Talk:t̼

Deletion debate

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Do we want all possible combinations of IPA letter + diacritic(s)? I hope not. -- Prince Kassad 21:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's easy to see why someone would try to look it up. This (if I have the right one) is a pretty difficult character to generate, or even isolate. But I agree that having separate entries for each of these combinations is not tenable. Could they simply be hard-redirected to the diacritic? That's likely to be what the user is looking for, in any case. -- Visviva 06:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably keep, what harm is it doing? What are the negative effects of keeping this and or seeing new ones created? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be the usual argument against creating SOP entries, viz. policy and maintenance. The total number of valid character-diacritic combinations is somewhere in the thousands, and if these are all real entries with content, they would all need to be updated whenever someone wanted to adjust or improve our IPA coverage. Imagine if every time you wanted to improve the entry for "car", you had to also fix the entries for "yellow car", "blue car", etc. On the other hand, the SOPness of these is anything but obvious to the untrained eye. -- Visviva 15:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think they’re different; cf. ̼ with ̫. They are both combining forms. Are there stand-along “modifier letter” forms of all these diacritics, or only some? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be this block and this block, I assume. Doesn't look like there's any 1:1 correspondence. I'll admit I just ended up pulling a likely candidate out of that second file; I have no idea if that's the diacritic in the current entry or not. But that's kind of the point -- we need to address these in a way that doesn't assume the user to be of superhuman savviness, but preferably without tossing our principles in the dustbin either. -- Visviva 17:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Question: are there any languages that use IPA combining diacritics as part of their writing system? If so, hard redirects are probably not a feasible option. -- Visviva 17:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

How about purely SOP definitions like the ones given to English affixes coöccurring with interfixes (e.g., partheno- = parthen- + -o-)? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That could work, though the formatting would take some thought. The combining diacritics have a way of not rendering at all in isolation, but also look very odd when bound to a hyperlinked whitespace character. Maybe we could have Unicode's description of the diacritic (lowercased) as the display text on the link? -- Visviva 03:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

How about ̼ and ̫ (with punctuation spaces on both sides this time)? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That looks pretty spiffy to me. This seems like a low-future-maintenance solution that would not sacrifice user value. Hopefully others will weigh in. -- Visviva 04:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. BTW, if that particular spacing doesn’t do it for you, feel free to compare use with the other spacing widths on my user page (User:Doremítzwr#Useful symbols, § Useful symbols yet to be added to MediaWiki:Edittools, §_§ Punctuation). † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 08:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• kept. no consensus --Rising Sun talk? contributions 17:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)