Template talk:Punctuation marks

Bengali Punctuations

since there are other punctuation marks listed , e.g. Chinese Punctuation, and Bengali Bangla has distinct scrpts, so I propose a link to Bengali Punctuation orবাংলা বিরাম/যতি । — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briksho (talk • contribs) 21:06, 10 October 2013‎

Proposal: change to footer Navbox

The sandbox page was moved to {{Punctuation marks/sandbox}} (Dec 2019)

I propose to change this Sidebar into a regular Navbox at page bottom, including a name change (page move). Reasoning: there is no need to have this one in top, it is cluttering. Also the list is very long (detailed). At the bottom, there is more space to present the marks. Improvements are still possible afterwards.

See {{Punctuation marks/sandbox}}. @Spitzak:. -DePiep (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support in principle. (In detail, I find the grey boxes visually disturbing and invite you to reconsider that, but again the principle is a good one because clutter created by the existing sidebar, where images are forced to be thumb|left forcing the text into an awkaward column down the middle, is a lot more disturbing). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I've made them lighter. I think we need them to make visual distinction (visual search, stress a diff between name and mark, do not mistake with prev/next in list when reading/glancing). -DePiep (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Better but I'd go lighter still, as light as you possibly can. I understand and accept your purpose (most obviously when dealing with with types of space). In the final analysis, it is a judgement call that someone – you – has to make, then it is what it is. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

"as light as you possibly can" = white ;-). For the reasons mentioned, all about "reading" the box (glancing is more what readers do), a distinction is helpful. More: There are three elements: the text/name link, the marks and the separator now a  · dot. The grey helps separating & organising (as the colon does). And since there are marks (not letters) involved, distinction is more important -- not reading sentences. When we leave the vertical table (Sidebar) for some horizontal list, separations is more important. The human eye misses the helpful table-structure. -DePiep (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks like what I was thinking of, but template:currency symbols may be a better design, with just the symbols showing. Whitespace can just be put in the (already existing) link to whitespace characters so you don't have to show them.Spitzak (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts: 1. The currency symbols are not described (no text). Quite unhelpful except for familiar signs like dollar and euro. I was thinking about adding text there ;-) 2. Adding a link to the mark itself will cause or an underline to a 'drawing' (wikilink), or remove underline = unclear that it is a link. Both are drawbacks, now nicely in the textual wikilink. 3. I am very happy with the extra space we have in a bottom Navbox, using it for wider description. Let's not forget that we, interested editors, by now are very familiar with the punctuation marks. But a novice reader is helped with the texts. -DePiep (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I find having it near the top aids in navigation in a way that a navbox at the bottom simply cannot replicate. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment A consensus to phase out the sidebar in favour of the navbox has already been established, so this is a request to re-open the debate. As observed above, the huge sidebar is very disruptive in most articles, because it takes up so much space. Any other templates get stacked below it and images have to go the right (causing an ugly page design) or be stacked well away from the sections they are intended to illustrate. That is why it has become deprecated. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Where was consensus established? —Locke Cole • t • c 17:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

See #Proposal:_split_into_Infobox_and_Sidebar_navbox, Nov 2019. -DePiep (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that and this, and it looks like somehow this template was orphaned for the most part. What is WP:TFD for? —Locke Cole • t • c 17:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

If is is about content, we try to solve it at the talkpage. Once outside of content (deletion, disputed move), TfD comes into play. Problem with TfD is that uninvolved editors (uninvolved in its maintenance, topic, issue) come by and start telling others what to do. HTH -DePiep (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but considering this template is now effectively orphaned from article-space, you might as well have deleted it. I only noticed what was going on because someone was edit warring to remove it from Apostrophe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A change like this really should have involved a wider audience... —Locke Cole • t • c 18:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The 'somebody edit warring' was you. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

That wider "audience"(?) be involved topical editors then, not drive-by XfD!voters. What is your proposal? -DePiep (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you disparage your fellow editors by calling them "drive by" is a pretty good indicator of what's wrong with your line of thinking. Maybe lay off the personal attacks? Other peoples opinions don't have to follow whatever your thinking is, that's why conversations happen. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You are declaring a personal attack without good reason, is it too close to home? This discussion happened four months ago, where were you then? The infoboxes have been replaced as the opportunity arose, on a wide variety of punctuation, typography and currency. Again, why has it taken you until now to question what was being done, as you would were you actively interested in the topic? You are entirely free to reopen the question but you really need a more convincing argument than wp:becauseilikeit. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment User:John Maynard Friedman, do you want any updates to the sandbox? Shall I reinstate the color options for demonstrating (as in #Grey scale demos)? It is OK with me if you reorder and group the marks in the sandbox if you want to. -DePiep (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Grey scale demos

See {{Punctuation marks/testcases}}: it has various grey tints. note: the color is the RGB "e6e6e6" triplet, goes from black (00 ×3) to white (ff ×3). So "cccccc" is darker than "dddddd". Take care, do not be misguided by environment & situation. Try to judge per single color view. -DePiep (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Visual effect is also hardware dependent (e.g., screen settings & effects). So a color may be more light here with me than there with you. -DePiep (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• eeeeee is my preference. I thought it would be ffffff but I was wrong. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

oooops made a mistake, "eee" is not "eeeeee". Pause judgement. Will correct tomorrow. -DePiep (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that very few people would have spotted it! But time to vote again:

• In order of preference then: eee, eeeeee, e8e8e8 (all look pretty similar), ffffff. (F0 E6 8C has promise but this version is too lurid, how about a pale primrose? Black on yellow might well be clearer than on grey). [This is beginning to feel like a visit to the optometrist]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

New names, now bleu again: {{Punctuation marks/sandbox}}, {{Punctuation marks/testcases}} -DePiep (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the tst options (color choice) is broken. Ping me if you want to use this. -DePiep (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

(Discussion moved to Template talk:Navbox punctuation) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Scope creep

This template describes itself as "punctuation marks". So why has it "just growed" to become a cfork of List of typographical symbols and punctuation marks? Can anyone give a good reason why all sections below the first should not be deleted? (except maybe the last "Related"). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Develop: remove them from {{Punctuation marks/sandbox}}. Check at /testcases. Please discuss/be clear on what one changes. DePiep (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I will give it a couple of weeks before I do anything, to see if anyone wants to present a case for defence of the status quo. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

IMO no waiting needed. You can edit the /sandbox right away, as part of discussion & proposals. Once stable (in changes, in discussion here), the sandbox can go live. Personally, I'd like to read the (new) criteria here, crispy. DePiep (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I have produced the proposed version in the sandbox. The first section is the same as at present, except that I have added interpunct as it is an edge case. I have deleted all remaining sections down as far as "In other scripts" (which should remain). I have added "word dividers" and "typographic symbols" to the "related" section. Implementation awaits explicit or implicit assent within the next few days. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I have also removed "logic symbols" and "currency symbols" from the "Related" section because they are not related to punctuation in any meaningful way. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Easily agree with removing those two classes. No double usage as P in there? DePiep (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Isn't this a bit strict? Unicode character property § General Category "P" lists many more (I agree: uncommon ones not needed, especially not when their umbrella is mentioned, like "brackets"). But under P (Punctuation § Po, other!) are quite a lot of common graphs. And that's Unicodew definitions/hints only, probably typograhy has more/others. Many graphs have double (also non-punctuation) usage.

So, can we find a rule that would include obvious common ones? -DePiep (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me to accept the Unicode Consortium's definition: I have no doubt that they relied on expert opinion to define the list they did. So I will update the list accordingly later today (e.g., underscore, dash, etc). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah... I don't see how we can use Template:Unicode chart General Punctuation as a reliable source for Latin script punctuation. These are not punctuation marks as generally understood in English Latin script "alphabets" (indeed some of them are CJK punctuation marks, which we mark as "Related"). I think we have to draw the line north of Po. I will add the others. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC) revised --16:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Another iteration done. I have added asterisk, dagger, merged hyphens, added Spanish ¡, merged quotation marks. Added some advisories about excluding non-latin punctuation. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course not. Luckily nobody said so.

For starters, a Unicode character can have a script. Filter out Tibetian. Also, uncommon signs can be omitted.

The point of GenCat is that "P" is a very good starting point to longlist punctuation characters. Currently: 718. From then on, use that list as inspiration. DePiep (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry? I don't understand? I believe that my latest version has Pc, Pd, Ps, Pe, Pi and Pf – so all except Po. What do you think I have missed? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Nobody cares

I should have guessed why so few editors commented: nobody cares. The template is not used in any of the punctuation articles. Expletive deleted. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)