File talk:Writing systems worldwide.svg

Serbia is incorrectly shown as exclusively using the Cyrillic script

Officially, the Serbian language uses both Cyrillic and Latin scripts, so this map should be corrected and show the same teal-gray pattern as Macedonia and Bosnia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_language Ooyooyko (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Native American writing systems

Since the Canadian alphasyllabary used in Inuit Nunangat is displayed on the map, I feel like it would make sense to include the Osage alphabet and Cherokee syllabary, since they're officially used by the Osage Nation, Cherokee Nation and Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. I'm not sure if the Blackfoot in the US officially use the Canadian alphabsyllabary, if they do, their reservations could be marked as well. Pescavelho (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Scripts Used in Non-Arabic Speaking Countries

The current map categorizes several countries under the Arabic script, which is misleading and overlooks the unique scripts used by these nations. For instance, countries like Iran use the Persian script (or Farsi), which, despite having similarities with the Arabic script, is distinct and widely recognized as such. Similarly, Afghanistan uses scripts that are not Arabic. This misrepresentation could be seen as an oversight or, at worst, as a form of generalization To address this issue and provide a more accurate representation, I propose the following updates to the map: | #006624 | Arabic | #38B800 | Hebrew | #8bc34a | Persian | #66c2a4 | Pashto These changes will help differentiate between the various scripts used in these regions. Additionally, further distinctions within the abjad group could be beneficial. I encourage others who share similar concerns or have additional suggestions to contribute to this discussion. --Bigfish1337 (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Treating Persian and Arabic as different scripts is like treating English and Spanish as different scripts. The terms script and alphabet are not synonymous. Persian Pashto Arabic and Urdu are absolutely all written in the same script but they are written in different alphabets. Also labeling Afghanistan as Pashto when it is officially bilingual is incorrect.

Treating Alphabets with additional characters as entirely separate scripts opens up a whole can of worms that should be discussed (like are Spanish and English different scripts now?) so Pinging people who have edited this file. @Rubýñ, M.Bitton, Quintucket

Babr (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Babr.

1. What does this mean for other scripts? Are we going to split all Brahmic scripts into the dozens of individual alphabets, like Telugu, Khmer, Thai, Tamil, Tibetan, etc.? Will we separate Latin into German, Spanish, French, Azeri, Diné, Hausa, Icelandic, etc.? Or Cyrillic into Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Kyrgyz, Mongolian, etc.? What colors will they all have?
2. What does this mean for other Arabic scripts, like Kashmiri, Sindhi, Urdu, Uyghur, etc.? What does Pashto and Farsi have that these don't? Sindhi is official in Sindh, Kashmiri in Jammu and Kashmir (if you recognize the Indian claim to the land), Urdu in all of Pakistan and parts of India, and Uyghur in Xinjiang. And, again, what colors will all of these have?

I know this looks like a slippery slope argument, but this is a valid concern. Either Pashto and Persian have special treatment for no good reason (or, at least, no good reason that can't be applied to other languages/scripts too), or we make the map hard to use and nigh unreadable, with a huge legend and dozens of colors (the map is already colorblind unfriendly, even after I tried to correct it. This won't make it any better).
Edit, expanding on this: We would have to add 30+ Latin alphabets, 20+ Brahmic scripts, ~20 Cyrillic alphabets, and ~15 Arabic alphabets. I have no idea where we're going to get 85+ distinct colors, specially if we're keeping the system of blue-cyan for alphabets, green for abjads, and yellow-orange for abugidas. More importantly, there's absolutely no way we can keep the map in any way usable or readable when it's trying to represent over 100 different alphabets. This sets a bad precedent. Just adding some letters (or, worse, diacritics to letters) isn't and shouldn't be enough to warrant being added to the map, and there's nothing exceptional about Pashto and Farsi. Only Thaana gets a pass because it's so fundamentally different from any of the scripts it takes from that it doesn't make good sense to group it with them. Rubýñ ^(Scold) 23:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

There's a case for the Uyghur alphabet being shown separately since it actually works differently from the Arabic abjad despite being based on it, but the Persian, Pashto, Urdu, etc. abjads are just variants of the Arabic abjads, like how the Icelandic alphabet is a variant of the Latin alphabet, despite having extra characters. Pescavelho (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know this about Uyghur. I think this is much more reasonable. Following the same logic, we would have to add Sorani Kurdish (official in Iraq, it's written with a mostly alphabetic adaptation of Arabic) and Kashmiri (which I thought was an abjad, but it seems I was wrong?). I'm going off of Arabic_script#Table_of_alphabets.

This doesn't set nearly the same precedent as adding Pashto and Farsi, and I'm not aware of any other scripts that would have to be added by these rules. Three is a sizeable number to add, mostly because it'll be hard to find distinct colors at this point, but I think we can manage. We could repurpose Pashto's color for Uyghur (maybe making it slightly bluer?) and then find another two for Sorani and Kashmiri (I came up with #2F4DFF and #00B8B8, but it could be anything, really).

I'm OK with this. Rubýñ ^(Scold) 17:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I say use greenish blues yes. Regarding Persian and Pachto: if people have a chip on their shoulder about "Arabic" being used to describe their scripts, you could just use the term "Perso-Arabic", but I'd prefer this not be the case. Pescavelho (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)