Thread:KRJones87/@comment-24901686-20200928112214/@comment-46173343-20200929220733

"Egyptian hieroglyphics is in the Infoboxes here; that's probably the closest script to images here."

1. That's true, but my feelings are the same for the hieroglyphics. Someone had to come up with that hieroglyphic script, which probably took a lot of work, and is super impressive, but it's far from perfect. For instance, on the moblile version on the site (at least on my phone), both the hieroglyphics and the runes are not recognized and appear as "x" symbols.

This is the problem with using uncommon scripts from rare or ancient languages as opposed to contemporary script. The majority of people who visit the site do it via mobile divices (55%), so we need to make sure the pages work 100% of the time for them.

2. Also we have to take into consideration the language of the site and the users. This is an English language site, with the vast majority of visitations from English speaking Americans (131,368 visitations in the last 30 days), with the second highest being the UK (14,047 visitations in the last 30 days). We have to make sure that people visiting the site can easily read and comprehend the information on the site.

For instance, in your Kambaltou page you can clearly discern that the Tifinagh script is meant to be for the word "Kambaltou." Another positive example is AZS, who adds a lot of Arabic script, but typically provides an English translation so that English speakers know what they're looking at.

For a negative example, if you look at the infobox of the Ra page, there is a series of hieroglyphics. The problem is that there is no translation or explaination of the hieroglyphics in the infobox, which isn't helpful for the vast majority of people who are unable to read ancient Egyptian.

3. Lastly I'm worried people are spending too much time focusing on the infoboxes. The entire point of this website is that people actually read the articles. In a lot of the pages too much information is placed in the infoboxes, which may leave people thinking that they no longer need to read the pages, so that they're just jumping from page to page only reading the infoboxes. This also may leave people with an un-nuanced view of the mythological figures they're reading about, since the infoboxes are ultimately still summaries.

--

So that's my two cents on the issue. I'm not going to stop you from attempting to come up with indigenous scrips, but I hope you take my above points into consideration if you choose to do so.

Another last thing to bear in mind before editing some of these pages is that a lot of our supposed "flagship" pages, such as the pages for Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Norse mythology, I've found to be copy/paste jobs from Wikipedia. This means that at some point we're going to have to erase the content in these pages and start again from scratch. This is something I've been thinking about for a while, but I'm thinking about starting with rewriting the Greek mythology pages. It may be a while before someone gets to rewriting the Norse pages, but bare in mind that any edits minor edits you do to a page that is a copy/paste job may end up being deleted along with the plagiarized content of the page when its rewritten one day.

Hopefully this imput was helpful! Thanks again for your edits!

-KRJones87