Talk:mhrbndq

RFM discussion: September 2017–March 2021
An IP has been repeatedly tagging this for speedy deletion on the grounds that it's the wrong script and that they've created an entry with the right script. Since this was created by a veteran editor, I feel we should consider merging the two entries if we decide to delete the Latin-script version. At any rate, I don't feel comfortable just deleting this without input from editors familiar with the language. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * created it, but I'm really not sure why. We have a longstanding standard that Aramaic entries should never be in Latin script. If there is an entry with the proper pagetitle and all the content, we can delete this. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what I figured. My main concern was with deleting the content without knowing anything about the replacement entry (𐣬𐣤𐣣𐣡𐣭𐣣𐣱). I just now compared the two, and it appears that the IP copypasted the entire contents of the entry (even the Latn) to the new page without attribution. I don't have a font that displays that script so I'm completely in the dark here, but I don't trust this IP to know what they're doing, especially after reading the discussion on your talk page. Given the blatant copyvio, I think we're best off deleting the replacement entry and moving the old entry to the correct spelling so we can keep the edit history. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, I was the creator of mhrbndq. Note that the word is attested in Hatran Aramaic, which is written in Hatran alphabet (not in the more widely used Aramaic alphabet). I don't know if there had been any discussion regarding Hatran Aramaic entries. But scholarly works usually avoid using the original script for such ancient, difficult to read, or barely attested scripts. If I remember correctly, the practice in Wiktionary have been to use the original script as the title, but keeping the letter-by-letter transliterations (mhrbndq in this case) as alternative forms. --Z 13:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It turns out that there is actually a Unicode block for the . Of course, it was only added a couple of years ago, so it may not have much font support yet. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I've now deleted the replacement entry as a copyright violation. If we decide this is the wrong spelling, we can move it to the correct one. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , I can't seem to find a font for Hatran, so I'm not sure if I can transcribe it correctly. Can you check that this is right? 𐣬𐣤𐣣𐣡𐣭𐣣𐣲 —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not enough stuff anyone would do different, so the threshold of originality has not been reached, so no copyright violation, but nonetheless of course the correct approach is to move the page to the correct spelling, for which purpose the copy had to be deleted, and this Hatran spelling seems to use the correct Unicode characters in the correct order (not that I would be a great Hatran reader 😄, but even without font, which I nonetheless have, one can just check the characters in a character map one by one). Fay Freak (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 15:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)