Talk:Basic Latin (Unicode block)

Unicode block names

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: rename and move apart from Unicode block Salix (talk): 13:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

C0 controls and basic Latin → C0 Controls and Basic Latin — Capitalisation following Unicode convention. Since they are indeed names in Unicode, and not list headings or descriptions per se, we can use them as proper names cf WP naming convention. The Unicode name can forego WP-guidelines on singularity, disambiguity, and indeed lowercasing, so when we spell the name, we can use that casing as well DePiep (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * C1 controls and Latin-1 supplement → C1 Controls and Latin-1 Supplement
 * Braille patterns → Braille Patterns


 * Enclosed alphanumerics → Enclosed Alphanumerics
 * Geometric shapes → Geometric Shapes
 * IPA extensions (Unicode block) → IPA Extensions (Unicode block)
 * Latin extended additional → Latin Extended Additional


 * Latin extended-A → Latin Extended-A
 * Latin extended-B → Latin Extended-B
 * Letterlike symbols (Unicode block) → Letterlike Symbols (Unicode block)
 * Mathematical alphanumeric symbols → Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols


 * Miscellaneous symbols (Unicode block) → Miscellaneous Symbols (Unicode block)
 * Miscellaneous technical (Unicode block) → Miscellaneous Technical (Unicode block)
 * Unified Canadian Aboriginal syllabics (Unicode block) → Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics (Unicode block)
 * Yi syllables (Unicode block) → Yi Syllables (Unicode block)


 * Unicode block → Block (Unicode)

A block in Unicode is a well-defined word and has a list of (as of version 5.1) 177 (as of version 6.0) 209 names. For these pages here the Unicode names are used, even if they do not follow our WP-guidelines: plurals, ambiguous e.g. re scripts and languages, and so capitalization. In Unicode, these names are informative, and not list titles per se, e.g. "Cyrillic" characters do appear outside of the block "Cyrillic (Unicode block)". Although Unicode should accept lowercase since it is case-insensitive here, it is common practice among Unicode users to use title case as Unicode does in their publications. I therefor propose to use spelling as used in the Unicode Standard publication when naming Unicode blocks.


 * Reason for discussing, possible controversy: editors might think and argue that a page called "Geometric S/shapes" is about geometric shapes in general (it should be singular in WP then, btw). While actually it is a block name we spell as it is published, and above this geometric shapes can be elsewhere too in Unicode.


 * Unaffected: when the article name is not spelled as a block name, we apply WP-standard. Such pages are lists and articles usually about a group of blocks: Latin characters, Mathematical operators and symbols in Unicode, CJK ideographs in Unicode.


 * Sub-blocks: In publications, Unicode uses sub-headers, creating a subdivision in a block. For example, Chess symbols in Miscellaneous symbols (Unicode block) . This is not a block name, and does not need to be treated as such.


 * Details: The 6 blue new links are currently (the inverse) redirects. The use of hyphen is copied from Unicode. The name Unicode block &rarr; Block (Unicode) is up here to rename into correct regular "short name (dab)"; the case problem is not involved.


 * See also:
 * Category:Unicode blocks

-DePiep (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Notified affected pages (using AWB), Talk:Unicode and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization). -DePiep (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall that someone went through and renamed all the Unicode block pages to be lowercase a month or four ago. You should prolly track them down and get their reasoning.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support as Unicode block names are proper nouns, and the article names should reflect this (I may well be wrong, but I thought it was DePiep who was changing the block names to lower case a few months ago). BabelStone (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're both right, DragonHawk and BabelStone. I have set them to lowercasesome months ago, following someone who used the "its only a noun" naming rule. At least then we got the casing consequently. Now I say "we use the given name", also regarding plurals. Everyone types the Unicode uppercase, here too. -DePiep (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding: in these same moves, I changed some names into the Unicode-spelling of block names (except for casing, then) leaving popular used names like "Basic Latin". These popular names are OK for redirects. I also changed the disambiguation into using brackets, as is well described in WP:NCDAB. This proposal now is a step further to the exact copying of a Unicode name. -DePiep (talk) 11:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There are a number of titles that don't require parenthesized qualifiers, including; Yi Syllables (Unicode block), Miscellaneous symbols (Unicode block), Miscellaneous Technical (Unicode block) and Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics (Unicode block). They should either have the qualifier removed altogether or the parentheses removed.I'd rather see IPA extensions (Unicode block) moved to International Phonetic Alphabet Extensions (Unicode block) because IPA is not a common acronym. I am however Opposed to moving Unicode block given a quick search certainly shows that to be the WP:COMMONNAME.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Labattblueboy: I revered your IPA-move. Move while it is discussed here? -DePiep (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Seemed like an uncontroversial move given its standard to expand acronyms unless that are ridiculously common (like RADAR or AIDS) - WP:ACRONYM, but that can all be resolved after the capitalization is sorted out.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You should have talked it since you saw the move-tag, is my complaint. Now when you do talk it, I say this: The proposal is to use the block name as defined by Unicode, now and tomorrow. Full stop. Only tweak left is lc/uc corrections, which is why this proposal is here. And now re IPA Extesions: the Unicode name has the abbreviation. It's not IPA on its own (See AFG Arena, Blue Comet SPT Layzner). The WP:ACRONYM you point to says in the intro, 2nd paragraph: Always consider .... Is what has been done. -DePiep (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)About adding "(Unicode block)". Note: this is about potentially all pages in Category:Unicode blocks, not just the lc/uc listed here. As with every article name, we pick the most common name. With articles about Unicode blocks, this whole proposal is to use the Unicode name literally (including plurals, hyphen not dashes, plurals, capitals and so on). Literally. Other names can be a redirect without fuss. Then if the block name is also used for another article, we need to disambiguate (dab). WP:DAB standard is, to add a dab-term in parenthesis: Mercury (element), Mercury (planet) and Mercury (mythology). Titanic (1953 film) and Titanic (1997 film). Leaving out the parenthesis would create a different article name; parenthesis is part of naming to disambiguate. Concluding: since we prefer to use exactly the Unicode given name (per this proposal), there is no choice left there. Next, if the name already exists (like: Old Turkic as a language), we don't change the block's name, but add a (dab) by using "(Unicode block)". Must it be "Unicode block"? We could opt for another term instead of "Unicode block" for (dab). Only good one I can think of is "Unicode" (as we do elsewhere, see Category:Unicode). But even within Unicode, a word like "Hebrew" is used for the block, the script and the language. So that would not help us much. For this reason, I think that (Unicode block) is preferred, and to be used consequently everywhere in block names when (dab) is needed; no jumping to other terms. About adding (Unicode block) without need. Now there is a grey area: sometimes a title could do without dab (Unicode block) technically (forget about lc/uc for now). Because when no other article exists with that name, no dab is needed. E.g. there are the four examples mentioned by Labattblueboy (and there might be more): proposed new Miscellaneous Symbols (Unicode block) could be Miscellaneous Symbols. But when I proposed this short name to an admin (who had to swap page with a redirect), the name without (dab) was turned down, because is was not "obvious" enough for a Unicode block -- it could also mean miscellaneous symbols in general, or in a font. So to prevent future confusion, the name was not acceptable, and I agreed then and now. Conclusion: even when the name is technically available, we still might use a (dab) for clarity. -DePiep (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest employing slightly descriptive titles, something along the lines of; Miscellaneous Symbols Unicode block, Yi Syllables Unicode block, Miscellaneous Technical Unicode block and Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics Unicode block and International Phonetic Alphabet Extensions Unicode block. Should prove to be an appropriate long therm solution.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you expand some more, on leaving the Unicode name behind, searching for a more arbitrary description, and merging the dab? -DePiep (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Employing an descriptive title in some of the instances seems like an effective method of naming given disambiguation qualifiers are not necessary (because none share similar names) but may not be specific enough by WP naming conventions. I am personally fine with Miscellaneous Symbols,Miscellaneous Technical, Letterlike Symbols, Yi Syllables but if they are unacceptable I think Miscellaneous Technical Unicode block and Miscellaneous Technical Unicode block, etc. are appropriate employments of descriptive titles. Parentheses are normally only applied for the purpose of disambiguation and that's not necessary here. On secondary thought, Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics doesn't even require the Unicode block descriptive (or qualifier) element at all. The name is already adequately disambiguated for Canadian Aboriginal syllabics.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not looking forward to discuss with another admin these should-they-be disambiguations, there is no prediction. They are there already, so they can stay. For sure, adding "Unicode block" without parenthesis as a sort of but not completely disambiguation is not the way to go. If the title is changed into descriptive, we must use full WP:NAME convention, can't have it both ways. And that is not an improvement at all. -DePiep (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, being the nom. To be clear: pages on Unicode blocks use their Unicode name spelled literally (including Unicode's plurals, hyphens, and capitals). For disambiguation will be used "(Unicode block)". -DePiep (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Labattblueboy left a note here, stating "I'm stepping away from this one". -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My comments and opposition to moving Unicode block or employing parentheses disambiguation when article titles are not shared with any other article still stands. I see no issue with the capitalization however.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The concerns re proposed Unicode block --> Block (Unicode), I understand and deserve scrutiny. I suggest to the closing editor to exclude this last one of the list, i.e. not moving this one. A parallel controverse is here. -DePiep (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support all except Unicode block --> Block (Unicode), and I'd also probably support disambiguating them all with "(Unicode block)", since the names sound too generic otherwise.--Kotniski (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: both moved. Favonian (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

– These articles should use the official names of the blocks. According to Unicode's block FAQ, Blocks.txt is the normative source of block names. The longer names are only used for printing headers on the Unicode code charts. Gorobay (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * C0 Controls and Basic Latin → Basic Latin (Unicode block)
 * C1 Controls and Latin-1 Supplement → Latin-1 Supplement (Unicode block)
 * Support as per source. (If I recall well, the long names are legal Aliases, not just chart titles. But still we should use the primary name). -DePiep (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please explain
"The Basic Latin block was included in its present from version 1.0.0 of the Unicode Standard..." I'm having a hard time parsing this statement. Is it supposed to mean "The Basic Latin block was included in its present form since version 1.0.0 of the Unicode Standard...", or something else? --64.236.208.27 (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

MOS:LINKING
This article, along with Latin-1 Supplement (Unicode block), Latin Extended-A, and Latin Extended-B, has become the poster child for overlinking and duplicate linking. There are literally hundreds of repeated links. For example, this line in the table has three links to the same article: "U+0041  A   Latin Capital letter A". I tried to clean up the four articles on May 7th but my changes were undone. I'll try again but seems intent on turning articles into seas of blue. DRMcCreedy (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also IPA Extensions. I agree with DRMcCreedy that overlinking and duplicate linking is not helpful. BabelStone (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

English Alphabet
The ASCII encoded the English alphabet which contains 26 letters including W and is one of many modern alphabets derived from the Latin alphabet, it did not encode then Latin alphabet other than as a subset of the English alphabet.

Some people are confused by this because presumably for diplomatic reasons it was decided to call the encapsulation "Basic Latin" by the Unicode Consortium. If it had really been a "basic" Latin alphabet it would have removed some English letters, e.g. it could have used the Italian alphabet (removing letters J, K, W, X and Y).

So the sentence "" is a tautology based on the diplomatic slight of hand by the Unicode Consortium. I an going to change the sentence to ""

-- PBS (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)