Category talk:Unencoded Latin characters

Why?

What is meant by a “Latin character” and where is the term used? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) This category was created after repeated insistence by 1234qwer1234qwer4 in uncategorizing things like Category:Fair use logo as Category:Unencoded Latin letters, which is now a subcat of this new cat. This is meant to ensure that characters that are doubtlessly part of the Latin script are categorized as such, while accommodating 1234qwer1234qwer4’s qualms in calling letters what are not letters, at least in some definitions. Will it work? Well, apparently that hinges on the definition of letter — so let’s see. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave a definition of letter in the linked discussion: User talk:1234qwer1234qwer4#Last warning. Symbols of ITA, IPA, and other transcriptions are letters, being phonograms that are part of that same well-defined alphabet. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)

Also, how are phonetic transcription symbols suddenly not letters? If we recognise IPA characters as letters, we should act analogously here. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one dead-set in categorizing along that shifty definition: If I moved something from Category:Unencoded Latin letters upto Category:Unencoded Latin characters which you think should not be here, feel free to move it back. After all I was happy about bundling all these together. Good luck with the unclear cases. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And done. So good. Also noted that 1234qwer1234qwer4 chose to undertake fourteen reverts (this one and 13 more like it), instead of doing it all in one go with Cat-a-lot. Like said above, I’m not sure if this is a matter of technical incompetence or sheer bad faith (to annoy me?), but I hold both of those in low regard. So, no news — other than we will have to keep hair splitting what is a letter and what is not, leading to unproductive results and constant shifts, as it happens when shaky definitions are used for categorization. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This ƎR ligature is a good example: Obviously a letter in Unifon, obviously a mere typographic ligature here… And before someone goes ahead and suggests that these two uses of the same glyph are compltely unrelated and should therefore be in separate categories, here’s letters A, B, and C used not as letters. Suggesting that the difinition of letter, as opposed to that of character, is not productive for Commons categorization when taken too strictly. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to note that Unicode uses the term “Letterlike Symbols” for characters like the HD ligature. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You rather wanted to move the goalposts of the discussion off to a tagent (second time you do that in this discussion alone), and you shot your foot in the process as the term "Letterlike Symbols" as used in the name of this Unicode block is not a valid terminological unit but a mere accident in the colorful history of Unicode, that block being a grabbag of disparate symbols. If you seriously wanted to argue that there is a productive differentiation between a mere “letterlike symbol” and a bona fide “letter” you’d point out not to contingent Unicode block names but rather to Unicode character properties. Can you do it? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]