Talk:Diacritic

List Diacritics in Unicode
I have added : Diacritics in Unicode (224 rows).

Not (yet) used: Diacritics in Unicode/non-Latin. -DePiep (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Reason to use serif with dotted circle
The short explanation of why has been necessary to use span style="font-family: serif" in each case where the diacritic is being demonstrated against a dotted circle (as "neutral grey background") is to mitigate a rendering limitation in Android (as of v13), that its default sans font fails to render "dotted circle + diacritic", so visitors just get a meaningless (to most) [X] mark. For the longer explanation, see template talk:Unichar. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Diacritics that do not produce new letters v Languages with letters containing diacritics
Can anyone explain why the section Diacritic exists? Is there any reason not to merge it into Diacritic? As far as I know (which is not very far at all) the only case of where a letter+diacritic is considered unique and distinct for sort order, is ñ in Spanish (as is or was ). If we really need to go into that detail (and I question that too), surely the section should be about those few exceptions. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Choice of base letter : bold, revert, discuss
Per WP:BRD, I reverted a bold edit by user:2601:c6:d200:e9b0:6136:61c3:9ee3:bb8c. Per WP:BRD, the change is suspended pending debate.

The long-standing pre-existing arrangement was to use the letter $⟨a⟩$ as base letter as much as possible. If it is to be changed, a discussion and consensus is needed. The dispute is whether to use the same base letter so that the emphasis is on the diacritic, or to choose a letter which "best" (?) displays the diacritic in use.

(The section deals with precomposed characters, so the option to use the generic place-holder symbol is not really relevant –  and would require a lot more work to use combining diacritics.)

The debate is now open. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I am not really fond of all examples in a particular example being of the same idea. Can we try to keep them all different, sticking with my version for now? 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:6136:61C3:9EE3:BB8C (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for engaging with the BRD process.
 * Sorry but "I am not really fond" is not a very rational argument. In your edit summary, you wrote Using different letters for most examples would flow better as some letters flow better with some diacritics than they do with others. Can you elaborate, using examples (bearing in mind that all the examples based on the letter $⟨a⟩$ are real code-points, not artificial constructions?) [Meanwhile, WP:STATUSQUO applies.] --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd like to point out that the base letter $\langleu\rangle$ has combining forms with all of the diacritics with examples listed expect for the overdot and undercomma. Meanwhile, $\langlea\rangle$ doesn't combine with the double acute and undercomma, $\langlee\rangle$ and $\langlei\rangle$ both don't combine with the double acute, overring, and undercomma, and $\langleo\rangle$ doesn't combine with the overring and undercomma. So maybe we should be using $\langleo\rangle$ as our base letter example, which is good because it also has $\langleø\rangle$, $\langleơ\rangle$, and $\langleǫ\rangle$ for the slash overlay, horn, and ogonek, respectively. 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:A4ED:D8FB:CD17:1710 (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would equally satisfy the need for a common base letter in all (or at least almost all) cases to that the focus of attention is the diacritic not the base. And yes, $⟨o⟩$ is a better choice than $⟨a⟩$ for the reasons you set out. Would you like to go ahead and do that change? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)