Open main menu


Could you explain, why, please? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  • See -- Tuválkin 16:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Listed also here. -- Tuválkin 16:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Approved Minutes of the UTC 100: “In Unicode 4.1, U+00A0 NO-BREAK SPACE is the preferred base as opposed to U+0020 SPACE. For line breaking, U+00A0 NO-BREAK SPACE gets type AL, drop rule LB7a (rule which says a space with a combining mark acts like a symbol). Add U+00A0 NO-BREAK SPACE to "aletter" in Unicode Standard Annex #29: Text Boundaries. U+0020 SPACE is still a base character, but it does not change its properties.” 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I can read, too. What’s your point? -- Tuválkin 18:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The character proposal was rejected, NBSP should be used for that reason. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Told you I can read. Again, what’s your point? -- Tuválkin 15:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Understood, but you’re wrong. As evidenced by the sources you yourself quoted, invisible letter is pretty much an unencoded character. Of course not accepting Michael Everson’s proposal (@Evertype) for a proper invisible letter and instead rigging NBSP into a Rube Goldberg contraption for the same intended purpose was a lame move on the part of the U.T.C. (we’ll see what the future brings), but my original point stands: Invisible letter was rejected for encoding, therefore invisible letter is an unencoded character — just like Klinzhai, Rongorongo, or semaphore letter signals. -- Tuválkin 18:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The difference is that “invisible letter” was proposed for technical reasons and is not some character attested in printed text. There is no current use of it, so it depends purely on the UTC if this formatting-ish character will be encoded—and it won't. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Not attested? Guy, we have 249+21+7 attested uses of invisible letter. -- Tuválkin 18:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Not correct, these are dotted geometric shapes, they're not invisible and partially (◌, ⬚) present in the UCS. This is not what was proposed in the document (as I said, a “formatting-ish character”); if you want to represent the symbols in the images, you should use the mentioned symbols. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Those are dotted shapes with the semantics of invisible letter, just like the triangle here has the semantics of U+0041, not of U+25B3. -- Tuválkin 18:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a difference between semantical identity and glyph variation. Unicode does not encode sememes, its goal is to be able to represent world's graphemes (which can have different glyphs). While the triangle-shaped character you linked is a stylistic glyph variant of an A, the dotted shapes are just that: dotted shapes. I'd rather say NBSP can have semantics of an invisible character, but the shapes are not invisible. If someone would like to represent the absence of a character or an invisible placeholder, he should use NBSP, as recommended by UTC. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Unicode does not encode 'sememes'"? Good gods, man, give it up. I'm pretty well aware of what Unicode does and does not encode. Note please the authors of the INVISIBLE LETTER proposal, who are also people as knowledgeable as me (and certainly far more knowledgeable than you) about what is and what is not encodable. The INVISBLE LETTER is as valid a placeholder to carry a diacritical mark as a dotted circle or a dotted square. It has the Letter property (which would give it the expected behaviour, while NBSP does not because NBSP glues to both the preceding and following character). It simply has no ink. Get your head around that or don't, but stop banging this drum. You are not getting consensus from other Wikipedians. Evertype (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Back to the original point, though — is your goal to just remove from Category:Invisible letter its categorization as an unencoded character, as it started out to be, or to get rid of the Category:Invisible letter in whole, as you seem to be inclined to now? These are both bad ideas, but they are not compatible. -- Tuválkin 18:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    • None of the images in the category show invisible characters. I think it'd be better to rename it to Category:Character placeholders, which can also include the NBSP. There is no graphical difference and no difference in behaviour between the “unencoded” invisible character and NBSP. UTC recommended to use NBSP, the symbols are unified and hence encoded. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I think Tuválkin is right in this discussion and I think 1234qwer1234qwer4 is being unnecessarily rigid in his interpretation of things. Evertype (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  1. Wikimedia Commons categorization is independent of UCS jargon and will reflect Unicode properties only to the extent that they are useful for normal users (which is most of it); we do not follow Unicode faithfully here in things like some instances of casing (I’ll let you hunt down examples) and we totally do not concern ourselves with things like decomposition and canonicity (no separate categories for, say, U+02D8 versus U+0306, when “caught in the wild”).
  2. Whatever the UTC might recommend today (populated at is is with a few obligatory company shills and industry stoodges) might be overthrown tomorrow. And being on the UTC’s side against M. Everson’s is usually being on the wrong side of history — you can ask capital sharp ess or the Coptic script, among many others.
-- Tuválkin 11:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The character was invented for addition to the UCS and is not used (instead, NBSP is). If I draw some random wiggly lines and call each of them a new character, I wouldn't call them unencoded because they aren't in use. There is no purpose of encoding symbols not in use. Even if we would consider “invisible letter” an unencoded character, none of the characters shown in the images is invisible. They are visible placeholders, even the letter A can be one. It is not correct to categorise them here. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  • You contradict yourself: An unencoded character is unencoded and therefore logically Category:Invisible letter must be a subcategory of Category:Unencoded characters. The case you raised in this discussion is closed, no need to waste any more time here with it. If you want to make the case that Category:Invisible letter should not exist, then go raise the matter elsewhere. -- Tuválkin 11:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    • The invisible letter is in use. In traditional typography lead type diacritics were set by themselves, not sitting on a dotted circle or dash or anything. The proposed character was called INVISIBLE LETTER because (1) it had no ink and (2) it had the letter property which is just what anyone would want to put a diacritic on. NBSP is a hack, and not a good one, because NBSP will glue itself to whatever precedes, in addition to the diacritic that follows. Evertype (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


Okay, guy, point made. Your contrarianism is noted and while up to a certain level it can be even useful or at least amusing (sparring about character encoding with “the” Michael Everson, seriously?), this edit of yours, without the obvious correction, shows your bad faith in quite sufficient manner. Please do futurely engage me in discussions in whatever relevant file or category talk pages by means of {{R}} or {{U}} and come to my talk pages only for matters concerning me personally, of which there will be hopefully none. -- Tuválkin 11:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, now, he didn't spar with me in any genuine fashion, now, did he? He didn't listen to arguments, and he kept repeating his own misconceptions. Evertype (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Sweet of you to use the definite article though. 🥰 Evertype (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I added Category:Klingon glyphs to Category:Characters of unencoded scripts as soon as I've created it. Maybe, there should be Category:Unencoded scripts as a separate category, though. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Capela de Santo Amaro (Alcântara)Edit

Olá Tuvalkin. No Commons, está criada a Category:Igreja de Santo Amaro (Lisbon) e ao mesmo tempo está criada a referida categoria Category:Capela de Santo Amaro (Alcântara) que parece mais adequada pois se trata de uma capela. Julgo que se trata do mesmo edifício religioso e assim a Category:Igreja de Santo Amaro (Lisbon) deverá ser eliminada e a cópia da aguarela de Roque Gameiro ser junta à categoria da Capela. Saudações, GualdimG (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)



Off-topic ranting like this edit is not welcome. Either contribute in a useful constructive way or don't. Your edit has been removed as disruptive. Please don't place it back, but feel free to add a more constructive response. Multichill (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


I clearly see an ⓐ there. The tail of the a is its boundary, the circle around it is closed. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

  • 1234qwer1234qwer4, it may look like a circled lowercase "a", but then again also a "u" looks like a "и". That character as it’s used in Spanish and Portuguese has the semantics of "ꜵ" (if anything other than "a"/"o"), and it is always entered/encoded as @ U+0040 COMMERCIAL AT when digitally transmitted and stored. You may create a category for haphazard handwritten lookalikes (I would suggest that you focus first on, say, Category:Italian upper case "TT" digraph letterform similar to Math uppercase "Π", as there’s comparatively many more instances of it in photos of folk signage) and populate it with this photo, but you may not uncategorize this photo as a case of Category:Symbol "@" standing for "a" or "o", because that’s what it fundamentally shows. -- Tuválkin 22:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Homenagem aos Calceteiros (statue)Edit

Olá Tuválkin! Mudou o título da dita Categoria, provavelmente porque existindo dois conjuntos, um na Rua da Vitória (de 2006), e outro na Praça dos Restauradores (de 2017), sendo ambos do mesmo escultor, e se poder considerar que se trata da mesma Homenagem. Eu tinha fotografado apenas um dos conjuntos, o último, e daí ter colocado no título 2017. Podendo defender-se que no conjunto constituem ambos a mesma homenagem, vejo com interesse a separação dos conjuntos, porque fisicamente eles estão separados, até para evitar erros de interpretação por quem consulte. Por isso peço que analise a vantagem de retomar o título inicial e criar uma outra categoria com o conjunto de 2006, ou então substituindo o ano pelo local, por exemplo Praça dos Restauradores em vez de 2017. Saudações, GualdimG (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


I uploaded several great folk music created by Bugotak music band (there is the article about this music band w:ru:Буготак (группа) in Russian Wikipedia). This 2009 album has open license (cc-by). Please review files in this category:Bugotak. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  The detail categorization of Bugotak music
You are a hard worker! Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the detail categorization of these files! --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Re:Mark MarathonEdit

Gracias. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Tuvalkin".