User talk:Indexheavy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Categories nominated for deletion

Hi, I've nominated the Category:Unicode script and its subcategories that you created for deletion. You are welcome to join the related discussion here and present your arguments why you might think they should stay. Until this issue is resolved, I recommend not to add any new articles to those categories, because that might end up being a wasted effort. Note that even if the final consensus should be to keept this type of categories, their names will have to be changed to the plural form based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for lists of items. Since there is no simple way to rename categories, all listed articles would then have to be edited once more to link them to the correct names. --Latebird 11:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume you understand that the result of the debate was delete. Why are you now just renaming the categories as if no decision had been made? --Latebird 05:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding was that the the result was "delete" and the reasons that prevailed were the failure to follow the plural naming convention. The other reason you gave was that a Unicode script' and writing system were the same thing and so in effect the two should be merged to writing system. I then explained that they are two different categories. You then agreed that a merge would not work for that very reason. So that left the reason for deletion as a failure to name according to the plural naming rule. Discussions on Wikipedia are not merely votes. Its important to read the comments and the reasons cited when reading the consensus of the discussion. I have requested all of those categories be speedy deleted. In keeping with consensus, I have created new categories that I trust you would have no objection to anymore. Indexheavy 05:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The plural thing was a minor point and definitively NOT the reason for any of the delete votes. To the contrary, it was the keep votes that recommended renaming (as is natural in this case). It is correct that the arguments must be taken into account by the admin deciding on the outcome. But once the decision is made, it is binding. --Latebird 06:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time reading the debate as you suggest. Could you walk me through how you're reading your statement (especially in relation to the reading I summarized above). The two other comments associated with delete only reiterate what you said in your nomination: though strangely they also seem to endorse keeping the ancient script category. Did I not address the issue of redundancy with the writing system category? I though you had endorsed that refutation in your later comment. As far as I can tellk, the only thing reamining in your nomination was the concern you riased about the singular form. Indexheavy 06:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm afraid you're incorrect. If the point of the debate was that the categories should be plural, it would have been closed as a "rename" rather than a "delete". Rather, the point of the debate is, as stated in the nomination, that "this category promises to become almost entirely redundant to the Category:Writing systems. If at all, then it would probably be more useful to categorize the few exceptions that still aren't in unicode". As such, please do not recreate these categories under another name. >Radiant< 08:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, I don't recall you engaging in the debate, but I'm happy to hear from anyone. However, rather than just telling me I'm "incorrect", I would still need you to explain how there's any concsensus in that debate except a renaming. Also since the Wikipedia policies allow for the re-creation of categories if the original objectsions are addressed, how does my creation of these categories violate Wikipedia's practices and etiquette? The objection: '"this category promises to become almost entirely redundant to the Category:Writing systems. If at all, then it would probably be more useful to categorize the few exceptions that still aren't in unicode" was addressed by me immediately in my arguments for keeping the category. Latebird later acknolwedged the issue was about what the criteria for inlusion in the category was. I addressed that by adding a discussion page to each of the categories. A debate with three editors arguing for deletion and two editors arguing to keep hardly fulfils Wikipedia's consensus policies. Yet nearly all participants agreed the name should be changed. Indexheavy 09:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

On Radiant's pointt that the the major concern was not addressed, here's the two categories. You can view them side-by-side and see that there's not all that much overlap (let alone being "entirely redundant"). Category:Writing_systems and Category:Unicode_scripts. The second part of the quotation endorses the very scripts, Lateird sought to delete. The roadmap categories are exactly what Latebird calls for with: "it would probably be more useful to categorize the few exceptions that still aren't in unicode" So if you count it as votes, there's certainly no concesnsus. If you take the time to read what the paricipants said, than the categories I created (along with their names and the expositions on their respective discussion pages) addresses everything raised in the consensus. If there are other objections, they have not yet been raised. 10:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

there were three delete votes. This doesn't mean all that much: don't vote on everything. It is a far graver problem that you seem to be ignoring all concerns and just go ahead with whatever it is you decided you want to do. The deletion vote showed that there are issues. Instead of just re-creating the deleted categories, you should have taken the time to debate and find a better solution. Similarly, you turned the useful Mapping of Unicode characters into an unusable epic. You insist on using your idiosyncratic term of "semantic phonemes" on Unicode Phonetic Symbols and elsewhere. On Talk:Unicode Phonetic Symbols you make a number of perfectly correct points, all the while dodging the issue of addressing your terminology of "semantic and non-semantic charcters" as you were asked to.

I perfectly understand the points you are trying to make, and there is no doubt you mean well, but I am sorry, you are not doing very well at the moment. This begins with your idiosyncratic terminology. This is Wikipedia: you cannot just post your own stuff here. If you would be willing to collaborate, I am sure we could find an amicable solution. But if you're going to be tongue-in-cheek along the lines of "Do you have any sources you can cite on this being an aburdity?", we can also do this the confrontational way, which is less satisfying, but also leads to good results. We both want to discuss and explain the nature of the choices that had to be made for UCS. Now, if we are unable to reconcile our approaches, we will have to rely on WP:ATT and WP:NPOV entirely. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original reviews of the Unicode standard. I am sure you will be able to refer to published reviews of this kind. The first step concerns my objection to your use of "semantic": There is no "distinction between semantic and non-semantic characters (a distinction built into the UCS)". If you want to argue that there is, you will have to provide sources. What I think you mean is that character strings can be different and yet canonically equivalent. I ask you to take a step back now and look around if anyone else is using your terminology:

Find sources: non-semantic characters — news, books, scholar

Unless you are using another internet than me, I assume you will also find that the term "non-semantic character" does not exist (viz., was made up by you). What about "semantic character"?

Find sources: semantic characters — news, books, scholar

aha, it appears the term is has some use in Japanese orthography. This has still nothing to do with UCS. Your description of Arabic final forms as "non-semantic" is completely idiosyncratic. This is a matter of context-sensitive shaping discussed at Complex text layout. The point is that the same grapheme may be encoded in several characters. This can be explained by just using the terms "grapheme" and "character" correctly, without reference to "glyphs" or "semantics". I would hate to revert your work, which is obviously done in good faith, but you really have to go back and address this. dab (𒁳) 08:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand the animosity I'm sensing from you. I've been trying to address you concerns as you raise them. After you objected to the phrase "semantic character" I changed the wording in several places and I thought I had eliminated that usage. The discintion of semantic encoding of characters and non-semantic is all over the Unicode Standard. I imagine we're talking about a difference in interpretation here: one that probably just comes down to wording and needs to be worked out among us. I've been trying to do that, but I don't feel like I'm getting responses from you when I respond. The arabic final forms as "non-semantic" (do I still have that in there?), is meant to reflect the Unicode Standard preference for treating those as glyph variants as opposed to separate characters.

I am not at all trying to write a review of the Unicode standard. Everything I've written here has been to help a general reader understand, what is a very large and somewhat unapproachable set of data and protocols. I think the mapping article has some greeat information on the standard, but it didn't reflect many of the ways those characters are categorized. I also was not being tongue in cheek about citing sources. You've been chastsizing me about sources since I started contributing. Yet there were no sources cited at the Mapping article until I added the Unicode Standard 5.0. Dicsucssing these issues on the discussion page or here, would be better than simply following me around trying to undo my work. I think we both need to try to understand each other before we can impove the article (by changing the objectionable wording).

I'm honestly trying to understand your objections, however I don't. Perhaps you could tell me what you think is wrong with applying the term semantic to character. Or semantically distinct. For example, the way I'm using this I would say there is no semantic difference between the ligature ffl and the character sequence ffl. So I guess I'm not saying that the ligature is not semantic, rather I'm saying that it adds no semantics that aren't already there in the non-decomposable character sequence. This is my reading of the Unicode standard. Thats my reference here. Either my prose aren't conveying this properly, or you have a different reading. The point of WP:NPOV to me is that we need to understand our different readings, learn from them and make the article significantly better from that process. So the first step is to understand those differences. I think the discusssion should probably continue on the Mapping discussion page. Indexheavy 09:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] additional response

You wrote:

The point is that the same grapheme may be encoded in several characters. This can be explained by just using the terms "grapheme" and "character" correctly, without reference to "glyphs" or "semantics". I would hate to revert your work, which is obviously done in good faith, but you really have to go back and address this.

I think the term grapheme often does little to clarify things. "Grapheme cluster" (as used by the Standard) can be clear, but grapheme on its own typically contributes to ambiguity. Why do you object to glyph? That term too is used througout the Standard (along with form and variant). The problem with the distinctions you make here is that they relate to non-singleton decompositions. Much of what I've been writing on (at least surrounding the glyph/form v. character disctinction) relates to the singleton decompositions. So I think the language you're using suffices for other areas of Unicode, but not the areas I've been writing about.

well, a glyph is a shape given to a character by some specific typeface. The character "A" (U+0041) can be represented by any number of glyphs. dab (𒁳) 17:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% on that, but I'm not sure how it relates to our differences. Indexheavy 22:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)