Difference between revisions of "Talk:Hieroglyphs"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Talk:Hieroglyphics moved to Talk:Hieroglyphs: using correct terminology) |
(an editorial note coming from the outskirts of ignorance) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
'''I will be adding content to this page over the next few weeks. Please do not delete the headings. If questions, pls leave not on [[User_talk:Krysg]]. Thanks.''' --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 11:02, 20 March 2009 (EDT) | '''I will be adding content to this page over the next few weeks. Please do not delete the headings. If questions, pls leave not on [[User_talk:Krysg]]. Thanks.''' --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 11:02, 20 March 2009 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I do not agree with the move. The topic is [[Hieroglyphics]], even if the individual letters or [[glyph]]s are (now?) properly called [[hieroglyph]]s. We follow the [[principle of least surprise]] here. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :On the other hand, we are an educational project. If academics have begun to refer to the shorter form (without ''ic'') then we should let our readers know this. But education via redirect is not something I'd like to try. Better to place a usage note somewhere in the article. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :By the way, more important than the spelling issue is how the little pictures correspond to sounds, along with the process by which modern scholars discovered that correspondence. Is the [[Rosetta Stone]] relevant here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:05, 26 March 2009 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 13:05, March 26, 2009
Suggest rename "hieroglyphs". "hieroglyphics" is incorrect terminology. --Krysg 16:31, 18 February 2009 (EST)
I will be adding content to this page over the next few weeks. Please do not delete the headings. If questions, pls leave not on User_talk:Krysg. Thanks. --Krysg 11:02, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
- I do not agree with the move. The topic is Hieroglyphics, even if the individual letters or glyphs are (now?) properly called hieroglyphs. We follow the principle of least surprise here.
- On the other hand, we are an educational project. If academics have begun to refer to the shorter form (without ic) then we should let our readers know this. But education via redirect is not something I'd like to try. Better to place a usage note somewhere in the article.
- By the way, more important than the spelling issue is how the little pictures correspond to sounds, along with the process by which modern scholars discovered that correspondence. Is the Rosetta Stone relevant here? --Ed Poor Talk 09:05, 26 March 2009 (EDT)