Talk:𐭡𐭩𐭥𐭧

, is this attested in Inscriptional Pahlavi? --Victar (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably in more than one official inscription, if I remember correctly. --Z 13:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , could you add a source to that? --Victar (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I did it for Z. --Vahag (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I think we should label this as a ideograph, somehow. --Victar (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The template has already added it to the Category:Huzvarishn --Z 22:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , yeah, that great for the etymology, but I'm thinking there should be something in the definiton as well, like pal. --Victar (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh. But the definition line is not exactly the right place, both for mentioning the script (e.g. "Inscriptional Pahlavi") and "ideograph". The more appropriate place would be right after the headword, when the word is spelled in its native script for the first time, this can be done using the template, we also use it after , for example, in the Alternative forms section. Moreover, I always assumed adding two transliteration, one with uppercase and the other with lowercase letters will do, this is also the practice for languages that use cuneiform script, like Akkadian. --Z 10:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is preferable to show such information on the headword line to avoid the clutter in the defitinitions and also to avoid duplication when there are several definitions. --Vahag (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can edit his entry and show me what you had in mind. --Victar (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What about if we used the actual header template, pal-noun → . Assumedly, you wouldn't need sc if it's in the correct script. --Victar (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I like this solution. --Vahag (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks better now. --Z 11:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)