Battle of Round Mountain

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Writing systems Mid‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Thailand C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.ThailandWikipedia:WikiProject ThailandTemplate:WikiProject ThailandThailand articles C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why is Corsican alphabet included under "Related articles"? Corsican is unrelated to Thai, and I see no parallel between the systems. Is it just an orthography chosen at random to make three "Related articles", which seems to be the required number everywhere? That would be dumb as heck. I hope it's not the case, but it's the only reason I can think of. Thnidu (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodstone:: I would like to add that the language on additionally marking vowel length and tone is repeated from the RTGS, whose original definition also defined the Precise System, which does 'define' marking for tones and length (or rather, shortness). RichardW57m (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have never understood why this standard and RTGS does not include an optional way to indicate tones and length. It would be easy to add.−Woodstone (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I never found extensive examples of the Precise System, so I never found out how marking was done when the spelling contradicts the actual pronunciation. Maybe that system just died - its not distinguishing final ด and ต looks like a bad mistake. Thus the scare quotes on 'define'. RichardW57m (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The precise standard defines itself as a transliteration that is reversible. That would imply that the tones must follow the orthography, not the practice of speach. Google translate often gives a transcription that seems to be based on the precise system. You might want to try some examples of words that do not follow the written tones. I do not understand your remark about final ด and ต, because they are represented differently. −Woodstone (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]