Jump to content

Talk:Two dots (diacritic)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

And I propose we split the article instead

As pointed out above, the current content includes material on at least two distinct subjects, and the problem of finding a suitable title that covers them all (or at least, dissatisfaction with the title in current use) keeps recurring.
The logical remedy (also not the first time it’s been proposed) is to divide up the content. The article currently is 50Kb long, so it has enough material for a decent articles on the Diaeresis and the Umlaut diacritics, as well as on the various diacritical marks that use two dots and represent distinct phenomena that are neither. The title "Double Dot (diacritic)" seems fine to me for the latter, but an objection raised in the past was that as a name it isn’t supported by any reliable source, so an alternative would be a neutral, descriptive title, such as "Two dots (diacritic)", which does what it says on the tin.
In fact a better approach would be to move the article to a descriptive, over-arching title first, to keep the page history together, then split out the Diaeresis and Umlaut articles, leaving a summary and main article link for each. Thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yep, seems like a good idea to me! That would also line up with Dot (diacritic). Dingolover6969 (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that; I’ve added a split template to the page, and will see if there are any objections over the next week or so. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I ping User:John Maynard Friedman, who may be interested in this topic, for potential input. Dingolover6969 (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Two dots (diacritic) sounds reasonable to me. Trema could redirect to it. This topic has had so many "full and Frank exchanges of view" in the past between proponents of each name and neither: this makes everyone equally (un)happy. Pinging @DePiep:, who may also have a view. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
It occurs to me: name and content of the usage article(s) is the bottleneck here, better solve that first. The Unicode thing is simple. -DePiep (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@ Dingolover6969, John Maynard Friedman, DePiep: Thank you for your comments: It's been over a month, and no-one else has chipped in; can I take it that it’s OK to go ahead with this? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, time to be bold. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
So, the split is into the symbol (two dots) and its meaning in languages (Umlaut, Diaeresis, Dutch syllable-splitting; one article IIRC). I support, and boldness. However, the new article titles (content page titles) are unclear. For me, I claim again "Diaerisis" for the symbol (WP:LEAST), and the language TBD. Only after the titles are decided by themselves, a WP:DAB can be added -- but not as a compromise or solution in the name. Redirects can follow, possibly a DAB page is needed. So: what will be the two new names? DePiep (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
As I understood it, we have a new article called Double dot (diacritic), which is maybe just a list article that describes two horizontal dots above and below, plus two vertical dots above and below, and their usages. We retain Diaeresis (diacritic) but reduce it so that it does not try to encompass Umlaut (diacritic) or other non-diaeresis forms, but it would need a new hat-note to say something like This article about the usage in French etc, for German see Umlaut (diacritic), for other uses see Double dot (diacritic). Someone (meaning Moonraker12 ) would need to go through all the links to Diaeresis (diacritic) to check what exactly is intended. The priority would be piped links like [[Diaeresis (diacritic)|something different]].
Moonraker12, given the significant risk of misunderstanding and cross-purposes argument, it would be better that you make draft versions in your sandbox first, for interested parties to consider. You need one for Double dot (diacritic) and one for Umlaut (diacritic) (both of which currently redirect to Diaeresis (diacritic). It might be wise to sandbox the shortened version of Diaeresis (diacritic) too. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@ Dingolover6969, John Maynard Friedman, DePiep: You are right, this probably need fleshing out a bit. My aim was to do this as easily as possible (ie. with the least number of complications), so the plan is:

  • .1) Move this page as it stands to the new title (see point 6 below) to preserve the page history and keep this talk page (and its history) together with the article. This page will then need a new (or shortened) introduction, and some of the sections will need re-naming (see 4)
  • .2) Split (c/p) the sections on the diaeresis (ie. part of the Intro & Names sections, History, Modern usage) back to the Diaeresis (diacritic) page (starting afresh); they are currently about one-fifth of the article here, so 8-10Kb; a decent size for a stand-alone article. That will need a new Introduction, Ref section, Talk page and attribution detail; this page will need a one/two sentence summary and a main article link in the Uses section (The hatnote is a good idea; I hadn’t thought of that!).
  • .3) Split the sections on the umlaut (Intro, Names, History, Printing conventions, Borrowing, Use of) to Umlaut (diacritic) (currently about a third of this article: maybe 15-20Kb, so more than enough); ditto for section here and additions there.
  • .4) On his page:
  1. Other uses: change heading to 'Uses'; add summary paras for diaeresis, umlaut
  2. Letters with diaeresis: change heading to 'Letters with double dot'
  3. Computer use section: This section needs an explanatory note that unicode uses the term diaeresis to describe all double dots regardless of the meaning of the term, (which IMO is part of the problem here, as this page is trying to describe three different/contradictory things at once).
(PS: There may even be a case for having all the computer stuff on a separate page too (something like Diaeresis (unicode)); But I don’t want to get into that here)
The (reduced) double-dot article will contain Introduction, Uses, Letters with the double dot diacritic, Computer usage, etc. (about 20-25Kb)
  • 5) incoming links: Over 500, but a lot of them are (I suspect) because of this title being on a template there (the main one is Template:Navbox diacritical marks, there are about 20 others). A number of double-dotted letters also redirect here and have pages linked (about eight have have 20-50 pages linked, the rest (about a dozen) have just one or two. Once that’s done the link situation should be clearer. And yes, I’m OK with doing that!)
  • .6) New title: I was thinking of Two dot (diacritic) for the new title; Double dot (diacritic) is good (better?), but the objection to that in the past was that ‘it isn’t supported by reliable sources’. As 'two dot diacritic' is purely descriptive it doesn’t need one. Also, double dot is occupied by a redirect now, and that means getting an admin to delete it. There may well be a better title, but (the perfect being the enemy of the good) I’d prefer to get this move/split done and out the way; some future discussion can resolve a better title for what is here, if needed.

That’s the plan; Does it seem OK? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

This plan seems perfectly cromulent to me. Not to waive the interest for anyone else, but I personally don't feel a need to see any sandbox draft either, after this detailed description. The one nitpick I have—and I'm not sure if you've made a typo here or changed your mind slightly from your earlier proposal, so sorry if this is redundant—is that I'm pretty sure the name should be "Two dots (diacritic)", not "Two dot (diacritic)". I can find plenty of descriptive mentions of the trema/umlaut/diaeresis that refer to it as "two dots", but the only uses of "two dot" seem to be functioning as adjectives modifying another word, eg "two-dot diacritical mark", and thus would be unsuitable. Dingolover6969 (talk) 06:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
@Dingolover6969: I had no particular preference between Two dot (sing.) and Two dots (pl.), but your suggestion embiggens the proposal, so I can go with the plural. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Well I'm afraid that this shows that DePiep's caution was justified. Your proposal now is substantially different to what I expected and I'm sorry to apply the emergency brake at this late stage but I must oppose that plan. An article about the two dots diacritic should be only about the diacritic, giving links to longer articles (where they exist) about specific cases. The Diaeresis_(diacritic) article should be about that usage: if you keep it as being the current jack of all trades, expanded with the various types and usages of double-dot diacritic, it gets even worse and I fail to see how your proposal splits the article in any useful way, as initially proposed. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
@John Maynard Friedman: I can see this has become confusing; my apologies. You say you expected the Diaeresis (diacritic) article to be just about that usage, and not including with all the various types and usages of double-dot diacritic (is that right?), and that the two dots diacritic should be a kind of list page, with links to longer articles about specific cases.
That is pretty much what I was proposing, I think; the Diaeresis article would be about the diacritic (used to 'mark the separation of two distinct vowels in adjacent syllables', as found in English and various southern European languages) and use the Diaeresis section from here (History and Modern usage) with the relevant parts of the Intro & Names sections; (ditto for the Umlaut page); The Two dots page will be on all uses of the double dot, as listed in the current Other uses section (and will need a listing for the diaeresis and umlaut also, for completeness). The only bug-bear is that (as I have now realised) the computer usage section constitutes a third separate article option; but that needs to be a separate proposal, I think. Maybe I do need to rough it out in a sandbox, so that it’s clear ( I was hoping to avoid the extra work!) What do you think? Moonraker12 (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
No, not really, because you said you wanted to move the current article to Two dots (diacritic).
  • As DePiep says above, readers expect the Diaeresis_(diacritic) article to be specifically about that specific application of the two-dots diacritic, what it means, why it is used, why is it called a Diaeresis, etc., "used to 'mark the separation of two distinct vowels in adjacent syllables', as found in English and various southern European languages" exactly as you say. We definitely need to retain an article called Diaeresis (diacritic) which is about that topic.
  • I expect Two dots (diacritic) to be about the various ways of using two dots as a diacritic, specifically which languages use which form. The "Names" section from this article is WP:SPLIT to there. So is "Other uses" and "Computer use" (leaving a pointer behind). The whole 'Umlaut' section is SPLIT to the new umlaut (diacritic) article.
  • Also, per wp:EGG, readers expect Umlaut (diacritic) to go to an article about Umlauts, not an article about Diaereses, as at present.
Are we only arguing about the means rather than the end? A sandbox version can be just an outline, just the section and subsection titles. No need to worry about history and attribution when you follow the instructions at WP:SPLIT, that process tells you how to deal with it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I think the means rather than the end sums it up; the sticking point seems to be my step one, Move this page as it stands to the new title, before splitting it up. We could split Umlaut and Two dots stuff from here, leaving the rump of the article at Diaeresis: The reason I planned to move it to Two dots first was because the article is currently an over-arching treatment of all two-dot diacritics, despite the title, and it has been almost from the beginning, It has also been at various titles, including Umlaut (d), Double dot (d), Trema (d) as well as Diiaerisis (d). So I think it is important that the page history, together with the talk page discussions and the archives of those discussions, stay with the over-arching page. It shouldn’t make any difference to the outcome, only to the process. Anyway I have put drafts of the split articles into a sandbox, here, for your perusal. Are they what you expected them to be? Moonraker12 (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Assuming you mean the last three drafts in your sandbox, that looks fine to me. The end has justified the means.
My preference is to let the existing Diaeresis (diacritic) article stand (heavily pruned to create the other two), letting its page history survive because that is how it was built. So could we have some more voices please? It doubt that it is a show-stopper for either of us. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't have a very strong opinion about it, but it makes more sense to me to end up with this talk page attached to Two dots (diacritic), since the article has already meandered through several terms for the two-dot diacritic, and the talk page is often talking in tandem or close succession about several different applications of the two dots. Dingolover6969 (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I forgot about the talk page history. I concede. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@ Dingolover6969, John Maynard Friedman, DePiep: Thanks for that, comrades; If there are no objections I will make a start on this tomorrow... Moonraker12 (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


Aftertalk

Among the many mysteries of The New Yorker is that funny little umlaut over words like coöperate and reëlect. The New Yorker seems to be the only publication on the planet that uses it, and I always found it a little pretentious until I did some research. Turns out, it's not an umlaut. It's a diaeresis.[1]

I have not engaged in the most recent discussion here (leading to actual page moves), so all I can do is talk ("lament") afterwards. That is: I am surprised that Diaeresis (diacritic) is about a single, specific usage of the double dot 'diacritic, ie a second page title for the same typographic image. Meanwhile, Diaeresis (disambiguation) says there also exists Diaeresis (linguistics), which per lede has the same topic as this one. Confusing, and I think we still have not disentangled the topics.

IOW, can someone give an overview of the articles involved (including ridirects), and their topic (esp wrt language and wrt graph, distinmction & sameness)? -DePiep (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I suggest part of the problem is that, from a typography point of view, there is no distinction and thus no need for more than one article. From a linguistics PoV, there is certainly a distinction and it is inconvenient that distinct marks do not exist (as they do in IPA). There is the further complication that, in EN-US usage, the mark is more often called an umlaut whereas in EN-UK usage, diaeresis has been more common. Google's ngram viewer shows that the former is significantly and consistently more popular than the latter. Had we not done this reorganisation, there would have been a very strong case per WP:COMMONNAME to rename it.
I understand your concern about navigation, which is why I tried to improve the hatnotes. No doubt they can be improved more?
Diaeresis (linguistics) redirects to Vowel hiatus. As I understand it, Diaeresis (diacritic) is about the mark used to indicate the hiatus, whereas Diaeresis (linguistics) [sic] is about the phenomenon itself. The same is true of Umlaut (diacritic) and Umlaut (linguistics). Inevitably (in each pairing) there will be some overlap because it is impossible to describe the purpose of a mark without at least summarising the phenomenon it is marking.
Does that respond adequately to your concern? If not, can you be more specific? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Not clarifying, sorry.
If current situation is meant to be the aim, and so be stable, then a simple clarification should do. After all, if one cannot convince/clarify for an interested editor like me here, how in cyberspace can we expect a Reader understand it?
So, the testing question again is simple: what are the involved pages, and what do they contain? (hint: if it takes a compound sentence, or more than one, to describe/hatnote a page, something is wrong). I think DAB and redirect pages are relevant too. @Moonraker12 and Dingolover6969: pinged. DePiep (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
@DePiep: To reply to your first post, the Diaeresis (diacritic) is about a single, specific usage of the double-dot because that is what the word means (see also here). Any confusion is IMO because in computing, the term is used without distinction, and refers to all forms of a two dot diacritic without regard to the meaning of the term. (For instance, in Arabic the Tāʾ marbūṭah, which is used to mark feminine gender for nouns (So, neither a separation of two distinct vowels in adjacent syllables nor a sound shift phenomenon in which a back vowel becomes a front vowel) is encoded as T+0308 combining diaeresis, without regard to the meaning of either). To clarify this slightly I have added Diaeresis (computing) to the Diaeresis dab page; I’m still working my way through the articles linked, so I have no doubt I will find some examples. And the reason why the diaeresis page and this one (and the umlaut page) have the the same typographic image is because they are visually identical. That doesn’t make them the same thing, as the text explains. As for Diaeresis (linguistics), (or Vowel hiatus, whichever term you prefer) that is linguistic concept (which that article explains), while the diaeresis diacritic is the typographic marker for it. Again, related but not the same (ie. discrete subjects with their own notability).
As for this not being clear, (your second post) what exactly is not clear? That diaeresis and umlaut have specific (and different) meanings, unrelated to all the other uses the diacritic is put to? I don’t really understand your confusion, or your request. The involved pages are the ones set out in the proposal, above: Diaeresis (diacritic), Umlaut (diacritic) and the rump of the previous article (a list of other uses which are neither diaereses or umlauts) here. As for what they contain, tells you in the introduction of each page. Are you labouring under some misconception of what these terms (diaeresis, umlaut, and two dots) actually mean? Moonraker12 (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I doubt that DePiep is confused but rather that we are at cross purposes somehow. I was also going to say that I don't see the problem, which is not to say that there is no problem but literally that I can't see it. So it must be a question of perspective. Maybe we are too close to the detail and missing a bigger picture? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I can repeat, Moonraker12, 𝕁𝕄𝔽: TL;DR. (a) if it takes so much text (twice) to explain to an involved editor like me, how would a simple Reader ever understand the situation? (b) why cannot a simple list of articles & their topic be produced to clarify? (What should have been in the final Moves-proposal in the first place). IOW, the move discussion has not lead to a comprehensive overview/proposal of the new article situation. (c) The only solution left: go digging myself. DePiep (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@DePiep: I can’t decide if you are trolling, now, or what. Are you complaining now because the answer is too long? As for what a simple reader might understand, I venture to suggest they will manage better now that the content isn’t all jumbled up on a single page. If you want a list of the articles produced it’s there at the top of the section, or it’s at my sandbox where the rough drafts were posted; if you want the final move proposal, it’s the same as the original (after a long discussion which you were welcome to contribute to); These are all in plain view. If you are huffy because you have to go digging for yourself, I don’t know what else to say. Anyway, I will be out of town for a few days, so answers from me to any further questions may have to wait a bit. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 08:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Moonraker, you absolutelymust assume good faith. DePiep is an accomplished and serious editor. I suggest you strike that comment. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't see why you should doubt my questions. I've described the issue with long answers on a talkpage in this situation. Alas, I have not been able to get my question over, though did not write blames; guess I'll have to find an other approach. Now, I'll have to study the situation to get to the reader's experience. DePiep (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
DePiep: (edit conflict)
(a) As I said, no doubt the hat-notes can be improved. [Is that what your point a or am I still missing it?]
(b) the mark and the linguistic phenomenon it denotes
  1. two dots (diacritic): the overarching article that describes how this diacritic is used in various languages and what they call the mark. Then in more detail the two cases best known to anglophones:
    1. diaeresis (diacritic), mainly for Romance languages. The name for the mark preferred by Unicode.
    2. Umlaut (diacritic), mainly for Germanic languages. The name for the mark preferred by IPA.
  2. The linguistic phenomenon that needs an orthographic indication, which is why we have the mark at all. There is no overarching article.
    1. diaeresis (linguistics), the hiatus
    2. Umlaut (linguistics), the sound mutation
(c) but you already knew all that, so I must still be missing your point? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, this is a very good starting point for me. I'll see if it is needed to rephrase (or evven repost at all) my questions. -DePiep (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Do we need a navbox? We could add schwa etc? and see also one dot (diacritic). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ "The New Yorker's odd mark — the diaeresis". 16 December 2010. Archived from the original on 16 December 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Two_dots_(diacritic)/Archive_2&oldid=1253152325"