Talk:Unicode alias names and abbreviations

Note to editors: every #ABBR is an #anchor

One can link to this article by anchor. For  

[[Unicode alias names and abbreviations#NBSP]] → Unicode alias names and abbreviations#NBSP

-DePiep (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Exclusions

I've just added a bunch of missing informal aliases. I excluded Regional Indicator Symbols and Tags but I'm not 100% sure they should be excluded.

In https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode13.0.0/ch22.pdf we're told

The representative glyph for a single regional indicator symbol is just a dotted box containing a capital Latin letter.

In https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode13.0.0/ch23.pdf we're told

Characters in the tag character block have no visible rendering in normal text and the language tags themselves are not displayed... For debugging or other operations that must render using the corresponding ASCII character glyphs (perhaps modified systematically to differentiate them from normal ASCII characters).

I'm curious if other people feel they should be included or continue to be excluded. DRMcCreedy (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the "Informal aliases" section should be entirely removed. NamesList.txt includes well over 2,000 informal aliases for Unicode characters, yet this section does not list these informal aliases at all, but instead lists abbreviations that seem to have been gleaned from the glyph images shown in the Unicode code charts. In many cases (e.g. "KSSF" for KHITAN SMALL SCRIPT FILLER) the abbreviation is not listed anywhere in the Unicode data files, so the notion that these are "informal aliases" is a figment of a Wikipedia editor's imagination. The listing in this article of abbreviations used only in glyph images in the Unicode code charts as if they are "informal aliases" stinks of original research. Furthermore, as these so-called "informal aliases" have little or no other usage, they are not notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia. This article should be restricted to formal aliases and abbreviations defined in NameAliases.txt. BabelStone (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

+1 for removing the entire "Informal aliases" section. DRMcCreedy (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

No, these informal aliases are actually published and used by the Unicode Consortium in their code charts. -DePiep (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

IOW, these names (abbreviations in this case) exist, per Unicode, and incidentally are used to represent characters without visible glyph. From their situation, even as the sole visible representation. As such, readers may and do meet those representations. If find it strange, or funny, to read that they stem from "a Wikipedia editor's imagination", and then a "figment" thereof. Quite simple: the 'informal' part is well described, and a source is provided for each of them. Further, just writing "OR" would do and does not need a reference to what happened on your side of the screen coincidentally causing an independent sensoric experience. I strongly request you edit your post herein.

Then, if someone wants to make a case of listing NamesList.txt aliases, go ahead. I myself found no reasons to do so. Whatever arguments there may be or may be missing, WP:Otherstuffexists explains that any argument against is equally an argument for, thereby nullifying the argument. -DePiep (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Your argument above is total nonsense. The abbreviations that are used inside glyphs in the code charts are not informal aliases, and it is original research to extract the visual representation of letters from images and claim that they are informal aliases. In some cases they are abbreviations defined in NameAliases.txt, but in other cases they are just an arbitrary attempt to give a meaningful glyph for an invisible character, and there is no guarantee that they will remain the same from one version of Unicode to the next. BabelStone (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Not 'nonsense', sourced instead. Nothing arbitrary, but straight from Unicode. All aspects &tc. you mention are covered in the word "informal", as described. After all, they are used as alternative "names" (abbreviation in this case). Nowhere the article or Unicode claim that they are unique or unchangeable. Also, as the text explained, part of the description is that they are not unique.

There is no consensus nor a conclusion here. -DePiep (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Since this talk has not reached consensus, I reverted. Might need outside advice too.-DePiep (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Of course I expected you to revert. However, you have not provided any sources that indicate that these glyph abbreviations are "informal aliases". Their usage in the code charts does not count. BabelStone (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)