446:- if its going to stay in its current form then its got no place here because such a chart cannot accurately represent speculative relationships. That is to say that many of these genetic relationship are well studied and a solid consensus has emerged. in those cases showing a diagram is fine but many of these writing systems are not entirely understood in terms of their relationships, and speculation about how exactly they are related to other scripts is controversial or just weak speculation generally, representing such ideas in a diagram would be equivalent to stating opinion as fact. This is a notable topic with a wealth of reliable sources. Some kind of tree diagram might be okay, but it would have to accurately represent what is and what isn't known and what is controversial without taking sides and compiling such a tree is probably
476:. These are two articles on the same topic, but at least that one could be developed into a discussion of the scripts and their relationships, without being centred on an over-simplified hierarchy. The only thing here is a tree sourced to websites. Better to scrap it and build the article on the family of scripts (which might contains diagrams or trees as supporting illustrations, if well sourced).
364:) The idea of a "genealogy" is central to the problems here, with the focus on a uniform tree representation forcing an over-simplification of the relationships. A topic "Scripts derived from Chinese" could be developed into an encyclopedic article, which might contains diagrams or trees as supporting illustrations but not as the core subject.
411:
Any notable historic script has been studied extensively by scholars and published on, including information or theories about genetic relationships to other scripts. There can be no doubt that significant sources exist, which may or may not agree with each other and with the information as currently
339:
I agree with
Lambiam. But I think by changing the form (flow chart), the article will be less biased and will better "accomodate all theories," but im not good with editing. I've tried to reference all theories if I could find them (the last 3 are good sources), though its hard for the more obscure
235:
I find myself in agreement with
Lambiam. While the article in its current (frankly mind-numbing) form does not allow for alternate and contested theories, there is no reason why those theories cannot be included in a prose-form article with the same information. I don't think it's original research
180:
This article is original research based on a hotch-potch of unreliable sources. A genealogy of a script group is not appropriate for inclusion in
Knowledge as it presumes that the genetic relationship between scripts is fixed and known, and is accepted by most or all linguists. In fact genetic
306:
I totally agree a flowchart would be better. But the information is not referenced and does not seem accurate. As it is I think the current article needs major work, but rather than deleting bringing it to a stub for future expansion seems best to me.
454:, but I really want to know what the editor who put it there has to say about it. In general there is no reason to think that well cited and carefully written prose can't tackle this notable subject in an interesting and encyclopedic way.
262:
an encyclopedic subject. The problem is not the article but the content. If no one feels up to rewriting to be an accurate representation of our current knowledge, then the next best thing is to strip this to a stub and hope someone will.
289:
in its current form may not be the best, but if the information is reliably referenced, and the genealogy represents the most accepted linguistic theories, then I say keep. But a flow chart might illustrate the relationships better.
149:
181:
relationships between scripts are often very controversial, and there may be many different competing theories. An article like this cannot accomodate all theories, and is inherently biased to one particular theory.
224:. Provided that the information can be verifiably related to reliable sources, the genealogy of a notable family of scripts is encyclopedic information and as such worthy of an article. --
143:
83:
78:
198:
110:
87:
402:
If we keep this we need to find some sources. Its not clear from the above that significant reliable sources exist. Relisted to focus discussion on that point.
70:
164:
131:
540:
361:
537:
422:
502:. That article currently doesn't seem to have much unique content but its can be developed. I agree completely with Kanguole above.
17:
544:
511:
480:
463:
433:
406:
393:
368:
345:
334:
316:
299:
272:
248:
228:
213:
190:
125:
52:
236:
to say that
Katakana is descended from Manyōgana, or any but some of the most ancient claims in this article. My vote is for
121:
74:
171:
66:
58:
559:
520:
499:
491:
473:
36:
558:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
507:
459:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
321:
I would concur with that. I'm surprised that the primary contributor hasn't weighed in. I decided to notify
137:
534:
330:
295:
285:- I've seen more than one flow chart, diagram, or outline serve as the main focus of an article. The
186:
503:
455:
157:
495:
477:
365:
312:
268:
244:
523:. This page can redirect to there or be deleted, whatever turns out to be the best solution. --
430:
419:
225:
209:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
524:
379:
341:
326:
291:
182:
308:
264:
240:
451:
447:
403:
390:
205:
49:
104:
322:
258:
Or keep and strip to the bare bones. I agree with the heart of the AfD, but it
382:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
490:
I've changed my mind, after taking a closer look at this article and
552:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
519:
any salvageable material that is verifiable, et cetera, to
498:
about merging the later. This topic should be developed at
416:
The
Historical Evolution of Chinese Languages and Scripts
100:
96:
92:
156:
389:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
412:presented in the article. For a start, there is:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
562:). No further edits should be made to this page.
199:list of Language-related deletion discussions
170:
8:
197:Note: This debate has been included in the
196:
450:. I'd say the current content is in fact
443:Keep (the article but not the diagram)
7:
24:
418:. Foreign Language Publications.
494:and after a brief discussion on
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
344:for the notification. kUCEEZ
67:Genealogy of sinitic scripts
59:Genealogy of sinitic scripts
579:
521:Chinese family of scripts
500:Chinese family of scripts
492:Chinese family of scripts
474:Chinese family of scripts
369:23:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
346:16:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
335:15:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
317:14:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
300:11:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
273:06:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
249:06:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
229:21:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
214:02:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
191:20:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
53:10:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
555:Please do not modify it.
545:10:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
512:07:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
481:19:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
464:07:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
434:15:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
407:04:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
394:04:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
325:in case he didn't know.
32:Please do not modify it.
472:I see we already have
414:Zhou Youguang (2003).
362:Proto-Sinaitic article
360:(same as the parallel
496:Chinese characters
358:Rename and rewrite
256:Keep & Rewrite
44:The result was
543:
396:
216:
202:
570:
557:
532:
529:
428:
388:
384:
340:systems. Thanks
203:
175:
174:
160:
108:
90:
34:
578:
577:
573:
572:
571:
569:
568:
567:
566:
560:deletion review
553:
525:
425:
413:
377:
117:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
576:
574:
565:
564:
548:
547:
514:
504:Metal.lunchbox
484:
483:
456:Metal.lunchbox
439:
438:
437:
436:
423:
399:
398:
397:
386:
385:
374:
373:
372:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
303:
302:
278:
276:
275:
252:
251:
232:
231:
218:
217:
178:
177:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
575:
563:
561:
556:
550:
549:
546:
542:
539:
536:
530:
528:
522:
518:
515:
513:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
486:
485:
482:
479:
475:
471:
468:
467:
466:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
444:
435:
432:
426:
424:0-87415-349-2
421:
417:
410:
409:
408:
405:
401:
400:
395:
392:
387:
383:
381:
376:
375:
371:
370:
367:
363:
359:
355:
354:
347:
343:
338:
337:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
319:
318:
314:
310:
305:
304:
301:
297:
293:
288:
284:
281:
280:
279:
274:
270:
266:
261:
257:
254:
253:
250:
246:
242:
239:
234:
233:
230:
227:
223:
220:
219:
215:
211:
207:
200:
195:
194:
193:
192:
188:
184:
173:
169:
166:
163:
159:
155:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
130:
127:
123:
120:
119:Find sources:
115:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
554:
551:
526:
516:
487:
469:
442:
441:
440:
415:
378:
357:
356:
286:
282:
277:
259:
255:
237:
221:
179:
167:
161:
153:
146:
140:
134:
128:
118:
45:
43:
31:
28:
323:User:Kuceez
144:free images
342:Boneyard90
327:Boneyard90
292:Boneyard90
183:BabelStone
287:Genealogy
206:• Gene93k
538:contribs
478:Kanguole
380:Relisted
366:Kanguole
309:Colincbn
265:Colincbn
241:Vanisaac
111:View log
431:Lambiam
404:Spartaz
391:Spartaz
226:Lambiam
222:Comment
150:WP refs
138:scholar
84:protect
79:history
50:Spartaz
488:Delete
470:Delete
238:Retain
122:Google
88:delete
46:delete
541:email
517:Merge
452:WP:OR
448:WP:OR
165:JSTOR
126:books
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
535:Talk
527:李博杰
508:talk
460:talk
420:ISBN
331:talk
313:talk
296:talk
283:Keep
269:talk
245:talk
210:talk
187:talk
158:FENS
132:news
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
172:TWL
109:– (
531:|
510:)
462:)
429:--
333:)
315:)
298:)
271:)
260:is
247:)
212:)
204:—
201:.
189:)
152:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
533:—
506:(
458:(
427:.
329:(
311:(
294:(
267:(
243:(
208:(
185:(
176:)
168:·
162:·
154:·
147:·
141:·
135:·
129:·
124:(
116:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.