Talk:Unicode character property

Angle brackets in linguistics and math

The article states that U+27E8 “⟨” and U+27E9 “⟩” are deprecated, but they continue to be used in mathematics[1] and linguistics. Should this be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnSmith13345 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Needs attention from expert

Article is showing two references sections. MarkMLl (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Problem was that someone had unilaterally moved the template to mainspace without considering the consequences. BabelStone (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

How to correct reference numbering?

[31-Oct-2019] The numbers in the References section do not match the cite numbers in the article text, e.g. in the table "Unicode characters with White_Space property" the cite number is ^[8] when it should be ^[4] (which is the corresponding number in the References section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:999:21:8639:19E1:11F5:1A1C:4754 (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed. Good catch. Changed bad usage of <ref group>, use {{efn}} instead. [2], [3] -DePiep (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Code point ranges

• 11:28, July 24, 2021 - «‎top: rephrase. simply: a unicode charater has properties. ranges do not matter at all»

@DePiep: I'm reverting this per WP:BABY and WP:BADFAITH. Please, don't make unexplained removals. Discuss first. See. Keep it, don't remove! I have to point out that the sources I've provided (in [10:00, July 24, 2021] ) specifically talk about code points, rather than characters (because there are still code points that have no characters but assigned properties) . If you are going to ignore this, then I will take this directly to WP:RFC if you don't mind. I generally don't like unexplained edits like that one above. They are highly disruptive. This disregard and recklessness toward citations and other's contributions isn't good.

...ranges do not matter at all I will cite this for you :

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Alexander_Davronov Please argue or withdraw your accusation of BF. One cannot make such a statement freely. Or claim that one is "talking". -DePiep (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

No because I've clarified myself on the disputed issue already. I don't want to get dragged myself into another time sink. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Alexander_Davronov, although in principle I thought your reworking of the lead generally an improvement, I consider your responses to DePiep bad-tempered at best. It is gross over-reaction to what is clearly just a minor difference in reading the source, which a polite exchange of understandings would easily have resolved and clarified. To accuse a fellow editor of bad faith is a very extreme step to take and a hair's breadth from a WP:ANI referral. I urge you reconsider your choice of words. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: You are free to take this to WP:ANI board. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 06:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman:

to what is clearly just a minor difference...

The UNICODE databases of char properties in fact specifically list not characters but points. For convenience we may refer to them as chars but here we should be accurate. Feel free to prove me wrong. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Alexander_Davronov There is no sense or use to set up a reasoning (and a "prove me wrong") as long as you keep your statement re bad faith. You have not based it, and you are violating the assume good faith principle. You are making a content issue personal, as in: a personal attack. I urge you to reconsider & redact your statement. @John Maynard Friedman: -DePiep (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: Discussion always make sense. You can continue at WP:ANI if you wish. Don't forget to notify me please. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

References

As the less-involved editor, it would be best if it is I who does the ANI referral. I can't do so before this evening, which gives AD a further opportunity to reconsider. I will not bother to detail the content dispute because it has become irrelevant. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

JMF, coming days I have not much time to spend on this. I prefer to write the ANI-report later on. -DePiep (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

DePiep, Alexander_Davronov: On reviewing wp:ANI, which directs me to WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE in the first instance, I have asked an uninvolved administrator to review the discussion above and the edits that gave rise to it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. If helpful, I can & will spend editing time on this from Thursday (in whichever form; could be ANI). Anyway, the content discussion is inactive for now, article edits are disputed. -DePiep (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 Administrator note @Alexander Davronov: Please apologize for and withdraw your accusation of bad faith. Please address the merits of content and sourcing. Everyone has better things to do that deal with such accusations. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Please address the merits of content and sourcing Refer to the first reply in this section: [13:58, July 24, 2021].
Please apologize for and withdraw your accusation of bad faith. This is a wrong place to discuss this. Even though this is an exaggeration I won't because the [11:28, July 24, 2021] edit by DePiep intentionally trimmed some refs and statements which were added just a few revisions ago by me (excluding some phrases). Considering that a vague reasoning was given in the said diff and no explanation followed in conjunction with this content dispute my doubts about good faith are partly justified. If DePiep continues to avoid content dispute my doubts are only going to get reinforced. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 12:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

name, Name, or na

This article uses the three spellings ‘name’, ‘Name’, and ‘na’ interchangeably. Do wee need them all?

• The first distinction is merely capitalization. The lower case ‘name’ in the semantic description may look a little nicer, but is that really a reason to deviate from the spelling used elsewhere?
• ‘na’ is what the standard calls a “short alias”, which is something we might add, but only if we also explain “short alias”, or at least what it's good for. Either way, i don't know if that level of detail is needed here. ◅ Sebastian 04:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Failed verification for Semantic elements

Semantic elements contains "{{cite web|title=UCD: Unicode Data|url=https://www.unicode.org/Public/UCD/latest/ucd/UnicodeData.txt}}". But nothing in that section is cited from there. The linked page seems to roughly follow the syntax provided here, but some of the most common characters violate it, e.g.

0061;LATIN SMALL LETTER A;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;;;0041;;0041

So, it appears that the syntax is WP:OR, and i added the “Failed verification” template. ◅ Sebastian 05:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I am wondering if https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr44/#UnicodeData.txt might be a better source for this. Rsranger65 (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Rsranger65. That may be a little better, but it's still not a source for the semantic box. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 22:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)