Talk:List of Latin-script alphabets/Archive 1

Couldn't these all go on one page to aid comparison? It only about 26 letters extra for each language. Rmhermen 18:29, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)

• I agree, if anyone feels up to doing it. Bmills 09:04, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A table would be nice, e.g.

Alphabet \ Letter	A	B	C	ĉ	D	..
English alphabet	A	B	C		D	..
Esperanto alphabet	A	B	C	ĉ	D	..
..

--User:Docu

• Not sure my editing skills are up to that. I'll try to learn how later today. Bmills 08:57, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Have made table. Now I never want to see the page again! Bmills 17:09, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Great work. I like it. -- User:Docu

---

To add alphabets, copy the English one, and add/remove letters.

We might want to include or exclude all diacritics and fine tune collation -- User:Docu

Table changed

I've changed the table: it should be easier to edit/add new alphabets now. I've removed all diacritics, ligatures and other letters which do not exist in ASCII to after the Z.

I've also removed the Esperanto X-system: the letters like Cx are just a workaround for non-Unicode systems. If we include the X-system we ought to include the German 'e-system' as well, where ä becomes ae etc.. Jor 15:32, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Alphabetised the list (it was randomly sorted which irked me) and added Scots Gaelic to the list. Whoever originally wrote the tables can put the grave accents in their proper place - they left all fields for grave accents out as if acute accents were the only ones. Every segment has to be fixed in order to put them in now. Their fault.--172.175.248.241 07:03, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The table is a pain, if another character is to be added. Are the accented vowels really different letters in Scots Gaelic? Many languages include diacritics which are not here marked, but only a few see these as different letters. Jor 10:43, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

New table idea

What does everyone think of the table at Alphabets_derived_from_the_Latin/Temp? It uses the new table code and should be more easy to edit, also it scrolls better since I split the basic and extended alphabet. It was very easy to fix Scots Gaelic now. I would like to replace the main article table with the new one. Jor 18:08, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)ß

I'm generally in favour. The basic table is now clean. Only have minor remarks that also affect the original table:

• On older browsers I see → and ↓, maybe --> and v could be used?

Good idea. A shame we can't force people to upgrade their browsers ;) Jor 13:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Again on older browsers I see lots of ? in the extended table, but it's ok in Mozilla Firefox,Opera 7.11 and IE5.50. -Wikibob 09:39, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)

The latter problem is unavoidable, as those older browsers couldn't render the characters anyway. The same applies to modern browsers on systems without Unicode fonts (I can't see two of the chars myself on a secondary system because that system doesn't include a font for the Latin Extended-B range). Jor 13:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I like it better since it doesn't widen the page. Dori | Talk 15:28, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. No objections so far, so do you agree I can replace the table in the main article? Jor 15:34, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is it just me, or would it be possible to simply replace all letters within each table with a tick? Is there really any need to replicate each letter each time? I assume that the point is that every instance of a letter in a given column is the same. --Phil | Talk 15:55, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's easier to see them the way it is now, especially in the more sparse area. Dori | Talk 15:58, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Sure, that's possible, but then you lose the ability to check horizontally. Especially since table borders collapse, and there are thus no internal lines in the table (at least in Opera 7.5P3— My Mozilla 1.7's behaviour seems to be buggy here). Jor 15:59, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I changed my mind. I didn't notice how buggy it was under Mozilla until I did some vertical scrolling. I like not having to scroll horizontally, but being compatible Mozilla is more important. Dori | Talk 16:09, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Have you tried using   in the empty boxes, as is traditional in HTML tables? Oh, and actually finishing each line? The Swedish alphabet line stops because that's where you stopped entering stuff! --Phil | Talk 16:20, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at it now. --Phil | Talk 16:21, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

I can see no difference. I'll take some screenshots to show what I mean. Jor 16:23, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here's how it looks in IE 6 and Mozilla 1.6 from my end:

• Image:Alphabet table ie6 dori.png
• Image:Alphabet table mozilla16 dori.png

Dori | Talk 16:24, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

For future reference, I deleted these images since they're no longer needed. Dori | Talk 19:37, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Here's Opera 7.50P3:

[1]

As far as I understand CSS, this is how border collapse should work. Jor 16:32, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Better than in Mozilla and IE, but what's with the strike-throughs? I believe we should go with the majority here though. If even open source browsers don't support it well, we should not expect our readers to go and get opera just to see a page. Dori | Talk 16:36, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Strike-throughs are my displayal for visited links, ignore ;-) I do not really understand what the problem with the new table is: the existing table looks even worse in my copy of Mozilla 1.7a. It seems the worst MSIE/Gecko bugs can be fixed by adding empty cells at the end of each line. Jor 16:40, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well I get the nasty dashes in Mozilla if I scroll down with the mouse. And I don't have enough control over the fonts in IE6 (well not so immediate anyway) so the row-height is horrid. But I contend that most of the problem is that the ends of most of the rows have not been filled in. --Phil | Talk 16:31, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, all lines are now filled. Thoughts? Looks good in Opera/7.50P3 and Opera/7.23 and acceptable in Mozilla/1.7a here now. Jor 16:56, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Opera looks identical as before, Gecko screenshot:

[2]

Taken with K-Meleon 0.8.2 based on Gecko/20040311 Jor 17:00, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Much better now. Do we need to repeat the word alphabet for every single link? I think we might as well hide them, which will make the row height smaller. Also, instead of copying and pasting, we might have to delete the current page, move it, delete the redirect, and then merge in the old history. Dori | Talk 20:44, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Good ideas. I'll go edit the "alphabet" words. As for the move etc., I'll leave that to someone with admin powers. Jor 20:49, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, I did the move and history merge. The old version is available in the history in case someone thinks it should be reverted. I just noticed something while doing the move. The title of this article doesn't sound right. Should it be "Alphabets derived from the Latin one" or "Alphabets derived from Latin"? The current title doesn't make much sense to me. Dori | Talk 21:15, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me (Alphabets derived from the Latin [alphabet]). I actually feel more for 'Alphabets based on the Latin', but I am not a native English speaker so derived may be better here. Thanks for doing the merge! Jor 21:26, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think it should be "Latin-based alphabets" (or perhaps "Latin-derived alphabets"). Titles should be succinct. The preposition from is redundant, it doesn't help explaining what the article is about.

—Herbee 21:35, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)

Alphabet order

Why are the Ø and Œ columns in front of all the A's in the "Extended Latin Alphabet" table? I would expect them with the O's. The ß is with the S's, after all. Does anyone mind if I change this?
—Herbee 21:51, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)

They Ø is only there because when I changed the table I didn't move it, and the Œ was inserted later. It probably makes more sense to put them with the O's. — Jor (Darkelf) 22:09, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Latin ligatures

AFAIK the Latin alphabet used Æ and Œ too. Shouldn't there be a "Latin" row at the top of the "Extended latin" table?

More characters needed

Portuguese uses also the letters "Ê", "Ô", "Ã", and "Õ" which are not on the table. Unfortunately adding the letters by hand is near impossible, and after spending a couple of hours trying to do it by script I concluded that it was just as hard. If you have the tools, could you please do that for me? Thanks...
Jorge Stolfi 17:19, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)