Talk:ConScript Unicode Registry

message: The John Cowan referred to in this article is not the John Cowan referred to in the article of that name, so the hyperlink is now removed.  --07:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does someone know if John Cowan who is mentioned here is the same one as John Woldemar Cowan who is responsible for the Lojban Grammar? --213.47.109.179 18:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes.  He has a Lojban link on his home page. Deh 18:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

message: Does anyone have ideas to expand this article, or should this be merged with something else?
I suppose we could list current CSUR proposal scripts like Tengwar and Cirth? -- Jordi·✆ 09:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article expansion? 

message: There appears to be some discrepancies between the ranges given on the main CSUR page and the CSUR Roadmap for the Aui, Amman-Iar, Streich and Xaîni scripts.  I have used the values from the roadmap since using the values on the main page does not allow enough room for the Xaîni script. --Wm243 (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSUR Allocations 

message: Is there any alternatives to ConScript for registering common fictional alphabets? The trouble with ConScript is that it occupies not only the "Corporate" Private subarea, but also the "Private" Private subarea, such that a club that needs a really private alphabet, cannot combine that with also using Tengwar in their discussions. Another trouble is that it has filled up the BMP private area with alphabets with virtually no usage. Tengwar, Cirth and Klingon are widely used, most of the other not. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 12:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of any alternatives to ConScript, but the idea with the Private Use Area is that you may use it for any purpose you want, so you are free to create alternatives if you want to. If you need Tengwar, Cirth and Klingon in addition to your club's own private alphabet, you could map Tengwar, Cirth and Klingon to their CSUR positions and assign the other parts of the PUA to the club's own private alphabet. No one is required to use all of CSUR (and I don't think anyone needs all of the scripts at the same time). Besides, CSUR doesn't really use all of the PUA. A few BNP code points are free (but were previously assigned so reusing them might be bad). Most plane 15 and all plane 16 code points are also free. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What is "Corporate" and "Private" in PUA? -DePiep (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no such distinction. His other point of criticism is valid though. The BMP PUA is in some sense a finite resource and I don't see why the CSUR chose to fill it completely with hobby projects that will likely never see any use. If you somehow feel the urge to defend that decision, please first go through the list and really look at all of the exhibits.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternatives?

message: It seems the original CSUR isn't maintained anymore, so an unofficial registry has sprung up: http://www.kreativekorp.com/ucsur/
Can we include a link to it on the main page, as well as including some of the new proposed script mappings that aren't in the original CSUR? These are marked in green on the unofficial CSUR page. ThVortex (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do they use "Unofficial"? Already CSUR is "unofficial", i.e. not Unicode Standard. Bad naming. Now you can go and describe it correctly in the encyclopedia. Might even need a Move (name change) into a more general one. Hey, so we do have another forkin' standard for the same!? Great. -DePiep (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, they don't. U stands for Under, not for Unofficial. Zeidra (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: She did when posted:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unofficial ConScript Registry 

message: Should (Under) ConScript Unicode Registry code blocks get pages like Unicode blocks? 67.81.132.165 (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Some already exist.  See Category:ConScript Unicode Registry charts. My guess is that most would be deleted as "not notable".  And if there's not font support and an article that wants to include them it seems pointless.  That said, I can easily provide the basic tables if the consensus is to create more of them. DRMcCreedy (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should (Under) ConScript Unicode Registry code blocks get pages? 

message: There's a nice semi-phonetic alphabet created for Modern Dutch language, that I think it really deserves to be encoded into Unicode 15 or later, like we have encoded Deseret and Shavian for Modern English. More into on this Dutch conscript: https://omniglot.com/conscripts/peperklips.htm 94.180.96.222 (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peperklips should get encoded into Unicode at least into CSUR. 

message: The redirect Rebecca Bettencourt has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  SnorlaxMonster 11:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Rebecca Bettencourt]]" and "[[:Rebecca G. Bettencourt]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]