Talk:Diacritic

Typography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Writing systems High‑importance

	Writing portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

List Diacritics in Unicode

I have added § Diacritics in Unicode: {{Diacritics in Unicode}} (224 rows).

Not (yet) used: {{Diacritics in Unicode/non-Latin}}. -DePiep (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reason to use serif with dotted circle

The short explanation of why has been necessary to use span style="font-family: serif" in each case where the diacritic is being demonstrated against a dotted circle (as "neutral grey background") is to mitigate a rendering limitation in Android (as of v13), that its default sans font fails to render "dotted circle + diacritic", so visitors just get a meaningless (to most) [X] mark. For the longer explanation, see template talk:Unichar#Combining diacritics are displaying as tofu on Android - fault may be in cwith= handling?. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diacritics that do not produce new letters v Languages with letters containing diacritics

Can anyone explain why the section Diacritic#Diacritics that do not produce new letters exists? Is there any reason not to merge it into Diacritic#Languages with letters containing diacritics? As far as I know (which is not very far at all) the only case of where a letter+diacritic is considered unique and distinct for sort order, is ñ in Spanish (as is or was ll). If we really need to go into that detail (and I question that too), surely the section should be about those few exceptions. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of base letter : bold, revert, discuss

Per WP:BRD, I reverted a bold edit by user:2601:c6:d200:e9b0:6136:61c3:9ee3:bb8c . Per WP:BRD, the change is suspended pending debate.

The long-standing pre-existing arrangement was to use the letter ⟨a⟩ as base letter as much as possible. If it is to be changed, a discussion and consensus is needed. The dispute is whether to use the same base letter so that the emphasis is on the diacritic, or to choose a letter which "best" (?) displays the diacritic in use.

(The section deals with precomposed characters, so the option to use the generic place-holder symbol U+25CC ◌ DOTTED CIRCLE is not really relevant – and would require a lot more work to use combining diacritics.)

The debate is now open. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really fond of all examples in a particular example being of the same idea. Can we try to keep them all different, sticking with my version for now? 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:6136:61C3:9EE3:BB8C (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for engaging with the BRD process.

Sorry but "I am not really fond" is not a very rational argument. In your edit summary, you wrote Using different letters for most examples would flow better as some letters flow better with some diacritics than they do with others. Can you elaborate, using examples (bearing in mind that all the examples based on the letter ⟨a⟩ are real code-points, not artificial constructions?) [Meanwhile, WP:STATUSQUO applies.] --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd like to point out that the base letter ⟨u⟩ has combining forms with all of the diacritics with examples listed expect for the overdot and undercomma. Meanwhile, ⟨a⟩ doesn't combine with the double acute and undercomma, ⟨e⟩ and ⟨i⟩ both don't combine with the double acute, overring, and undercomma, and ⟨o⟩ doesn't combine with the overring and undercomma. So maybe we should be using ⟨o⟩ as our base letter example, which is good because it also has ⟨ø⟩, ⟨ơ⟩, and ⟨ǫ⟩ for the slash overlay, horn, and ogonek, respectively. 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:A4ED:D8FB:CD17:1710 (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would equally satisfy the need for a common base letter in all (or at least almost all) cases to that the focus of attention is the diacritic not the base. And yes, ⟨o⟩ is a better choice than ⟨a⟩ for the reasons you set out. Would you like to go ahead and do that change? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]