Category talk:Uncommon Latin letters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Thorn is a separate letter after Z; it is not a variant of T. Can this be moved? Evertype 11:01, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Not Latin[edit]

Some of these (thorn, wynn) are runic script which I don't think are latin. --Tokek 10:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

However, those two were sometimes used as part of the otherwise Latin-alphabet-based orthography of Old English... AnonMoos (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Name is silly[edit]

the name of these category is silly. most of these are Latin letters with diacritics that happen to have precomposed Unicode characters. The rest are paleographic or regional variants of letters that happen to have Unicode codepoints, or letters that aren't "Latin" at all but happen to be used in Latin context in some orthographies. It's mostly a Unicode thing. "Uncommon" isn't a good title in any case. dab (𒁳) 15:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


I think the proposed split is a good idea, but I would add another category for Latin Special (or Modified) Letters, such as Eth, Wynn, etc. FilipeS 19:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What does this category mean?[edit]

Does this mean "letters which are classified as part of the Latin script, but are not commonly used in any alphabet" or "letters (of any script) which are not commonly used in any alphabet which is primarily from the Latin script"? For example, does the Cyrillic letter Che belong in this category? It was used as part of the Zhuang alphabet until 1982. An editor recently removed this category from Che (Cyrillic), but not from Ze (Cyrillic). —Coroboy (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I can distinguish four categories of Latin and Latin-derived letters - 1) Basic Latin letters: the simple 26, 2) Latin letters with diacritics: self-explanatory, 3) Non-standard Latin letters: Latin letters that are not the simple 26 with or without diacritics, 4) Latin letters borrowed to other scripts: Cyrillic Dze and Shha, Miao letters, etc. Whether we think these are actually useful for Wikipedia or not (I have my doubts about 4, for instance), I think that those categories are the only ones that could really be meaningful. VanIsaacWS 16:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Both Unicode and ISO 15924 together use a different meaning for "Common". Unicode has labeled most Latin and Latin-derived characters "Script:Latin". Only when a character is used in multiple scripts, it is labelled "Script:Common" (code Zyyy). Many of these are diacritics. About the example U+0427 Ч CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER CHE: definitely called "Script:Cyrillic" by Unicode, so no reason to call it a "Common" script. Now this is a confusing meaning of Common (e.g. with Vanisaac's comment above), but in the long term I would not like to row against the srious & eh, common ISO/Unicode standards. -DePiep (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's drop this cat[edit]

Unless "Uncommon" is defined crisply, we should drop this category. -DePiep (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, all of them which aren't in ISO-8859-15 would qualify, but there's not going to be an exact definition, and I'm not sure I see a vital need for such... AnonMoos (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)