DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Apostrophe

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Edit reversion

[edit]

@Remsense Could I ask why have you reverted my edit? Was there anything specific I overlooked or did incorrectly? I tried to apply consistent formatting throughout the article and expanded the infobox. Xoontor (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the contributions history, the relevant material was removed a few days ago, and I only noticed now when you re-added it—so I just put it back to how it was before the initial removal. Remsense ‥ 论 16:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So can I restore my edit? I didn't just re-add the material that was removed, but also made several other changes. Xoontor (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article has unique difficulties with legibility (because the mark is so small, xref MOS:ACCESS), multiple uses of the same symbol, tiny differences between this and similar symbols. So if you want to make any changes to formatting or appearance, you would save yourself a lot of hassle if you would propose each one here first. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to propose the following changes then:
  • Remove the stray ’ symbol from the infobox
  • Unitalicize the straight apostrophes in the lead section and infobox (' → ')
Xoontor (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JMF Are there any issues with these changes? Xoontor (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see any stray ’ symbol from the infobox. If you mean that both the serif and sans versions are shown, that is essential information and must stay.. But maybe they should be labelled somehow? (see Talk:Bracket#Top_table_replacement for similar discussion.)
  • Yes, I agree, but not just by removing the italic markup tags. I don't understand how it ever works. The current mark= ’{{nbs}}''{{'}}'' is an obscure mess. It needs to be made explict: mark= {{sans-serif|'}}{{nbs}}{{serif|'}}
Anybody else? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see the symbol ’ between "Apostrophe" and the two apostrophes (' and ’) in the infobox. Xoontor (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i thought that was a speck on my screen! Yes, delete please 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been bold and edited the infobox in a way that I think reflects the discussion above. I won't be surprised if it gets reverted! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More infobox signal/noise?

[edit]

Can anyone see value in the block Typewriter apostrophe or neutral single quote {{|}} Punctuation apostrophe or typographic neutral single quote The article is about the apostrophe, not various kinds of mark. It is explained in the body, I can't see it is useful infobox material except maybe as a teaser trailer? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm proposing that the phrases (or neutral single quote) and (or typographic neutral single quote) [my parentheses added today] be removed from the infobox entirely. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done per discussion below. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with removing the parts in parentheses and have a few additional questions regarding the infobox. Would it make sense to add a "Unicode" section by uncommenting the content of the |unicode= parameter? Should there be a "See also" section using the |see_also= parameter, linking to the Right single quotation mark article? Xoontor (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No please put the Unicode (especially any discussion about the code points) in a list in it's own section of the article. Spitzak (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although in general I consider that the unicode codepoint to be a 'must have' in the infobox, in this case, I agree with Spitzak. This is for the simple reason that the Unicode canonical names (U+0027 ' APOSTROPHE and U+2019 ’ RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK) are just too confusing to be given without the explanatory text. Despite their names, each is an apostrophe and a quotation mark, depending on context.
The lead already says The same mark is used a single quotation mark. It is also substituted informally for other marks – for example instead of the prime symbol to indicate the units of foot or minutes of arc. I don't see that we need it in the infobox too. Again, remember that this article is about the apostrophe itself, not about the mark(s) used for it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Punctuation apostrophe", "typographic apostrophe" or "typesetter's apostrophe"?

[edit]
’

In the article, the names "Punctuation apostrophe", "typographic apostrophe" or "typesetter's apostrophe" are used liberally and without much explanation that they are all the same thing (U+2019 ’ RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK). I've always believed "Typographic apostrophe" to be the common name, but Google Ngram doesn't even recognise it (although no shortage of web page hits on google search). The Unicode Consortium uses "punctuation apostrophe": 270 , which is also the only term that Ngram recognises.

So should we follow the Unicode precedent? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF: Sorry for replying this late. Regarding your question, I'm not sure what name we should use for the right single quotation mark, but I do have a suggestion about the formatting of the infobox. I believe it would work well formatted like this:
{{Infobox punctuation mark
| mark     = {{serif|’{{nbs}}'}}
| name     = Apostrophe
| unicode  = <!-- Per discussion at talk page, this element is not shown in the infobox because "it's too complicated" and so is detailed in the body. -->
| variant1 = {{serif|’}}{{nbs}}{{sans-serif|’}}
| caption1 = Typographic apostrophe ([[serif]] and [[sans-serif]] styles)
| variant2 = {{serif|'}}{{nbs}}{{sans-serif|'}}
| caption2 = Typewriter apostrophe (both styles)
}}
Do you see any issues with formatting the infobox like this? Xoontor (talk) 10:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't say what you have changed but as far as I can see it is just the presentation order, so no complaints there.
We still have a WP:NOR problem with nomenclature. Ngram viewer says Ngrams not found: typewriter apostrophe, typesetter's apostrophe, typographic apostrophe. So IMO we have to adopt "punctuation apostrophe" (instead of "typographic apostrophe"). But "typewriter apostrophe" is uncontroversial.
Does anyone have a case for the defence of "typographic apostrophe"? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the infobox changes: I changed the order, simplified the comment and some templates ({{serif|'}}{{nbs}}{{serif|’}} → {{serif|'{{nbs}}’}}), and made some other minor changes.
As for the other part of your comment: I searched for "typographic apostrophe" on Google and found some articles referring to the symbol ’ as "typographic apostrophe", but none of these articles appear to come from reliable sources. Due to the lack of reliable sources for "typographic apostrophe", I also think we should adopt the name "punctuation apostrophe". Xoontor (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JMF: I've updated the infobox to the new version and want to propose a change to the lead section as well. I think the line in parentheses that contains symbols should be changed. Currently, it reads:
{{Char|'''{{Serif|’}}'''}}, {{Char|'''''{{'}}'''''{{0|&thinsp;}}}}
And I think it should be changed to this:
'''{{serif|{{char|’}}}}''', '''{{serif|{{char|'}}}}'''
Do you think that there are any problems with this change? Does it adhere to MOS:ACCESSIBILITY? Xoontor (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the {{serif}} should be outside the {{char}}, please go ahead.
Template:Char was created in part to mitigate the accessibility problem presented by these tiny glyphs when they are presented in isolation. At least now, visitors with visual acuity issues have a fighting chance of recognising that there is something there to be magnified. It makes no difference to screen readers. {{Char}} also doesn't mess with the shape, like using italic or {{code}} does, and in addition makes it easy to add additional markup like serif or colours.
I assume you noticed that I have been bold and replaced all instances of "typographic apostrophe" with "punctuation apostrophe"/ 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glosses

[edit]

Part of this article uses single quotation marks for glosses per MOS:DOUBLE and MOS:WAW, but in this context it's confusing because of the similarity of them to the subject at hand. Should WP:IAR be invoked, replacing them with double quotes or italics? Mapsax (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any uses of the symbol as symbol should be using {{angbr}} or {{char}} (producing ⟨'⟩ or '), so in principle at least, no confusion should arise. Can you point to any specific example? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on a second thorough readthrough, the problem doesn't seem as bad as it seemed the first time, but the concern is in the "Non-English use" section. There are numerous places where the non-English language uses the mark as an apostrophe as an example followed soon by the same mark as a single quotation mark in the English gloss. True, the non-English is consistently italicized in these examples, including the apostrophes, but that's a subtle distinction. Sometimes, at least for me, there's conditioning to see the first single quote as another apostrophe. Again, on the reread, it didn't seem to be a problem, but of course readers shouldn't need to read it twice. Mapsax (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Markup problem

[edit]

In three related places, it appears that the wiki markup is overriding the phonetic symbols involving anchorlinking: Text in the section "Basic rule (singular nouns)" (note wikilink not rendering) and the section headers "Singular nouns ending with an ⟨s⟩ or ⟨z⟩ sound" and "Nouns ending with silent ⟨s⟩, ⟨x⟩, or ⟨z⟩". Code is showing up in the text. I would try to fix it but I'm not sure of the best way. Mapsax (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"隔音符号" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect 隔音符号 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 8 § 隔音符号 until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]