Talk:Heng (letter)

Untitled

So what does it look like?

It's in the article, hopefully since sometime after this question was posted. Ꜧ ꜧ . --Thnidu (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Tz (letter)

Tz (Ꜩ, ꜩ) is a letter in latin extended d. While this character may or not be in a language, it can be found in the International Phontenic Alphabet (IPA). This Letter is a combination of t and ʒ. there is another letter similar to this and its called tezh. How am i getting these letters you may ask? from ɢʀ8ʟy custom keyboard! 2A00:23C6:F43B:E101:A7CE:B60F:B4C5:396C (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 16 May 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

---

• Heng_(letter) → ꜦꜦ
• B_with_hook → ƁƁ
• B with flourish → ꞖꞖ
• C with hook → ƇƇ
• C with bar → ꞒꞒ
• D with hook → ƊƊ
• D with stroke → ĐĐ
• Tau gallicum → ꟇꟇ
• E with stroke → ɆɆ
• Eng (letter) → ŊŊ
• G with hook → ƓƓ
• G with oblique stroke → ꞠꞠ
• G with stroke → ǤǤ
• I with bar → ƗƗ
• J with stroke → ɈɈ
• K with diagonal stroke → ꝂꝂ
• K with hook → ƘƘ
• K with stroke → ꝀꝀ
• K with stroke and diagonal stroke → ꝄꝄ
• N-apostrophe → ʼnʼn
• N with left hook → ƝƝ
• O with loop → ꝌꝌ
• O with macron (Latin) → Ō
• P with stroke → ⱣⱣ
• P with hook → ƤƤ
• Q with stroke → ꝖꝖ
• R with stroke → ɌɌ
• T with stroke → ŦŦ
• T with hook → ƬƬ
• Turned h with fishhook → ʮʮ
• Turned L → ꞀꞀ
• U with bar → ɄɄ
• V with diagonal stroke → ꝞꝞ
• Y with hook → ƴƴ
• Y with stroke → ɎɎ
• Z with hook → ȤȤ
• Z with stroke → ƵƵ

– Matching with other pages in Category:Latin_letters_with_diacritics that have Unicode characters. All of their pages are just the single letter. Higgs In Space (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: as noted below, item #8 has been reversed from "Ꟈ → Tau gallicum" as a fix for the RMCD bot. (Redirects are ineligible to be current titles in move requests.) P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 12:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose on grounds that this requested move is too big of a scope. I think this can be argued for some of these letters but not all, they are not all equivalent cases. ~ oklopfer (💬) 19:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Mostly oppose. For letters with "uniform" names, such as Heng, Eng, and Tau gallicum (which you nonimated backwards, btw), then it makes sense to keep the article name aligned with what people are most likely to search for. This logic also applies to the other, more descriptive names, but it applies to these examples especially. For the modified letters, I'd say the name is a benefit since it more accurately describes what the modification is; a general reader may not know the difference between a hood and a flourish, or a stroke and a bar, or oblique and diagonal. And lastly, I'd argue the homogeneity that we should strive for should follow the naming conventions of Category:Latin-script_letters, where the full name is almost always present, with few exceptions. --Diriector_Doc├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 19:58, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. The long names are there for a reason: they do not force one to strain the eyesight trying to figure out the subtle differences between, say, Đ and Ꟈ. Викидим (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UE. This should be the other way around and codified into WP:AT. Nardog (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nardog said exactly what I came here to say. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose The Đ example is also visually identical in its capital form to Eth (Ð ð), and moving it there would add to confusion. I would support Nardog's proposal of a consistent move in the other direction. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:05, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  There are actually three of them!

  • U+00D0 Ð LATIN CAPITAL LETTER ETH
  • U+0110 Đ LATIN CAPITAL LETTER D WITH STROKE
  • U+0189 Ɖ LATIN CAPITAL LETTER AFRICAN D

  Also, this reminds me of a conversation that happened a few months ago: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Titles for untypeable letters ~ oklopfer (💬) 15:37, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you! This calls for reopening of the said discussion IMHO. Seems like a consistent move to graphical symbols is simply impossible, so if the unification is desirable, it should be in the opposite direction per Nardog. For now, pinging the participants of the said discussion: @Beland, Replayful, Toadspike, Moyogo, and StarTrekker: and will add the link here from the said discussion. Викидим (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  There are pros and cons with both approaches. While there is typically no visual difference between Ð, Đ and Ɖ, the name "D with stroke" is ambiguous and may be used for all those as well as for Ꟈ or something with a diagonal stroke. Both approaches need to handle ambiguities at some level. While Unicode names can be preferred, in some cases they are erroneous or problematic. --Moyogo/ (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  I had underscored the "if" in my message precisely because I am not sure that the unification is even desirable. That said, IMHO unification as originally proposed here simply does not work. I think that the letters are important enough, and diverse enough, to warrant a case-by-case discussion (or in small homogeneous groups by the overall graphic appearance). Викидим (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Personally I think using description titles for articles on letters/symbols is a terrible idea, there are tons of symbols which have overlapping visual ques, not to mention that most of these terms/phrases are original research. Wikipedia should call these letters/symbols their propper names or their character. If there are two characters that look very very similar the best is probably to use disambiguators.★Trekker (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  Which ones are OR? I think they might all even be their Unicode names already ~ oklopfer (💬) 09:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  There are very few, for example I with bar covers Ɨ and ɨ called LATIN CAPITAL LETTER I WITH STROKE and LATIN SMAL LETTER I WITH STROKE in Unicode, U with bar covers Ʉ and ʉ called LATIN CAPITAL LETTER U BAR and LATIN SMALL LETTER U BAR in Unicode, and it also covers Ꞹ and ꞹ called LATIN CAPITAL LETTER U WITH STROKE and LATIN SMALL LETTER U WITH STROKE. One would expect I with stroke if we’re going by Unicode names, and it’s not clear what the ones for the U should be as there are different Unicode names. --Moyogo/ (talk) Moyogo/ (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  Capital barred o is also a great example of the problem with relying on Unicode names, U+019F Ɵ LATIN CAPITAL LETTER O WITH MIDDLE TILDE vs U+0275 ɵ LATIN SMALL LETTER BARRED O.

  I guess there is a question if the two struck U's should be split up. I added U with stroke to the page a few months ago as the redirect had already existed and wasn't sure it was worth creating its own page. ~ oklopfer (💬) 13:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Викидим. I generally prefer using the letter itself as the name, which I guess means I generally support these moves. That is the least ambiguous option and is often the only accurate option. However, as pointed out early on, some letters do have common names that are not just the letter itself, in which case I prefer using the common name and oppose the proposed moves. I don't think it's reasonable to expect participants to look through all of the pages listed and decide case-by-case, so this should be split up into smaller RMs for more nuanced discussion. Toadspike [Talk] 18:40, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: It looks pretty clear at this point that the move as proposed is going to fail, but I want to clearly Oppose the idea that it should be standardized in the other direction. I think WP:UE can be applied as is to handle this situation. For symbols that have distinctive proper names in English (Eng (letter), Tau gallicum, Eth, Heng (letter) etc.) we use that for the title. If a particular descriptive name for a symbol can be shown to have an established English-language usage (no, internal Unicode designations don't count as part of common English-language usage), then we use that. If it cannot be shown, then we have the title simply be the symbol. I also think creating an exception for symbols would only serve to degrade WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:PRECISION. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 14:32, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh yeah, as an exception: if a descriptive name has an established English-language usage, but that usage can be shown to be clearly less common than actually just using the symbol itself, then the title should also be the symbol. I'm not sure there are any cases this would apply to honestly, but that's how WP:UE would work. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 14:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose due to differences in devices many users would not be able to view the Unicode character, which could produce more ambiguity for the user, as there would be little to no information in the title—for users with devices not rendering certain characters. On a similar note, wouldn’t replacing plain text titles potentially cause issues for text-to-speech programs? Legendarycool (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.