Talk:Capital ẞ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Writing systems (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Capital ß[edit]

Maybe someone should work ẞ (capital ß) in the article? RedNifre 00:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge with ß?[edit]

Should this article be merged with ß? - Hello World! 16:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No. --> Talk:ß#Merge Capital ß into ß? --plauz (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
yes. It should be split off under WP:SS after it becomes too long for a section, not because it might possibly become too long one day. --dab (𒁳) 10:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
No, since it is a new character which stands for itself. --Frakturfreund (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
That's no argument. We don't have separate entries for "b" and "B" or for "w" and "W", so why should this capital letter get a different article? +Angr 13:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
No. There are big differences between the lower-case ß and its upper-case brother: for one, the first is an established letter that is in use for a logn time while the other is still in an experimental state; secondly the capital ß does not relate to the lowercase ß in the way a relates to A - the correct capitalisation of ß is still SS. I really would keep these articles separate. --Sascha.leib (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


Is "ẞ" really supposed to be a capital ß? On my browser it looks like a thin capital S with a cedilla (a thinner and slightly taller Ş). Is it supposed to look like that or do I need a new font? - MTC (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

ẞ is indeed the capital ß, but it isn't "official" yet. The Unicode consortium decided that ẞ will be the capital version of the sharp s in the next revision of unicode. However, some font designer already added a glyph for capital sharp s to U+1E9E, so when you install such a font you should see ẞ as a real capital sharp s.
And I dont know why you see a strange S in your browser. On my own computer I see it as a capital sharp s (because I have the right fonts) and on the computer I use right now I see it as a box with "1E9E" written in it, which is officially no character yet, but will be capital s in the next unicode version. You are probably using a low quality browser. I recommend using Opera (powerful browser right out of the box) or Firefox (lightweight browser that you can customize). (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I am already using Firefox, which fonts already have the capital ß? - MTC (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Linux Libertine works well on my Mac. --plauz (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Linux Libertine can't seem to be installed on Windows. I eventually discovered that a new version of Code2000 has it, though Code2000 is still very ugly. ẞ is now also appearing correctly in the wikitext and edit summary box in a different font to Code2000, I'll have to work out which font that is. - MTC (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You'll find a rather conclusive font list in the German version of this article: de:Versal-ß#Aktuelle Schriften. If you can live a with an all-cap font, Stötzner's free Eszett-… fonts might be sufficient for you. Some weights of Jos Buivenga's Anivers and Museo are also availalbe for free. --plauz (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently (January 2009) using the MacOSX default version of "Helvetica" and am surprised that it indeed supports the capital sharp ẞ. (as does the default "Courier" version used for editing...) -- megA (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I cannot get it to appear as anything but a blank box. (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, is ẞ meant to look like the image of the letter in the picture? i.e. Like a fatter ß with a sharp bit at the top. Because on my computers it looks like two capital letter Ss Like so; SS. Though in the google box it only shows up as a box, and here while editing as a narrow box. Perhaps it should be replaced with an image of the actual glyph at the beginning of the article, as it would seem confusing or misleading for anyone seeing something other than the letter intended. The code could be included later in the article with a explanation.Number36 (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Guardian article misleading[edit]

The recently added Guardian link, added in good faith, appears misleading to me. It seems so imply that the letter ß (as opposed to merely the capital version of it) has been recently added ot the ISO standard / Unicode, which is, of course, patent nonsense; the small letter has been part of the Unicode standard for a long time. The headline "More than just a pumped up B': Germany celebrates recognition of the letter ß", particularly, is particularly misleading, but the way the whole article is worded seems to indicate that this is in fact a significant misunderstanding by the reporter (or editor) rather than just sloppy writing. Though the misunderstanding could probably have been avoided by consulting Wikipedia, perhaps the Wikipedia articles on ß and Capital ß should be edited to make it even clearer that the letter ß (Unicode U+00DF) has been standard for a long time and only Unicode U+1E9E LATIN CAPITAL LETTER SHARP S is new. I have, therefore, removed the link. English newspapers do not appear to be a very reliable source of information on German orthography. --Boson (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


What is this intended to mean? It looks like translationese to me. "Debatable"? "Contested"? Chronodm (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. They probably meant "controversial". I've removed it, as it has no basis in the original German article or in the sources, as far as I can see. it's amazing it lasted all this time. Mathglot (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Stefan Kießling[edit]

The spelling of Stefan Kießling's name on his German team shirt in the FIFA World Cup 2010 appears to use a capital ß. I haven't seen his Bayer 04 Leverkusen shirt. FIFA's World Cup website gives his name as "Stefan Kiessling", but by the same token it has Thomas Müller as "Thomas Mueller" even though his shirt has the umlaut present and correct. jnestorius(talk) 16:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean as in this image? I think it's just an ordinary ß written in an all-caps context, which is commonly done for proper names, though not for common words. In other words, I think it says KIEßLING rather than KIEẞLING. +Angr 20:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
In that case the current statement "If you use all-caps, the current spelling rules require to replace the ß with SS." is misleading. There is a related but different statement in the other article: "Excepted are all caps names in legal documents; they may retain an ß to prevent ambiguity, e.g., HANS STRAßER.". The all-caps complications are another reason for merging this article into ß. jnestorius(talk) 16:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

capricious image[edit]

I commented it out now since ‘nobody’ seriously uses that glyph shape. I do have some sympathy for this kind of nonsense, though. Anothername (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Mac OSX...[edit]

I'm not quite sure about the statement "On Mac OS X 10.6 version only one font includes it, Geneva Regular." My MacOSX's Character Palette for 10.5 gives Code2000 as the only one supporting capital ß (Geneva doesn't work), whereas my 10.6 Character Palette gives Geneva and another one called "Quivira"... Or does the sentence mean "from the fonts shipped directly with OSX, only Geneva includes it"? -- megA (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

ẞ Part of the Official German Spelling?[edit]

Acording to this official document (Page 10) it includes the ẞ and says DIN recognized it as an official character in 2007. --Blocoverde (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Just FRG?[edit]

The article states,

However, in 2010 the use of the capital sharp s became mandatory in official documentation when writing geographical names in all-caps.

The source provided is a document produced by the government of the FRG. Is this also binding on Austria or Liechtenstein? (I presume it is not on Switzerland.) (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The document is valid for the "Deutsche Sprachraum" and not only for the FRG, although the document itself mentions specific exceptions, such as "In der Schweiz kann man immer ss schreiben" in sect. 26; and some regions have opted out of the recommendations, fully or in part, and I believe Liechtenstein is one of them. Mathglot (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Capital ẞ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Origin of the Eszett[edit]

In the ligature article, there is a statement that:

"There is no general consensus about its history. Its name Es-zett (meaning S-Z) suggests a connection of "long s and z" (ſʒ) but the Latin script also knows a ligature of "long s over round s" (ſs). The latter is used as the design principle for the character in most of today’s typefaces."

This statement would seem to conflict with the opening paragraph of this article. So one of these articles needs to be revised in favor of whichever is correct. GeoffreyZanders (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I gather that strictly speaking ⟨ſʒ⟩ are not the correct Unicode characters and the original digraph should be encoded as ⟨ſȥ⟩, even though the glyphs used often resembled ⟨ſʒ⟩. Later Medieval German ⟨ȥ⟩ came to be written as an ⟨s⟩ so the resultant digraph was ⟨ſs⟩. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)