the sources and deleting unsourced low quality information. Imho what the article needs now is new information added from good sources and fact checking existing information. Glennznl (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: May I ask? Sorry If im not good in speaking in English, by the way, I don't know why this article says that all scripts of Philippines came from Tagalog Baybayin?
 -- ᜰᜲᜫᜲᜨ᜴ ᜢᜩᜲᜰᜳᜧ᜴ (Talk)  04:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Baybayin IS one single writing system, which is proven both by Spanish historical documentation (which treated Baybayin as one script) and by modern analysis, which shows that Baybayin examples found in different regions of the Philippines have only little variation, not enough to make them different scripts. Therefore in this article Baybayin is treated as one script, although regional varieties are mentioned. The only scripts that survived until modern day and evolved a bit, and can be seen as "different" are Tagbanwa from Palawan and the two Mangyan scripts from Mindoro. Other than that Baybayin in the Visayas, Luzon, Bikol is nearly identical. I recommend you look at the following link, so you can see it with your own eyes http://paulmorrow.ca/baychart.htm Glennznl (talk) 09:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baybayin 

message: Since this article is said to be a collective term of indigenous script in the Philippines, it is necessary to omit Examples of Baybayin script of Katagalugan, such as Our Father who wrote the in Tagalog Baybayin script, because it is unfair to any other script, or otherwise insert an example of script of Kulitan, Buhid, etc. Because the article looks like a Tagalog script.-- ᜰᜲᜫᜲᜨ᜴ ᜢᜩᜲᜰᜳᜧ᜴ (Talk)  05:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate Baybayin Article in Tagalog Baybayin. 

message: Is putting image in Overview section restricted?
If yes, why?
and if no, what images can I put at Overview section for others not to removed it again and again, because its stressing me out everytime I put an image someone put it to other section or delete it.
It takes a lot of time to enhance those images from it's original sources, just so you know. Zzardie06 (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting Image in Overview section 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Can someone explain what is "appropriate" for External Links? I added a reference to an online translator I developed and  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)
replies: text: 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.  Let's have a look at them! –Austronesier (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Inclusion criteria for External Links 

message: 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)
replies: text: Doesn't seem like a useful judgement. These are just terms, and formerly conveys obsolescence already. CMD (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emphasize the incorrectness of the term "alibata". 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Baybayin" italicized in article