Talk:Refreshable braille display

Consider adding an external link to , which describes an umbrella organization promoting widespread availability of the devices that are the subject of the article. There is useful information on several pages of that site, particularly the glossary. The site is new as of this month, but it is expected to grow steadily as it matures into a clearing house of current activity.

98.216.34.132 (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC).

Moves?

 * 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move all. It's been mostly accepted that the word "braille" is sometimes a proper noun and sometimes not: if used to mean a particular sort of braille script, then it is capitalized as part of the name of the script. If used to refer to the generic type of script, then it is lower-cased. So, we have "Refreshable braille display" (lower-cased) because it could be using any particular kind of braille, but "Korean Braille" because it is the name of the script. I should emphasize that this is a general rule for our convenience: if we find reliable sources that run counter to it, then we follow the sources and this rule goes out the window. So if a majority of sources refer to "Korean braille" or to "Refreshable Braille display", then this rule is not binding in those specific cases. Aervanath (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

– "Braille" is a common noun and thus not capitalized unless part of a proper name. (1st request) Names of specific scripts, however, are proper names per our MOS. (There is a difference between an English braille alphabet, of which there are at least three, and English Braille, which is one of the three.) I have moved several articles accordingly (in both directions), but am stuck on these. (BTW, I am responsible for the current location of many of these articles.) Relisted for further input. Jafeluv (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC) — kwami (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Refreshable Braille display → Refreshable braille display
 * Bharati braille → Bharati Braille
 * Korean braille → Korean Braille
 * Japanese braille → Japanese Braille
 * Thai braille → Thai Braille
 * Mainland Chinese Braille script → Mainland Chinese Braille
 * Arabic braille → Arabic Braille
 * Russian braille → Russian Braille
 * Cantonese braille → Cantonese Braille
 * Question: how is it in the MOS? -DePiep (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Proper names are capitalized. This is the convention used by consensus elsewhere. For example, futhark is not capitalized in general, but it is in the names of specific scripts, such as Elder Futhark. — kwami (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Proper names indeed. I have the impression there is some (wiki) disambiguation getting involved. We write Greek, and Greek alphabet. -DePiep (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting request, and interesting points. I think this one needs scrutiny in open discussion because of the status of braille encodings as "scripts", and other issues in applying Wikipedia style. N oetica Tea? 04:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether they're "scripts", there is a semantic difference between Chinese braille (which may be Cantonese or used on Taiwan) and Chinese Braille (which is used on the Mainland for Mandarin). — kwami (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC) But the Chinese braille article describes more than one script (it has material on both 3-cell and 2-cell) and I'm not sure if it's correct to refer to both of these scripts as "Chinese Braille" (it might be). The Cantonese braille article could conceivably be merged into Chinese braille, which would then be an article about the various different Chinese braille scripts (maybe renaming it to "Chinese braille scripts" would clarify that it's about several different scripts? is "script" the right word?) Silas S. Brown (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. In this last case, introducing the capital B to disambiguate doesn't look like the right route. -DePiep (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not comfortable relying on an advocacy organization's recommendation, which they explicitly put forward as an element of their advocacy. Powers T 15:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they accord with our MOS, which says we shouldn't capitalize common nouns unless they're part of a proper name. They're a supporting reference, not the reason. — kwami (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That source is the first I've seen that claims "braille" is a common noun and not a proper one. Powers T 14:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's in WordNet as well: "Overview of noun braille / The noun braille has 2 senses (no senses from tagged texts) / 1. Braille, Louis Braille -- (French educator who lost his sight at the age of three and who invented a system of writing and printing for sightless people (1809-1852)) / 2. braille -- (a point system of writing in which patterns of raised dots represent letters and numerals) / Overview of verb braille / The verb braille has 1 sense (no senses from tagged texts) / 1. braille -- (transcribe in braille)" Silas S. Brown (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Mixed – certainly agree there's no reason for caps on the refeshable braille display. Capitalizing the others will take more convincing.  Some seem to be mostly cap Braille in sources, but Russian braille not so much.  I'd like to see more stats and a better case for why these are to be treated as proper names of scripts.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources are all over the place, so they're not particularly relevant. Whichever we choose, we should have the same format for all the articles. — kwami (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, that would mean we decide it is a proper noun for all of them. We assigning a name, OR? -DePiep (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We need to choose one or the other. They either are, or they aren't. They shouldn't be proper names here but common names there. And since there are at least four Chinese brailles, we need to move the Chinese Braille article if we decide they're common names. — kwami (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we (at wp) do not need to choose one. If "AB Braille" is defind a proper noun by source -- clear, fine. But that does not imply "CD braille" is a proper noun too. Not our choice, that is OR. -DePiep (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But since we don't have sources which do either, your point is moot. — kwami (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is no RS source for an individual braille definition that says it is "X Braille", we have no argument to claim "proper noun" (end of topic then?). Skipping book and section titles (title casing is not a definition), and the involved organisations (they are careless/involved/titlecasing; though the ABAN link says they are explicit). So the result could be: some braille scripts (definitions) are proper names, others not. By source. -DePiep (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Avoiding such nonsense is exactly why we have the MOS. — kwami (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * RS trumps MOS. -DePiep (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Arabic braille comment. I would weakly oppose capitalization for Arabic braille, as it simply isn't used enough to have developed much.  Contrast with Arabic sign language, which seems to have variations for every country, and names (recognized in scholarly journals) to go with the variations. Perhaps because the blind have more serious challenges than the deaf, blind education in the Arab world is not as well developed, and often consists mostly of teaching students how to eat and drink.  The casual visitor to one of these schools, if such a school can be found at all, might see some assistive reading devices for magnifying ordinary reading materials for those with some small amount of vision, or toys with a braille alphabet spelled out in pegs.  The visitor probably will not see any books for all subject matters written in braille that the school might advertise, or meet any teacher or administrator, blind or sighted, who knows how to read any braille system themselves. Anecdotal evidence, I know, but probably better than none at all.  Add that to the diglossia in the Arabic world, and the case for a systematic use of specialized braille systems in this language pretty much evaporates.  I'm assuming here a model of "form follows function", but who knows, maybe the "build it and they will come" model would be more applicable here. Neotarf (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Implementation isn't the issue. If there were multiple Arabic brailles, so that the term "Arabic braille" would be ambiguous, then it would not be a proper name. However, there is a single braille that goes by that name, so it is specific and therefore a proper name. — kwami (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that's pretty counterintuitive. If you can have an English alphabet, not an English Alphabet, even though there's only one, and an English language but not an English Language, even though there's only one (sort of), why can't you speak of English braille and Arabic braille?  WP avoids "needless capitalization", right? Can't this just be determined in the usual way, by sources?  Neotarf (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps sources would work, but 'braille' is often capitalized because it derives from a proper name, not a complication we have with 'alphabet' etc. Yes, the analogy of 'alphabet' would suggest l.c., but the analogy of 'Elder Futhark' would suggest u.c. Perhaps I'm misjudging that analogy? Whichever we choose, we should not go by sources individually, so that if the only source on Albanian braille capitalizes, and the only source on Armenian braille doesn't, we end up capitalizing one and not the other. — kwami (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any opposition to the first move. That could be done now. The debate is whether to cap "X-an Braille". — kwami (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I oppose it. I am not convinced that we should treat "Braille" as a common noun.  Powers T 23:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We already do, in every other article. — kwami (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's possible those uses have not received sufficient scrutiny. Powers T 18:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As regards letting a man's name become an uncapitalized generic, that has happened with "diesel". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's certainly been known to happen, but I'm not convinced that's the case here, at least not yet. Powers T 18:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a supporting ref from BANA, and l.c. use is attested by the OED. In any case, they should all be cap'd, or all uncap'd, not part one part the other. — kwami (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support all moves. I think "braille" in general is sufficiently genericized, but not in the context of specific language names. --BDD (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Support all appear to be correct. If there are three versions of braille for English, if you say "English braille" you are referring to any or all of them, but if one is actually called "English Braille", then that is what you get, only one version. While other versions may not exist for say Japanese, it appears to be correct to say Japanese Braille to refer to only one implementation of braille for Japanese. Refreshable braille is a generic phrase. Apteva (talk) 02:49, 3 October 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Broken link I don't know how to fix
Some cleanup tasks I can do, but this one's a bit beyond my skill. When I tried to follow the link from the footnote citing an article about a Flemish researcher with a Braille computer mouse/Braille display, it led to a ZDNet site's front page which didn't seem able to find the article. I can't find any English-language version of the Ziff Davis article. Can you? Google located the original-language page at http://www.zdnet.nl/braille/43665/vlaamse-onderzoekster-ontwikkelt-braillecomputermuis/ and one paper (primary source, published by that Flemish researcher, but it doesn't mention the process of commercialisation) at http://www.esat.kuleuven.be/electa/publications/fulltexts/pub_1215.pdf. I'm not sure what is the proper procedure for repairing the reference, either. I hope this is helpful. Egmonster (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I updated the reference URL. You have to edit the section of the text where the number appears, not the references section. --erachima talk 21:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

{Talk: Japanes Braille Article] Please add the other Unicode Character values for all of the other diacritic character and punctuation please
{Japanes Braille Article] Please add the other Unicode Character values for all of the other diacritic character and punctuation please...

managed to show it decently enough with both Graphic and Unicode values for the basic characters and graphically for the rest of the characters..just lacking completeness on the Unicode Block. 80.5.219.60 (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind - My apologies, please. Just noticed that the Unicade characters used are for the Hiragana not the Uniced points. There are Unicode characters that would be nice to add, however, while I am on the topic though. 80.5.219.60 (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC) 80.5.219.60 (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

R we r re
Free wag Ty 2A02:9B0:4008:3DC6:2D56:EAFF:715A:A72F (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Ff eman 187.170.183.70 (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ff eman 187.170.183.70 (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)