Template talk:Navbox diacritical marks

Missing marks
halanta//Virama and visarga. deeptrivia (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. —Mykhal (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Non-European diacritics
Should the template contain links to Arabic diacritics, anusvara, chandrabindu and other diacritics from non-European writing systems?--Uanfala (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? +Angr 10:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

On stroke and bar

 * The (horizontal) stroke is missing here, or is it not used as a diacritic at all?
 * The bar article that is linked to, is about a vertical non-combing character. Sure Unicode will have a combing one? btw, the bar article is confusing about the bar/vertical line/diacritic/punctuation of the bar, and above that also describing the horizontal stroke as one sort of symbol. -DePiep (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC) adding on stroke -DePiep (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Should we use the character replacement dotted circle by standard?
I started a talk here at Diacritics -DePiep (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Please check the /sandbox testcases
I have altered the CSS styles in the /sandbox, mostly to reduce unnecessary stuff. Do the testcases still look OK, especially in IE browsers? -DePiep (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect display in some browsers
In e.g. Bar (diacritic), the bars are correctly centred on the circles when viewed in Safari (macOS, iOS) or Chrome (iOS), but in Chrome or Firefox (macOS 10.14 or 10.13) the bars are to the right of the circles. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Que? -DePiep (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Images added. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Same problem seen using Chrome on ChromeOS. I guess it is a browser bug and not anything Wikipedia can do anything about. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Can we change the sample columns to navbars?
Ä|Ää · Ä|Ǟǟ · Ą̈ą̈ · B̈b̈ · C̈c̈ · Ë|Ëë · Ḧḧ · Ï|Ïï · Í|Ḯḯ · J̈j̈ · K̈k̈ · L̈l̈ · M̈m̈ · N̈n̈ · Ö|Öö · Ȫȫ · Ǫ̈ǫ̈ · Ö|Ṏṏ · P̈p̈ · Q̈q̈ · Q̣̈&thinsp;q̣̈ · R̈r̈ · S̈s̈ · T̈ẗ · Ü|Üü · Ü|Ǖǖ · Ü|Ǘǘ · Ü|Ǚǚ · Ü|Ǜǜ · Ṳṳ · Ü|Ṻṻ · Ṳ̄&thinsp;ṳ̄ · ᴞ · V̈v̈ · Ẅẅ · Ẍẍ · Ÿÿ · Z̈z̈Ϊϊ · ῒ ΐ ῗ · Ϋϋ · ῢ ΰ ῧ · ϔӒӓ · Ёё · Ӛӛ · Ӝӝ · Ӟӟ · Ӥӥ · Її · Ӧӧ · Ӫӫ · Ӱӱ · Ӵӵ · Ӹӹ · Ӭӭ Consider for example Letters with diaeresis. This is one of many such templates that put a long vertical column in each article about each diacritic. I picked that one at random, exactly the same applies to every 'Letters with ' template. For readers on desktops or laptops, this is just another column down the right hand side. For readers on mobile (the large majority), it adds screen after screen of excess detail before they get to any text. IMO, this is very poor practice. So I invite comments on a proposal to change this from a sidebar at the beginning of each diacritic article to a navbar at the end. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree, poor practice. Put these letters in a regular box, in its own article section? -DePiep (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See Letters with diaeresis/sandbox. --DePiep (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Just what the doctor ordered!" That (your sandbox version) is so much more civilized.
 * As for the idea of embedding in sections rather than as a concluding navbar, we have a lot of diacritics articles that will each need to be reviewed to see how they would fit in comfortably. I will do that. Would we need to break into separate blocks by alphabet? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the navbox, there are a dozen such templates & articles to handle, right? Overseeable.
 * New line (new hlist) per script: probabkly not, just make a nice break (single hlist = keeps adding dots...). So: no br newline, and prevent dots there.
 * "fit comfortably": a regular section like ===Script examples=== would do everywhere. Nice extra: in mobile view the section is the folding mechanism - solved with the same stone. -DePiep (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it for now. You can play as you like. BTW, this sectiontitle has "navbox"? Better not for these templates.
 * See also new . -DePiep (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The new template is so neat (colloquially as well as physically) that there is really no need to agonise about it. I guess we need to leave it a couple of days to see if anyone objects and if not, just do it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. Fontsize? Announcement? (todo code cleanup; maybe reuse header everywhere by transclusion; templatestyles abandon?). -DePiep (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fontsize: it was better before. 150% is much too big. Even 125% looks excessive. 110% looks good to my eye, though.
 * Announcement: we had better mention at each of the diacritic talk pages, we don't want to be called out on a technicality. When you think it is ready to roll, let me know and I will do it (or you can do that too, makes no odds except that it looks more like a collaboration than a solo campaign).
 * To do: I'm afraid you have lost me in the technical detail. Your judgement call. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * font-size: i'm not familiar with mobile, but it must be ok there. Also, since it is about diacritics, (some) enlargement is preferabe. It should stand out (technical: old version used templatestyles, maybe wont be necessary). Will think about some announcement, later on. -DePiep (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree it needs to be big as some marks are quite small. The enlargement for unichar is quite good but maybe a little bigger? big produces ü and large produces ü. They both look the same on my mobile! (using Chrome, not Wikipedia app). But both are easy to read. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikilinks
New question: where should the wikilinks per letter lead? Diaeresis (diacritic) shows that a lot of letters wikilink to  page Diaeresis (diacritic). -DePiep (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would that change? Just as Circumflex is the appropriate target of letters like ŵ (Circumflex doesn't need disambiguation). It seems a reasonable assumption that if somebody clicks on, or searches for, a single letter like ü, the best response is to send them to the diacritic article because we can't know which of the diaeresis or the umlaut they want. Indeed for a letter with a circumflex, it could be the mathematical notation they want. So let the article do the heavy lifting, not the template. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I did and . If the wikilink of a letter (say $⟨Ĭ⟩$ in breve) is a redirect to the article Breve, then it should not be linked. For starters, it bolds that link which gives wrong distinction. Linking to an opther diacritic is irrelevant even more. (the demo letters only can link to an article about that letter itself). I don't understand the roundabout route "in article Diaeresis click ü to end up in article Diaeresis". If that letter  has no article, then there is no target to link to. -DePiep (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Somewhere in the MOS there must be as statement along the lines of 'do not have self references' because typically if you do they are shown in bold so you don't miss your error. Scanning down the list, the first letter with such a 'self link' is J-with-diaeresis [no pre-composed char available] so what I would do is remove the link in such cases. Your Ĭ is another example of the same error. But other letters, like Ä, do have real target articles and so they should be retained as is. I think we don't need to check if the target article is a redirect back to the diacritic article as someone may revise it at some future date. Does that answer the question? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Note that inappropriate links can be removed too. -DePiep (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So the change would not introduce any new errors but in fact remove some existing ones en passant. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes a cleanup that could also be done separatel;y/later on (but quite relevant to pursue for quality reasons). -DePiep (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

More elements
New question: should there be more elements in the new list? Like, title, of the diacritic explicit? Like "Letters with $⟨◌̈◌̤⟩$ (diaeresis)"? And provide something for difference/sameness "diaeresis/umlaut"? Merge acute & double acute?

Also, check for currently missing letterlists? -DePiep (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know the politics but I suspect that if we start with just a 'like-for-like but horizontal not vertical', we are less likely to hit the "ah yes but" tendency and the whole thing runs aground on an incidental detail. So I would leave the enhancements for Navbar 1.1. No doubt you have seen the barely-held truce over diaeresis v umlaut: open war could break out again with little provocation.
 * Don't forget we have to do one of these for all 12 diacritics, each with its own specific foibles. So let's get the 'vanilla' Navbar 1.0 out there first and come back later with the enhancements. (But yes, the horizontal form does provide an excellent platform to provide links to the two meanings of the trema, for example - and no doubt the other 11 have similar 'issues'.)
 * Yes, paired letters with a shared trema should be included if you happen to know them easily, if not let other editors supply.
 * Accute v double accute : if they currently have separate templates, just repeat as is for now, propose a merge after 1.0 is accepted. The nest of vipers you might step on includes letters with two diacritics (like the ogonek plus trema you identified above). Close the lid for now and tip-toe quietly away.
 * Is that what you wanted? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Restart 2022: first one live
I propose to put Letters with diaeresis/sandbox live, into Diaeresis (diacritic), section like ===Example letters/alphabets== .(where? as section 2.3?). Post some notices here and there. The others can follow later, eg when this one is stable. OK? -DePiep (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is hugely better. Applause.
 * Your suggested location looks good to me: I had assumed it would be an infobar at the end but don't feel strongly about it. I suggest that it would be best to introduce it at the article talk page, inviting comment. Some people don't like change, especially if they have never tried to read the article on a mobile, and will need to let off steam. Yes, best to get the air cleared before repeating at other articles, as you have planned. But also let the dust settle a bit before posting more notices here and there. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. Placement must be below the sidebar always (no layout interaction). -DePiep (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How can you ensure that? How do you know how wide (how narrow!) the screen is? In a perfect world, it would wrap automatically in whatever space is left to the left of the sidebar but I don't know how to do that. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 'ensuring' is difficult and can be ugly (eg use = end all boxes before showing this one: may add whitespace (many lines). Will try your suggestion (not fullpage width, nice). Also improving setup, make stable for all 20. Meanwhile, you can follow pilot Letters with diaeresis/sandbox and enjoy (... or warn me). -DePiep (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Letters with diacritic: letterbox redesign
Following the above discussion with. Until now, the Letterboxes with diacritic show badly in the articles (a massive, inflexible vertical clunk next to vertical Diacritical marks. This is a MOS:SANDWICH issue. To present these 18 lists better, in many ways, they are redesigned.


 * The 18 Letterboxes redesigns :
 * new version is in their /sandbox.
 * Horizontal box,
 * More responsive (eg, using css not wikitable),
 * Same design all 18; like both uc and lc letter in one link: Ö|Ö ö,
 * v-t-e linkbox added,
 * Minor cleanups (rm double targets, rm generic target links like to the diactritic article).


 * Doc & Test: see Letters with diacritic (the meta-template) for documentation & overview,
 * All new versions in the sandbox, like Letters with breve/sandbox
 * See Template:Letters_with_diacritic/testcases,
 * For testing (comparing old-new) purposes, the new format is presented in vertical column form. The "old2021" version is saved.

I have made new Letters with diaeresis to go live in. The section appears in the TOC. When no issues show up, The rollout can continue. -DePiep (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just what the doctor ordered! I had no idea that my idea could actually be realised. Thank you, have a virtual jenever on me --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My initial thought was that maybe the font size is too big (even though it is the same as is used in the vertical column version) but the example of "a with breve and acute" ắ at Template:Letters with breve/sandbox quickly disabused me of that notion: even at this large size I needed to magnify to see precisely what the character is. Stet.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no definite preference either (btw, used to be 200%&mdash;the version we leave behind). Having to zoom for diactical detials (in the diacritical article ...) is ambivalent too. I have no solution (size top RHS infobox is good, for one). Anyway it's set centrally :-).
 * Also open for tweaking: horizontal (inline) spacing, opening text format (the generic diacritic). All is done central like in /header, see template documentation. BTW, big experiments with /.header etc. require /sandboxing not live template!
 * Done in ten months and ten days, I see. I'm sorry for those ten days, bad business contracting. -DePiep (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Todo fot those interested, pick your favourite diacritic:
 * See Old versions are in page ; New versions in the   (live version is in switchover time). Links ar in top of each documentation. Changeovertime is not defined yet, weeks or months is fine.
 * Check general appearance, placement in article.
 * Compare old-new blocks for missing or misformed letters. Help: see Template:Letters_with_diacritic/testcases for side-by-side comparing, in vertical boxes! The transition was partly done manually, and there are many exceptions to the basic form.
 * Check links: links should be by letterpairs (· A|A a ·). Sometimes 4-letters per entry, eg in dots (2 dot above, 2 dot below): they have preferred presentation?
 * Check wikilinks: should be right on target, not to a generic page " Diacritic x " or Latin letter Z.
 * Check for visibility of letters, some may be unknown (like in ogonek, with me: Ǫ᷎, ǫ᷎).
 * In general: check your favourite diacritic, the letterlist may need an expert update or correction.
 * Later: check for completeness (only 18?), check for overlaps (merge some lists, hook below?), redesign big box Diacritical marks
 * -DePiep (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

✅ all 18 are live now, in their own section:. We'll keep te old2021 versions, for a while, to check and compare at /testcases Compare old-new.
 * -DePiep (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well that seems to have been remarkably free from conservative objections. So maybe I wasn't the only one to find the old version just gross. Thank you for taking it on.
 * If you are still in the mood, Diacritical marks is another one that could and should be reworked. I suggest a simple infobox symbol at the top of the article and a navbar at the bottom giving all the types of diacritic. (I see you have already tagged it but I don't see any volunteers. I'd gladly do it myself but my template skills are way too basic and I don't speak CSS at all.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Already started ;-). Will be new thread. -DePiep (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

While I agree the visual aspect of the old version was clunky, I feel that since only two people are discussing this and patting themselves on the back for a job well done, you may have missed that this new template, especially its position, cut down hard on utility. I used the first page of a diacritic article extensively, it was easy just copy-paste what I needed, now it's impractical that I scroll down half a dozen times until I find this template. I hope the two of you may considered this utility issue, thank you. --2A02:2F07:B210:E200:BD60:76C0:B1F3:8EA7 (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I first proposed that the vertical bar be replaced at the beginning of November, nearly three months ago - see above. There has been ample opportunity for others to comment: since none did, it is reasonable to suppose that nobody else shared your concerns. Silence signifies assent.  As for the utility aspect, that is not really the purpose of Wikipedia and there are many external sources available that provide these letters. If you mean within Wikipedia, then the obvious solution is for you to register for an account, which will give you a user page and a sandbox. If you want, you can put the template at the top of your user page, just where you want it. For the large majority of visitors to Wikipedia who use mobile phones, the previous format was grievously unfriendly, requiring them to scroll through screeds of irrelevancy before getting to any material about the topic that they wanted to find out about. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As JMF says. That was a fruitful cooperation, and an improvement of Wiki. Thanks again JMF. In short, IP you could just have asked if such and such improvement is possible. For your situation, let me note that the letterbox is in the Table Of Content, so no scrolling needed. HTH. -DePiep (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you refer to me a link or a print screen on what you're referring to regarding the italic text?
 * Regarding this, "As JMF says. That was a fruitful cooperation, and an improvement of Wiki." This is the opinion of two people. I disagree that this is an improvement of Wiki. This has thus now become the agreement of two people that it is an improvement of Wiki and the disagreement of one person. What's your point? --2A02:2F07:B210:E200:BD60:76C0:B1F3:8EA7 (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Silence Implies Consent is so wrong on so many levels I can't even begin to explain, so I'll leave this link and quote instead.
 * An example of the thought process: If nobody complains about the plastic gnome I placed in my front yard, then it must be that nobody's bothered by it. In fact, everybody may be bothered by it; they're just being silent. You can't be sure that their silence truly means they are consenting to it.
 * Moreoever, I wasn't silent and so the the goalposts were moved.
 * As for the silence, it may be because editors did not see the end result of your editing. Seeing the end result may require opening some new discussions regarding if views have changed now that the edits have been implemented.
 * Regarding registering, I'd like to remind that I am human too. I don't see how me registering would or should affect my points at all. --2A02:2F07:B210:E200:BD60:76C0:B1F3:8EA7 (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You are totally within your rights not to register. But that decision has consequences: you don't get access to facilities available to registered users. Your choice. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

So, someone had the decency of putting them in a section, so I don't have to scroll to a random (bottom) part of a page. Thanks, I guess. Still needlessly more complicated than the original layout. --2A02:2F07:B210:E200:8108:C03C:208E:1BB8 (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In a section, so that section name appears in the TOC (Table of Content) of the article. In mobile view (mine, that is), that TOC can be reached through an icon (looks like the menu-icon, a list of horizontal lines). -DePiep (talk) 09:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Split into Infobox and Sidebar
Currently, the template is a combination of an infobox (big character image and its name) an a sidebar (list of diacritics). These boxes should be separated. When separated, each can be improved into their own specialty.

To make this possible:
 * Step 1. Diacritical marks will remain as Sidebar. no will suppress the head (infobox data = big character)
 * Step 2. Infobox punctuation mark will be added as infobox.


 * -DePiep (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Eg, . Using Infobox diacritic. -DePiep (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * -DePiep (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, quite a bit better. I like it.
 * Now if you are feeling very lucky, Diacritical marks could become a navbar but it would be wise to invite comment first. I suspect that there would be some resistance to change, but then some editors resist all changes irrespective of merit. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes a navbox not a sidebar, right away. No gain for a sidebar; and more space=better. Note that Navbox punctuation is used, sidebar Punctuation marks not at all. All the diacrits should be larger in any case. Don't worry about oppo's; and its easier if there is a crisp new version right away (no micro-change steps). -DePiep (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: change Sidebar into Navbox
I propose to change current sidebar into a navbox. See Diacritical marks/sandbox. The navbox will be located at the bottom of the page. In the navbox (=/sandbox), some rationalisation changes were made. Eg. foreign scripts with examples are separated from non-exampled scripts. . -DePiep (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per discussion above (and wp:think of the reader on mobile). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * JMF, Anything special wrt mobile view? AFAIK, a navbox does not show at all in mobile. -DePiep (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * But a sidebar does. So at present, a reader on mobile has to scroll past two or three screens of extraneous detail before seeing any article text. Changing to navbar resolves that issue. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This current "sidebar" actually has class="infobox". True sidebar is invisible in mobile. Another reason to changeover asap. A WP:SIDEBAR is visible in mobile view. BTW, /sandbox navbox content could be improved, can use a check. -DePiep (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Corrected: A sidebar is visible, a navbox is not.
 * I note that all diacritics are listed in the article itself, so current sidebar is redundant. -DePiep (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Which article is that? – Uanfala (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Article Diacritics. In fact current sidebar is sort of TOC. DePiep (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sidebars aren't visible in mobile view. This template is visible because its code is a wikitable, it doesn't use the metatemplate Sidebar or the relevant class. – Uanfala (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Dammit, very confusing.
 * 1. From SIDEBAR (=): "Navigation templates located in the top-right corner of articles (sometimes called a "sidebar" or "part of a series" template) should be treated with special attention, because they are so prominently displayed to readers".
 * 2. From Navigation template: "Navboxes are not displayed on the mobile website for Wikipedia, .."
 * 3. From Template:Sidebar/doc (=Navbox visibility): "".
 * Looks like we must make a choice in this. DePiep (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A navbox is preferable so a sidebar in many contexts, but I don't think it is an improvement here. Because this template shows both the diacritic and its name, it's much clearer when everything is arranged in a vertical list (as in a sidebar); a horizontal list, even when – as in the proposed sandbox version – it's well formatted, is less easily readable. Also, the main push factor for sidebars isn't present: there's no competition for space at the top of each article, as there aren't any images or traditional infoboxes there. – Uanfala (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * On mobile, which is how the large majority of visitors to Wikipedia see it, there absolutely is competition for space at the top of the article. Nothing but the most essential content should be presented ahead of actual content. What you say is only true of the desktop view. The convention in most articles is that pointers to further exploration go at the foot of the article. That the directory of diacritics is currently a sidebar is an accident of history and does not accord with current best practice. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Appears that mobile-visibility of -a- "sidebar" is to be chosen (see my 20:22 post above). Choice it absent when going navbox below. In top:Sidebar has no use IMO, so the choice is not present.
 * As JMF writes, it's this "sidebar" historically (a corrupted infobox it was; not any more b/c Infobox diacritic split).
 * I disagree re Much clearer when everything is arranged in a vertical list ❌ Obviously hard to do it right, my /sandbox redesign had to reorder the non-Latin scripts, from unclear organisation. In a page-wide box allowes for overview still (see sister Navbox punctuation). Sub-lists even more problematic. Refinement of /sandbox possible (groupings, subheadings).
 * Also, you only mention arrangement/visual reasons. However, semantically a sidebar/navbox has important meaning. MOS:LEAD discourges (with an escape). Current one is not a "Part of xx series"; not helpful to the article itself (as an infobox or topimage is). Once the has linked to the Diacritic general article, nu further navigation aid is required in top (because: that is not what the Reader is arriving for & looking for at the article).
 * I mean to say, we do need a reason to have that list in article top at all. -DePiep (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , could you review your post here? -DePiep (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think I've already said what I had to say, and it's up to you to take it into account or ignore it. I still think a sidebar is generally better, provided it's formatted as an actual sidebar (which will address the point made by JMF above), and it uses the same large font size for the diacrics as the one in your version. If you do end up replacing it with a navbox, then in my opinion that would be better done at a new title (like Diacritial marks navbox), with the current template name turned into a disambiguation page listing the new infobox and navigational template. – Uanfala (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. Will consider this for sure. DePiep (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Having reread this thread, I think it is OK and acceptable to continue as a navbox (pagebottom). While there is virtue in a simple list in sidebar, using large diacrit characters, some wider objections still exist. Such as, the not-simple list at the bottom (listing other scripts; a three-level list at least, and already expanded in te navbox proposal). Also, I think the "enough space" thought is not enough: there needs to be a functional/meaningful/presentational advantage (argument) for listing these in top&mdash;but this is more like a TOC than a "part-of-series" like listing.
 * I will rename the template as proposed, but not leave behind a template-DAB page, as this is very uncommon. -DePiep (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅: see Navbox diacritical marks (for example Circumflex). Diacritical marks now a redirect. The navbox is up for improvement, as usual. -DePiep (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually yes, a dab page isn't really needed in this case. My concern was more about not mangling old revisions of pages (example), and for that reason redirecting Template:Diacritical marks to the infobox will probably be best. – Uanfala (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thx. I have kept the previous form hardcoded at . BTW, from your suggstion to use columns I have the idea to use Navbox with columns as child-box for the top list. -DePiep (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Not collapsing when stacked
I tried the effect of adding it to apostrophe below navbox punctuation (near the foot of the article). In this configuration, both should collapse (?) but only the punctuation one does. Is this intentional? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Could be about WP:AUTOCOLLAPSE. Also, this involves Good Webpage Design (like "do not use autocollapse because ..."). Don't have time to dive into this one (but you vcan browse our WP-pages). Of course I agree with the apostrophe's article's navbox's order you made. -DePiep (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've just copied over the equivalent state= line from Template:Navbox punctuation and that fixed the problem. See Apostrophe. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Should Latin, Cyrillic, and Greek be grouped?
As of 2023-09-04, the Latin, Cyrillic, and Greek diacritics are in one section. Is there a good reason why they should not be seperate lists? --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * They were probably grouped together because they often use the same diacritics. For example, in Unicode there isn't a "Latin" diaeresis (¨), just a diaeresis with a script code of "Common". Grouping them together is more compact and avoids repeating many diacritics if Latin, Cyrillic, and Greek were broken out into separate sections. I think the grouping works well and (mildly) oppose splitting them apart. I'm confident some of these diacritics are used in scripts besides Latin, Cyrillic, and Greek but making a separate section for each of these additional scripts would take up way too much room. DRMcCreedy (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with DRMcC. Latin, Greek and Cyrillic are a common family of lettering, distinct from Arabic, for example, so the make a natural grouping.I fail to see why splitting them out would be an obvious improvement and you haven't given one. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * My original thought was that some of the diacritics, such as smooth/rough breathing and perispomene, were unique to Greek, and that it would be more clear to group them separately from the Latin and Cyrillic diacritics. Maybe it would be good to have a "Common" section for diacritics used in multiple scripts, and have separate sections for the unique ones? --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, Early Cyrillic diacritics are also separately grouped. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I oppose further splitting the sections because I don't think it will be faster to locate a diacritic than it already is in this Navbox. Also, the "Latin, Greek and Cyrillic" section is already mostly the "Common" section. Even a diacritic like "rough breathing", which I think of as Greek, is used for multiple scripts. So we'd be splitting hairs to classify them in further detail. ("Splitting hairs" also sounds like a diacritic if you think about it too hard.) DRMcCreedy (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose it makes sense not to split it further, considering that it would be difficult to determine whether a given diacritic belongs in the "Common" section. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)