Talk:List of Latin-script letters

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Letters with diacritics"

the "Letters with diacritics" should have some perceptible concept beyond listing whatever precomposed characters are offered by Unicode (for which we have Latin Unicode). Since there are endless possibilities to combine diacritics, the table should focus on such combinations as are somehow notable or frequent. dab (𒁳) 06:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Letters

Digraphs, trigraphs, and tetragraphs aren't letters. They're groups of letters which together represent a single sound. Why are they on this list? PubliusFL 14:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are considered independent letters in some orthographies. See for instance the Hungarian alphabet, or Digraph (orthography). FilipeS 19:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Anyone want to (or write a bot to) go through this article and fix all the redirects? Best I'd do it would be with Popups, but that'd be inefficient and spam the page history. — SheeEttin {T/C} 16:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complimentary images

It'd be worthwhile to get a set of images for all of the Latin characters, since many computers don't recognize the ones with diacritics/accents/ligatures and users of those computers can't see what they look like (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Writing_systems#goals). If anyone has ideas or copyright-free images they could share, post a message to my talk. Graymornings 23:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Better yet, if anyone knows a place to download a font for all those characters, the link should be added to the page, or given a direct download. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.190.65 (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillic

Is there any chance of the list of Cyrillic letters being this neat sometime in the near future? ·:RedAugust 03:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kra

According to the wikipedia article on "kra," it does not have a majuscule form.76.123.203.237 (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I'm going to rewrite the list of extensions and ligatures, something like this User:Spacevezon/LLL. User:Spacevezon^talk 10:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unicodes

I suggest to add a column right of the letter column containing the respective unicodes. For example, in the second line it would contain the entry "U+2c6f, U+0250". Are there any arguments against doing so? If not I'll proceed. -- Marcelma (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Letter Turned R

This HAS to be encoded! Can someone write a proposal for it? Also there is Turned P and Turned S. Alexlatham96 (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin sign

Why is the Kelvin symbol on here? I don't think it should be considered an independent letter. IlSoupylI (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind, it's probably a unicode thing because that's what this list is based off of. IlSoupylI (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Ꜵ" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ꜵ. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 8#Ꜵ until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Squamish 7

The Squamish language uses a 7 (yes, that is a seven) to denote a glottal stop. I was unsure if it should go on the page since it is a number acting like a letter, but I decided to be bold and add it. If this is not the right place for it or it should be relabeled, feel free to remove it from the list. Please call me Blue (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to see that it's used for a glottal stop but I reverted the edit because it fails to meet the stated categories to be in the list: a script property of 'Latin' and the general category of 'Letter'. DRMcCreedy (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Please call me Blue (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please put G with tilde character URGENTLY in Unicode!

Please put G with tilde character URGENTLY in Unicode! It is of great importance for obvious reasons! --Jaques O. Carvalho ☜ 14:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply at Talk:Latin_script_in_Unicode#Please_put_G_with_tilde_character_URGENTLY_in_Unicode! DRMcCreedy (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can i add the "Latin Theta" in your list?

Latin_theta 2804:14D:8E8D:5B10:511A:6A91:F83C:9882 (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The definition of a Latin-script letter for this list is a character encoded in the Unicode Standard that has a script property of 'Latin' and the general category of 'Letter'."

Why, exactly? Unicode is not comprehensive, and this arbitrarily excludes characters such as the ampersand which absolutely have been treated as Latin-script letters. Pinging @BabelStone: who added this text in 2015 and @Drmccreedy: who evidently agrees with it. Theknightwho (talk) 06:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As & is already in the article, the definition no longer matches the list contents, so feel free to modify the definition as you wish, although it is useful to be able to have a definition based on a standard like Unicode. If we are broadening the scope of the list then let's add in ⁊ and ⹒ as well (the classification of &⁊⹒ as Po is really unfortunate). BabelStone (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious what the new definition would be for this article if it isn't something concrete (but imperfect) like Unicode properties. Simply "has been (when?) treated as a Latin-script letter (by whom?)" would make it much harder to determine which characters should be included/excluded in the article. If the definition changes I drop my objection but could see additions like emoji (I❤NY) or non-Latin letters bloating the article. I'd prefer to see a section for "doesn't meet the criteria but see also" to cover &⁊⹒ etc. DRMcCreedy (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ampersand

JordiLopezboy removed the ampersand entry, saying "Fixed typo"; I reverted because it's not a typo. JLb then removed it again, saying "Removed inaccuracy". I call for the sense of the house on whether or not the presence of the ampersand is inaccurate. —Tamfang (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamfang @Drmccreedy was right; the ampersand in its codepoint of U+0026 does not have JordiLopezboy (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

does not have what? and why is Unicode relevant here? —Tamfang (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamfang The ampersand does not meet the requirements of the article: The script property of "Latin" and the general property of "Letter." JordiLopezboy (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This talk section is a continuation of the talk section immediately above. Again, without a clear, verifiable restriction, this article will be a dumping ground for hundreds of symbols. In fact, almost all of the characters in the Lisu and Letterlike Symbols Unicode blocks could be added if the script/general property requirement is removed. I recommend adding a "see also" section for whatever characters editors want but can't add to this article. But please leave the criteria for inclusion in this article clear. DRMcCreedy (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmccreedy I don't see how that follows, really - the ampersand has a long and well-understood history of being used as a letter in English; it's trivial to find sources that back that. The Lisu script (assuming you're referring to the Fraser script) is a Latin-derived alphabet, but it was never intended to be part of it. All you're doing by using this criterion is delegating the hard work of deciding what is and isn't a letter to one - and only one - external body. Theknightwho (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I'm advocating that this specific article use a very clear definition for inclusion. I know from experience that some contributors aren't going to do "the hard work" to limit additions to this page. I have seen many issues with contributors adding letters to other articles because they "look like" a particular letter. I think that changing the criteria for this article will lead to bloat and endless arguments over what belongs and what doesn't. DRMcCreedy (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see you added ampersand back with the edit summary of "Not clear why this was removed". It was removed because it doesn't meet the criteria laid out in the lede of the article. But I think that's actually clear to you. Your beef is you don't like the criteria. DRMcCreedy (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmccreedy I actually reverted it before I realised that the discussion had been reopened on this talk page, but that's my bad I suppose. However, I don't think your pessimistic attitude towards contributors is very helpful at all; if we're casting aspersions about motivations, then my own theory is that you're annoyed you're going to have to do that work yourself, instead of blindly copying Unicode. You and I both know that it has nothing to do with what letters "look like", and that it's actually decided by what reliable sources say. Unicode, being a primary source, is not particularly suitable for that; let alone as the sole arbiter. Theknightwho (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My pessimism stems from many, many lookalike characters added to the Unicode subscripts and superscripts page (among others) over the years. It's not theoretical. And I'm not contending that ampersand wasn't used as a letter (or scribal abbreviation). All along I've been arguing that expanding the scope of this article contradicts the text in the lede and introduces confusion about what letters/symbols should be added. Without others chiming in, we're at a standstill. I see a few choices: 1) Leave that criteria as-is and remove the ampersand. 2) Change that lede to add "&⁊⹒" as noted exceptions to the current criteria (with references added, which ampersand doesn't currently have). Or 3) Remove the criteria in the lede entirely. I prefer #1 or #2 but can live with any of these options. DRMcCreedy (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rams Horns

There is a single mention of Rams Horn on the page, and it's with a diacrtitic, yet no mention of the single letter? I hope this makes sense Aoscf77 (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]