This article falls within the scope ofWikiProject Writing systems, aWikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating towriting systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop bythe project page and/or leave a query atthe project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Berbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofBerbers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.BerbersWikipedia:WikiProject BerbersTemplate:WikiProject BerbersBerbers
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Morocco, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofMorocco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoroccoWikipedia:WikiProject MoroccoTemplate:WikiProject MoroccoMorocco
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofAfrica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Tunisia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related toTunisia. For more information, visit theproject page.TunisiaWikipedia:WikiProject TunisiaTemplate:WikiProject TunisiaTunisia
Not sure what cleaner means in this context given that Tifinagh predates neo-Tifinagh (they are obviously different and the opening sentence explains this to the reader). Also, Petertshomela kept removing content without explanation.M.Bitton (talk)23:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my view of the edit (correct me if I'm missing something):
- In the current version, the Tuareg Tifinagh spelling (ⵜⴼⵏⵗ) is in the lead sentence, but the Neo-Tifinagh spelling (ⵜⵉⴼⵉⵏⴰⵖ) is in a later sentence. In Petertshomela's edit, the Neo-Tifinagh spelling is moved to be in the lead sentence, adjacent to the Tuareg Tifinagh spelling. This keeps the different ways to write "Tifinagh" in one place (in the lead sentence).
- The deleted sentence ("The name Tifinagh is stylized asTifinaɣ in theBerber Latin alphabet, and in the Neo-Tifinagh alphabet it is written as ⵜⵉⴼⵉⵏⴰⵖ, while in theTuareg people's traditional Tifinagh it is written as ⵜⴼⵏⵗ.") essentially only contains the Berber Latin / Neo-Tifinagh / Tuareg Tifinagh spellings ofTifinaɣ, ⵜⵉⴼⵉⵏⴰⵖ, and ⵜⴼⵏⵗ, all of which were present in the lead sentence with the edit ("Tifinagh (Neo-Tifinagh: ⵜⵉⴼⵉⵏⴰⵖ;Tuareg Berber language: ⵜⴼⵏⵗ,Berber pronunciation:[tifinaɣ])"). So the sentence didn't have any content not already present in the page, and deleting it avoids repetition in the lead section.
In their edit, they put neo-Tifinagh before Tifinagh. I don't see why neo-Tifinagh shouldn't be mentioned later on; after all, the article is about Tifinagh, an alphabet that has been used by the Tuaregs for centuries.M.Bitton (talk)00:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both Tifinagh and Tuareg Tifinagh are mentioned before Neo-Tifinagh in these edits, or am I misunderstanding?
As for the format, my comparison would be to theChinese characters page; traditional characters came first, and have been in use for thousands of years. Simplified characters are basically a modern invention (used starting in the 1950s). The lead sentence of the page is:
It's just listing all the common ways to write "Chinese characters" (the subject) in Chinese characters in one place at the start. To me that's the same thing as the proposed edit for this page: it's just listing all the major ways to write "Tifinagh" (the subject) in Tifinagh in one place at the start.Blueshiftofdeath (talk)00:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did explain why I moved "Neo-Tifinagh" and it's characters to the lead line. That's the way it is everywhere else on similar Wikipedia pages or sections related to place-names. And the excuse of "[Tuareg] Tifinagh" is older is useless, therefore it should be isolated or placed first is useless; in cases where there are multiple scripts and/or names, the arrangement is based on NUMBER OF SPEAKERS/USERS. So @Blueshiftofdeath we also need to address the issue of arrangement.Petertshomela (talk)23:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not delete it altogether while you're at it? As for the "number of speakers", that should be easy since unlike the Tuareg languages (Tamasheq, Tamahaq, etc), nobody speaks Tamazight (not even the people who invented the artificial language).M.Bitton (talk)23:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there's a Wikipedia standard for the order-- I actually could only find the Chinese characters page as an example to go off of.
For Chinese, my guess would be that there's currently far more users of simplified Chinese, since it's the official script in mainland China which has a population of 1.4 billion. But it's still listed second... I personally think that makes sense because it's a recent derivative based on the (still widely used) traditional Chinese. By the same logic I like having Neo-Tifinagh second, since it's the derivative of Tuareg Tifinagh, which is still in use after an uninterrupted history from the original Libyan script.
The majority of Berbers do not belong to the Tamasheq-speaking (sub-)groups, nor is there any indication that the majority of the literature in or usage of [Neo-]Tifinagh is from these groups. These are facts. Additionally, the claim that "nobody speaks Tamazight (not even the people who invented the artificial language [whatever the "artificial language" in question is meant to be])" is simply false and ridiculous. You seem to have a predisposition to bias towards the Tuaregs, which explains your rude tone. As much as it is true that the Tuaregs' Tifinagh is the oldest, they are not the originators nor are they the only ones with connection to the script as it stands, nor is Tamazight (?) an "invented artificial language".
Secondly, @Blueshiftofdeath there is no standard for the order. I noted M.Bitton said he was going by the Chinese Characters page (the only example I could also find); however, I was going by such pages asSouss-Massa,Agadir,Rif, and basically every other page similar to them, which base the languages and/or scripts for the names based on the dominant language concerning it (even if the pages themselves aren't related to scripts because, again, there is no standard). Though, I will note that I don't mind things as they stand even though I don't see how it can be preferable (again, Neo-Tifinagh is more widely used and prevalent); I had two problems and the main (that "Neo-Tifinagh and "Tuareg Tifinagh" and their characters were not in the lead line as is always done elsewhere, despite meaning the same thing) has been solved.Petertshomela (talk)12:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be an incomprehensible inconsistency regarding the dating. I already provided a citation arguing for the continuous use of Tuareg Tifinagh till this day, and yet the dating in the infobox keeps getting edited to "extinct by the 8th century AD". If that was the date for Libyco-Berber, fair enough, but the infobox is clearly titled "Tifinagh". Besides, it contradicts repeated statements along the article, and the heading itself. Can we get this right, eventually?Il Qathar (talk)18:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Common forms of the letters are illustrated at left" Where? I see no complete Tifinagh alphabet anywhere on this page. --Hugh7 (talk)08:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
