Talk:Small capital B

Requested move 1 November 2021[edit]

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. The consensus also recommends an RfC for page titles of special characters. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ʙ → Small capital B – General convention is to name articles on characters as the English name of that character, not the character itself. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 29#Ɥ. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~Undecided. While the intention may be OK (any guideline in this is needed), for this one "the" English name by Unicode is U+0299 ʙ LATIN LETTER SMALL CAPITAL B. Is there a reason to not use that name? -DePiep (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DePiep: I'm fine with that too; I favor something which is a description of the character instead of the character itself, not specifically my proposed title. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Undecided": need a comprehensive RfC for a "Capital letter, lowercase" situations. -DePiep (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partly support: I would not object to changing this article to Small capital B. This seems to be supported by Wikipedia:Article_titles#Special_characters, which says that titles should avoid characters that are not on a standard keyboard.

However, if the argument in favour of it is consistency with other articles (or indeed, absence on a standard keyboard), should this discussion be expanded to include articles such as Ƨ, Ƽ, Ƅ, Æ, Ƃ, Ȼ, Ɪ, ⱺ, ß? You can find further articles that are just named with the single character that they describe at Category:Latin-script letters, and at the moment there seems to be a reasonable number of articles named each way. --Mgp28 (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point re WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS (TSC). Which ends up nice in this case: the proposed literal "B" is Latin and is present on our keybords. However, that does not work for the other letters you listed, like Ƨ, Ƽ, ƄÆ. By the same TSC argument, these cannot be in the title. We need a wider RFC I guess, e.g., to expand TSC for this. -DePiep (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for those we could use the name of the letter. I'm not familiar with Zhuang tones, but I would suggest "AE" for ⟨Æ⟩. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 14:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support What Mgp28 said. We should have either an RM extravaganza or an RfC and move all these articles. Oppose full Unicode name, which not only is not WP:CONCISE but wouldn't capture what this kind of article covers—consider Ɪ, whose Unicode name is "Latin Capital Letter Small Capital I" and which covers both ⟨Ɪ⟩ and ⟨ɪ⟩. Also, Unicode's stability policy means mistakes won't be corrected. Nardog (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on most points, Nardog. (Not the one about name mistakes: Unicode has the mechanism of formal Alias Names, which actually did solve naming mistakes within stability policy).

In this case, the "small capital" is quite misleading while correct, for example this letter is (correctly) classified as Letter, lowercase; "capital" refers to the font height not uppercase/majuscule. So the proposed name is acceptable, this way. Though could also be Small capital b! (serious suggestion). We should/could apply this to all similar cases, though your Ɪ example might require something else.

Need a comprehensive, well-limited RfC to change the Title MOS for this. -DePiep (talk) 11:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Current article title renders ambiguously or incorrectly on many browsers, so it is anything but recognisable. By all means have an RfC on the general issue, but there is no need to wait for it to fix this problem, in fact this RM will be valuable input to the RfC. Andrewa (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.