Talk:Letterlike Symbols

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. The proposed title already redirects here, so the parenthetical serves no purpose. Cúchullain ^t/c 20:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Letterlike Symbols (Unicode block) → Letterlike Symbols –

• There is no need to disambiguate the title. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 19:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: If you check Unicode#Standardized subsets you'll see articles on specific unicode ranges. The term Letterlike Symbols is one of the entries in this section. This is not a general article on all letterlike symbols, it is a technical term that only refers to certain composite characters that form part of the unicode system. The other articles linked from this section of the Unicode article all have 'unicode' in their name somewhere, and I believe this will be helpful to orient the reader. If you think that the current title is awkward, you might consider something like 'Letterlike symbols in Unicode'. EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Some of these issues were previously discussed at Talk:Basic Latin (Unicode block)#Unicode block names. The system used for these titles is now making more sense. It is still hard to establish a firm rule on when disambiguation with '(Unicode block)' should be used. The practice seems to be, don't bother disambiguating for a name that already sounds very technical and obscure, such as Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols. Also, it appears to be accepted that upper case should be used in these titles to emphasize that they are proper names. I notice that 'Braille Patterns' is now Braille Patterns (Unicode) which sounds correct, since 'Braille patterns' by itself could have other associations. You can see which blocks currently have disambiguators by viewing Category:Unicode blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose One of the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA for article titles is Precision - Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to unambiguously identify the topical scope of the article, but not overly precise. The current title meets this level of precision but just Letterlike Symbols does not have enough info to identify the topical scope.--Salix (talk): 06:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)note I have changed the lead to clarify that it is just the name of a Unicode block, not a classification. I think this does not change this proposal.

Unicode does not claim that "exactly these are all letterlike symbols" or so. Other than EdJ states above, there is no standardisation of symbols involved, it is just a mapping. Think of all the Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols: more of the same, put elsewhere. In general, a Unicode block is less defining than one might think. It is just a rudimentary grouping, easy to find and work with ranges of code points. Which block a character is in, does not say anything on how to handle it (that could be different for, say, scripts.) -DePiep (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is not about letterlike symbols in general, it is no classification. It is the block name by Unicode (may be spelled in lowercase too, btw, but this is about this spelling). "Letterlike symbol(s)" may very well be an article about a group of such symbols. In an earlier move [1], I noted that an admin wanted the dab word for clarification back then (See more of such edit summaries on my moves around 3 August 2010: [2]). -DePiep (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support We don't have an article on "letterlike symbols," so this is unnecessary disambiguation. Compare to the outcome of the RM at Talk:Miscellaneous Technical. --BDD (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

A title Miscellaneous Technical is not confusing. Letterlike symbol(s) is. User Salix alba (and others) pointed to this precision, above. -DePiep (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Noting particularly the capitalisation, which is an accepted disambiguation technique (rightly or wrongly). Further disambiguation is unnecessary, and would remain unnecessary even if we were to have an article on letterlike symbols generally, which we don't currently. Andrewa (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Missing entries

I am not familiar with this page, so I don't know all of the specifics of it. But, shouldn't this symbol (Æ) be included in the list? The symbol that looks like the letter "a" and the letter "e" joined together closely (i.e., this symbol: æ) is a somewhat common symbol. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, what about this symbol @? That "at sign" is essentially the letter "a" with a circle around it. Shouldn't that also be included in this list? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Æ is a letter rather than a symbol, but in any case the subject of this article is the Unicode block (set of characters) named "Unicode Symbols" (i.e. the 80 characters in the range U+2100 through U+214F), and not letterlike symbols in general. Therefore it is not a complete list of letterlike symbols. BabelStone (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said, I am not at all familiar with this page (I just stumbled upon it). Hence, I did not want to make any edits. However, you state that "the subject of this article is not letterlike symbols in general ... therefore it is not a complete list of letterlike symbols" Doesn't that very fact indicate that a new title is needed for the article? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally I agree, but the Move discussion above says otherwise. Technically, the capitalization of this article tells you it is not about letterlike symbols in general, but that is something that perhaps most users might not notice. BabelStone (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. I am quite sure that that minor detail would (and, in fact, does) go right over everybody's head. Most readers reading an article with the title "Letterlike Symbols" will expect it to be an article about, in general, symbols that are like letters. Not some Unicode block (whatever that means). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Unicode block which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

ℊ

In the standard, the character ℊ is labelled ‘real number symbol’. As far as I can tell it was present, along with this label, in the very first version of Unicode. Does anyone know what is meant by this? Is there an area in mathematics that uses lower case g as a symbol for (a/the) real number(s)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A457:9497:1:F938:499E:52BC:CB4C (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)