Talk:Bamum script

There are serious discrepancies between Omniglot and the Unicode proposal, in the values of the glyphs and the changes that result when modifying them. This article is therefore likely to be wrong in multiple places. kwami (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The romanized orthography systems vary between sources, which produces a lot of variation in how the sounds come out represented in Latin script. Are there some examples you would point to that are not a function of this effect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.179.160 (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

For my part I would advise you to rely on the Unicode proposal. -- Evertype·✆ 17:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Unicode is a lot more likely to be accurate than Omniglot, but it too has its limitations; best to go back to the original sources and verify which (if either) are right. — kwami (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

new category: "artificial script"

Is there a reasonably clear definition of "artificial script"? Maybe the adjective gives the wrong nuance. Every script is new and original at some point. Is it time and use that moves a script out of "artificial" into some other category? And what should we call that category? Obviously this same question applies to the whole category label, not just this particular example. Advice? Response?Pete unseth (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Failed link

The 'Working document' link no longer works - what should it be now? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Split

This page exceeds the post-expand include size limit, causing the refs and Unicode chart at the bottom of the page to fail to render. The main culprit appears to be the section All versions (phases A–G). I propose splitting this section to a new page, perhaps called Bamum characters. Danski454 (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'd suggest using Bamum character phases for the article name. DRMcCreedy (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Ahecht has brought the PEIS down without a split so I'm withdrawing this. Danski454 (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

History / Politics

"Fell into disuse after the exile of King Njoya" seems excessively sanitised and leaves out who exiled him, and their policy and actions regarding literacy in an African writing system for an African language. The omission of any mention of this isn't neutral point of view. Languages and writing systems generally don't just "fall into disuse". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.247.154.123 (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)