Template talk:Navbox diacritical marks

message: halanta//Virama and visarga. deeptrivia (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Mykhal (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing marks 

message: Should the template contain links to Arabic diacritics, anusvara, chandrabindu and other diacritics from non-European writing systems?--Uanfala (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, why not? +Angr 10:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-European diacritics 

message: * The (horizontal) stroke is missing here, or is it not used as a diacritic at all?
* The bar article that is linked to, is about a vertical non-combing character. Sure Unicode will have a combing one? btw, the bar article is confusing about the bar/vertical line/diacritic/punctuation of the bar, and above that also describing the horizontal stroke as one sort of symbol. -DePiep (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  On stroke and bar 

message: I started a talk here at Diacritics -DePiep (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we use the character replacement dotted circle by standard? 

message: I have altered the CSS styles in the /sandbox, mostly to reduce unnecessary stuff. Do the testcases still look OK, especially in IE browsers? -DePiep (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please check the /sandbox testcases 

message: In e.g. Bar (diacritic), the bars are correctly centred on the circles when viewed in Safari (macOS, iOS) or Chrome (iOS), but in Chrome or Firefox (macOS 10.14 or 10.13) the bars are to the right of the circles. – Fayenatic London 15:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Que? -DePiep (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Images added. – Fayenatic London 11:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Same problem seen using Chrome on ChromeOS. I guess it is a browser bug and not anything Wikipedia can do anything about. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect display in some browsers 

message: New question: where should the wikilinks per letter lead? Diaeresis (diacritic) shows that a lot of letters wikilink to  page Diaeresis (diacritic). -DePiep (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would that change? Just as Circumflex is the appropriate target of letters like ŵ (Circumflex doesn't need disambiguation). It seems a reasonable assumption that if somebody clicks on, or searches for, a single letter like ü, the best response is to send them to the diacritic article because we can't know which of the diaeresis or the umlaut they want. Indeed for a letter with a circumflex, it could be the mathematical notation they want. So let the article do the heavy lifting, not the template. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I did  and . If the wikilink of a letter (say  in breve) is a redirect to the article Breve, then it should not be linked. For starters, it bolds that link which gives wrong distinction. Linking to an opther diacritic is irrelevant even more. (the demo letters only can link to an article about that letter itself). I don't understand the roundabout route "in article Diaeresis click ü to end up in article Diaeresis". If that letter  has no article, then there is no target to link to. -DePiep (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhere in the MOS there must be as statement along the lines of 'do not have self references' because typically if you do they are shown in bold so you don't miss your error. Scanning down the list, the first letter with such a 'self link' is J-with-diaeresis [no pre-composed char available] so what I would do is remove the link in such cases. Your  is another example of the same error. But other letters, like Ä, do have real target articles and so they should be retained as is. I think we don't need to check if the target article is a redirect back to the diacritic article as someone may revise it at some future date. Does that answer the question? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Note that inappropriate links can be removed too. -DePiep (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So the change would not introduce any new errors but in fact remove some existing ones en passant. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes a cleanup that could also be done separatel;y/later on (but quite relevant to pursue for quality reasons). -DePiep (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikilinks

message: I tried the effect of adding it to apostrophe below  (near the foot of the article). In this configuration, both should collapse (?) but only the punctuation one does. Is this intentional? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be about WP:AUTOCOLLAPSE. Also, this involves Good Webpage Design (like "do not use autocollapse because ..."). Don't have time to dive into this one (but you vcan browse our WP-pages). Of course I agree with the apostrophe's article's navbox's order you made. -DePiep (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've just copied over the equivalent  line from Template:Navbox punctuation and that fixed the problem. See Apostrophe#External links. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not collapsing when stacked 

message: As of 2023-09-04, the Latin, Cyrillic, and Greek diacritics are in one section. Is there a good reason why they should not be seperate lists?
--MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: They were probably grouped together because they often use the same diacritics. For example, in Unicode there isn't a "Latin" diaeresis (¨), just a diaeresis with a script code of "Common". Grouping them together is more compact and avoids repeating many diacritics if Latin, Cyrillic, and Greek were broken out into separate sections. I think the grouping works well and (mildly) oppose splitting them apart. I'm confident some of these diacritics are used in scripts besides Latin, Cyrillic, and Greek but making a separate section for each of these additional scripts would take up way too much room. DRMcCreedy (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

text: I agree with DRMcC. Latin, Greek and Cyrillic are a common family of lettering, distinct from Arabic, for example, so the make a natural grouping.I fail to see why splitting them out would be an obvious improvement and you haven't given one. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My original thought was that some of the diacritics, such as smooth/rough breathing and perispomene, were unique to Greek, and that it would be more clear to group them separately from the Latin and Cyrillic diacritics. Maybe it would be good to have a "Common" section for diacritics used in multiple scripts, and have separate sections for the unique ones? --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Additionally, Early Cyrillic diacritics are also separately grouped. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose further splitting the sections because I don't think it will be faster to locate a diacritic than it already is in this Navbox. Also, the "Latin, Greek and Cyrillic" section is already mostly the "Common" section. Even a diacritic like "rough breathing", which I think of as Greek, is used for multiple scripts. So we'd be splitting hairs to classify them in further detail. ("Splitting hairs" also sounds like a diacritic if you think about it too hard.) DRMcCreedy (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it makes sense not to split it further, considering that it would be difficult to determine whether a given diacritic belongs in the "Common" section. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Latin, Cyrillic, and Greek be grouped?