Talk:𝣷𝪜𝤫𝪤

RFV discussion: March–April 2020
It seems strange to me that this (and three others) have English names while they are said to be German. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "English names"? —Mahāgaja · talk 17:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * side, palm, forward, up, and, down SemperBlotto (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * All sign languages use the same "script" (body movement), so it makes sense that we use the same system to enter them into Wiktionary. And because this is the English Wiktionary, we use a system in English. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Still, there are separate alphabets. "A" is the same gesture in American Sign Language, French Sign Language, and German Sign Language, but a completely different gesture in British Sign Language. So our notation isn't universal to all sign languages. But yes, we use English words in entry names to describe signs, regardless of which sign language they occur in. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The entry name is like a pronunciation, but gestural instead of vocal. Lacking an International Gesture Description Language, we have to do with a clumsy English-based code. I could also imagine a more graphemic representation of the gestural elements, such that graphemes can be composed to form a description of a complex gesture. --Lambiam 06:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * is available in Unicode, but somewhat clumsily since two dimensions are relevant in SignWriting instead of just one in conventional writing. In principle, we could use that, but I don't know whether our Sign Language editors would want to. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be cool to have Signing sections where for other words we have Pronunciation, with, inasmuch as possible, both a rendering in the International Sign Writing Alphabet (whose existence I was unaware of) and as a video. I don’t think ISWA is practical in this 2D form for the entry name. The foremost concern is usability as a search term (for which the current approach does not score well IMO); otherwise it might be just any random code from a catalogue of signs. Perhaps a linearized encoding of the ISWA representation using image composition operators (above, besides)? --Lambiam 16:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Closed, as this wasn't a matter for RFV in the first place. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)