Talk:Right single quotation mark

This page was proposed for deletion by David Fuchs (talk · contribs) on 14 April 2020.

Note that this is also an apostrophe (Apostrophe (mark)). ✏ OvenFresh ² 22:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed this to point to apostrophe, because on its own it is far more likely to be an apostrophe than a (closing single) quotation mark. —Michael Z. 2005-10-6 05:07 Z

I've changed it again. MS Word uses it like that, but I think we should stick to what it's supposed to be in Unicode. Correct me if I'm mistaken. Wikipeditor 16:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are ~~absolutely~~ kind of right. The name of the character is RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK. ~~It is not an apostrophe; it just looks like one.~~ Actually, it seems that Unicode says "2019 is preferred for apostrophe", so this should redirect to "Apostrophe" after all. Gorobay (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been suggested that this should redirect to the Apostrophe#Typographic form, and possibly a bit of info about the conflict with close single quote added there.Spitzak (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be a good idea. If it is a closing single quote, the apostrophe article should have nothing more than a See Also about it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted but maybe made into a more formal disambiguation article. There is a similar discussion going on at talk:' (disambiguation). The case is less strong here, given only two meanings rather than quite a few for the 'straight apostrpophe', but the principle remains the same: if the reader already knew that this symbol (in their specific context) was being used as an apostrophe,that is what they would enter in the search box. This article needs to continue to exist for readers who don't know what it is or why it is there. Or maybe they have just forgotten its proper name. WP:Think of the reader. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The primary links are from articles about character sets, where it is unknown if the glyph is being used (or intended to be used) as an apostrophe or closing quote.Spitzak (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename was probably a bad idea[edit]

This article exists so that the text ’ which occurs quite often in articles about character sets will direct to this page which describes the fact that the same code point is used for both apostrophe and single close quote. It literally is about that character, not about one of it's meanings. It would be best to restore the name back to the symbol.Spitzak (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen from the earlier discussion, there is no easy solution. It seems to me that the present resolution, to have an article with the name used by the Unicode Consortium, is the least worst of the options. The topic is inherently ambiguous so if that means some repetition between this, the apostrophe and the prime symbol articles, then so be it. We have to call it something that resolves the ambiguity. "Right single quotation mark" is as valid an article topic as any punctuation mark.

Maybe the solution is to have a dedicated disambiguation article at [[']] which tells readers that there are at least three different uses of (the sans-serif form of) this glyph? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware when writing that that Buidhe had redirected [[']] to this page. Was there a discussion? At least equally valid targets would have been apostrophe and the prime symbol. The sleeping dog should have been let lie. Buidhe, explain your rationale please. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Maynard Friedman As stated in the edit summary, the move was requested by Ravenpuff at WP:RM/TR You may request that the move be reverted there also. (t · c) buidhe 09:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I missed that. It's a pity that they didn't leave an RTM notice at this the target page first and saved you some pointless work. Well we are we are now so best we have the discussion here (among editors who appreciate the typographic nuances) on how best to resolve the issue before going back to the general forum with a proposed consensus solution. This outcome is at best unstable. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

’ *must* redirect here. This page was purposely constructed so that uses would not see links to apostrophe or close quote when in fact the link was for the other subject. Take a look at any character set article such as CP1252 and point your cursor at what looks like a typographic apostrophe and/or a close single quote (it's entry 0x92 in the table), and read the popup text, and possibly you may understand why this page was created. If this links to anything other than "this may represent these two things" then the link is *wrong*.

If we really really need text, the page title might have to be U+2019, as this article is about the dual-use that Unicode happened to assign to this single number. It is absolutely not about "right single quote"Spitzak (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(To save anybody making the same mistake as I did, the serif form of the symbol in question is clearer: the discussion is about ’, not '. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

For my part, I don't object to the redirection of ’ to this article, and have no problem with explaining that the character is used for two purposes, etc. (although the discussion on notability might be better left for later). I made the move request to bring the title more in line with WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS; most readers won't be able to tell just by looking at the page title that this article is about one very specific Unicode character. I don't believe it's wrong to name this page "Right single quotation mark" – that's its official name as specified by Unicode and stated in the article lead, and doesn't prevent us in the slightest from writing about its dual use. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

The topic is not obviously notable and should be merged into quotation mark. But that will have wait until the discussion above about how to deal with ' (U+0027 ' APOSTROPHE, the "ASCII apostrophe") is resolved because that should definitely not redirect to quotation mark. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2021‎

Just noticed that I never dated that comment [didn't even know it was possible to do that!]. Improved the highlighting a little as it is difficult to distinguish between these marks out of context. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]