Appendix talk:Unsupported titles

Deletion debate (space)
If we're going to discuss deleting “&” and “&”, then we should also discuss the entry for “ ” in Appendix:Unsupported titles. Nothing that would apply to the first two entries does not also apply to that entry. Personally I feel all three should be kept for the reasons I have given at above. — Carolina wren discussió 19:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Although we have had the entries in Appendix:Unsupported titles, and linked from Template:punctuation, these don't meet our own CFI. They're not terms, abbreviations, acronyms, or initialisms, etc.  We end up with “definitions” which are actually usage, descriptions, or just names: “'|An ASCII symbol which covers the functions of...,” “’|a glottal stop”, and “)|The right parenthesis symbol.”


 * Maybe they're better off collected in a single, well constructed appendix. A table or list may be more effective than the current long page of redundant “Translingual” headings pretending to be dictionary definitions. —Michael Z. 2009-04-18 15:04 z 
 * Hm, just thinking aloud — well, on screen — about the appendix idea. You think it should list all characters that don't otherwise have entries... which should probably be all Unicode characters (since why do we need to define even A?)... and it should define them as "symbol representing a glottal stop" or "the right parenthesis symbol" or the like. So basically we should have a copy of the Unicode table, but augmented by etymology (how did the parenthesis get its form, and when?), related terms ( is related to  ), and the like. Is that what you had in mind?—msh210  ℠  15:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the Unicode consortium already documents each version of their standard. I wish people would stop implying that Unicode had some authority or precedence over language.  But we can supplement the dictionary with some encyclopedic lists of symbols, the kind of stuff you used to find in tables at the back of a large print dictionary.


 * I would start with some basic categories of symbols which don't meet CFI: punctuation, math and numerals, proofing marks, etc, and create an appendix for each. In a table or list, each symbol should probably have its most important English name or names.  Since the names will link to dictionary entries, it may not be necessary to list any additional names, or descriptions, or translations.  I see these as minimal lists of links, visual indexes for symbols the reader may recognize but might not be able to name.  I would also link to a related Wikipedia topic at the bottom of the page, but not for each symbol; the focus should remain as an index to dictionary entries, which may link on to Wikipedia and elsewhere. —Michael Z. 2009-04-21 19:14 z 

No consensus (see discussion for en space). Kept. An issue for the BP (if we collectively can stomach it). &#x200b;— msh210  ℠  20:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Need to add ".NET"
How do I add ".NET" to the list of titles? --Anatoli 06:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * .NET is a supported title. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

RFM
Is there someway we can get the subpages of Appendix:Unsupported titles into the main namespace so that they are searchable? We could move them all (just remove "Appendix:" from all the titles). That would create the entry Unsupported titles, which we might want to avoid. Alternatively we could just move the subpages, so we'd have Appendix:Unsupported titles but Unsupported titles/Colon and make sure all the links work. Thoughts? --Bequw → τ 01:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be good to have the subpages in the main namespace. - -sche (discuss) 06:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But how? The French have rather wonderful fr:Alias_. for ".", is that what we're talking about? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I moved "colon" for you to see. We'd have to fix up of course (and redirects), but that's the idea. --Bequw → τ 14:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Moved. Left redirects. --Bequw → τ 01:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

After more than a year, I noticed this movement. If you put them in the main namespace, you cannot have an interwiki link for other language versions, because page names must be identical. Interwiki linking bots will need a special treatment. No one has pointed it out in the discussion above. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Byte order mark trick
The following page names with U+FEFF byte order mark (or U+200B zero-width space, or U+2060 word joiner) are allowed on MediaWiki, and we can put them in the main namespace. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * &
 * &
 * &
 * &
 * &
 * &
 * &
 * &
 * &
 * &
 * &
 * &
 * &
 * &
 * &
 * &
 * &
 * Please don't. I'd prefer if titles actually reflected their referents. DTLHS (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But they don’t have a correct page name anyway, for example Unsupported titles/Colon. It is better if we have language-independent common page names, in order to have interwiki links and translations. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We've done that before with certain titles that matched interwiki prefixes. It was unilaterally declined, because it's really confusing and it's almost impossible to type in a byte order mark. (And how would you find these entries, then?) -- Liliana • 10:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is already tested and abandoned, I have nothing to propose. Anyway, I found those entries via ,, and their real page names didn’t matter. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

How to add entries to this list
To add entries to this list, add a line to the list of the form *

Also add a line to Template:unsupported of the form | SYMBOL | NAME OF SYMBOL = Unsupported titles/NAME OF SYMBOL

- -sche (discuss) 18:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Pansexuality symbol is a WP creation
Turns out that the pansexuality symbol was created by a WP user for use there. See w:Talk:Pansexuality. Is that worth an article on Wiktionary? There must be a large number of self-proposed symbols like this with little independent use. kwami (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * In theory, this is an RFV-type question, as it's either (become) attested outside Wikimedia wikis and thus includable by virtue of being attested, with who coined it and why being ===Etymology=== (or ===Glyph origin===?), or it's not attested and should be excluded for being unattested. I think it's the first of those, as it's easy enough to find outside wikis — e.g. [//twitter.com/mysticspellmans/status/1143158025248636929/photo/1 someone made a necklace with the symbol] in 2019 and [//twitter.com/InsaneXDesign/status/1147243129692721152 someone else got it as a tattoo], and someone was selling towels with it in 2015 and buttons in 2014 — it's just hard to search for in books because it isn't in Unicode. (One idea would be to trawl through magazines on Issuu looking for it in Pride primers, or maybe news-channels' videos about Prides or pansexuality.) Obviously, we could expand the entry with information about how common vs uncommon it is, and who coined it. It's not the first Wikimedia-coined term / symbol to gain some outside traction; compare Brazilian aardvark. - -sche (discuss) 22:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's sufficiently-independently-attested, should we add it back into (the partially-inaccurately-named) Template:gender symbols? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 03:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd have no problem with that, but there are lots of uncommon symbols out there, more than we could easily fit in that template.
 * You aren't satisfied with the title you changed the template to? kwami (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * (I was referring to the name of the template itself, not its displayed title.) Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 10:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)