Talk:Apostrophe

Typography High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Writing systems Mid‑importance

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Possesive decades

"Droughts and floods will be 2020's lasting memory" refers only to the one year 2020?

"Droughts and floods will be 2020s' lasting memory" refers to the whole decade? 2001:8A0:5E59:9801:DC2F:AD61:7A73:67AF (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Put the word "the" before the decade to indicate a decade. "2020's floods" are the floods during the year 2020. "The 2020's floods" are the floods during the decade 2020-2029. Spitzak (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Loch

The explanation of Breton c'h has recently been changed from like ch in Loch Ness to like ch in Scots Loch Ness, and again to like ch in English and Scots Loch Ness with an edit summary "Properly pronounced that way in English, too". Indeed it is, but how many non-Scots are aware of that? In my experience, the majority of English speakers outside Scotland pronounce Loch as if it were Lock. I propose changing back to just mentioning Scots... Thoughts? Rosbif73 (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lots and lots of non-Scots are aware of that, just perhaps not that many of them in America. I oppose to changing back to just mentioning Scots, since obviously far, far fewer English speakers have any idea at all of how anything in Scots is pronounced, and finding out is harder than finding out from any English-language dictionary how to pronounce (the preferred, first-listed way) loch in English. We could perhaps also mention the ch in German achtung, but you're right back where you started: most Americans are apt to say "aktung". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current version that uses the term Scottish English seems to me to be the best compromise. Most English people at least recognise that they are gutterally challenged and are aware that "loch" and "lock", as the Scots say it, are not the same. The fact that few can reproduce it (any more than they can a French R) is neither here nor there. For Americans, again the fact that we have taken the time and space to make a distinction is enough. After all, we all just speak British anyway. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced of the level of awareness of the Scottish pronunciation of ch in the general population of England (and have no idea of the level of awareness in other non-Scots), but I agree that using the term Scottish English is a good compromise. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit reversion

@Remsense Could I ask why have you reverted my edit? Was there anything specific I overlooked or did incorrectly? I tried to apply consistent formatting throughout the article and expanded the infobox. Xoontor (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the contributions history, the relevant material was removed a few days ago, and I only noticed now when you re-added it—so I just put it back to how it was before the initial removal. Remsense ‥ 论 16:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So can I restore my edit? I didn't just re-add the material that was removed, but also made several other changes. Xoontor (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has unique difficulties with legibility (because the mark is so small, xref MOS:ACCESS), multiple uses of the same symbol, tiny differences between this and similar symbols. So if you want to make any changes to formatting or appearance, you would save yourself a lot of hassle if you would propose each one here first. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose the following changes then:

Remove the stray ’ symbol from the infobox
Unitalicize the straight apostrophes in the lead section and infobox (' → ')

Xoontor (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF Are there any issues with these changes? Xoontor (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any stray ’ symbol from the infobox. If you mean that both the serif and sans versions are shown, that is essential information and must stay.. But maybe they should be labelled somehow? (see Talk:Bracket#Top_table_replacement for similar discussion.)
Yes, I agree, but not just by removing the italic markup tags. I don't understand how it ever works. The current mark= ’{{nbs}}''{{'}}'' is an obscure mess. It needs to be made explict: mark= {{sans-serif|'}}{{nbs}}{{serif|'}}

Anybody else? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the symbol ’ between "Apostrophe" and the two apostrophes (' and ’) in the infobox. Xoontor (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i thought that was a speck on my screen! Yes, delete please 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been bold and edited the infobox in a way that I think reflects the discussion above. I won't be surprised if it gets reverted! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More infobox signal/noise?

Can anyone see value in the block Typewriter apostrophe or neutral single quote {{|}} Punctuation apostrophe or typographic neutral single quote The article is about the apostrophe, not various kinds of mark. It is explained in the body, I can't see it is useful infobox material except maybe as a teaser trailer? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm proposing that the phrases (or neutral single quote) and (or typographic neutral single quote) [my parentheses added today] be removed from the infobox entirely. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done per discussion below. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with removing the parts in parentheses and have a few additional questions regarding the infobox. Would it make sense to add a "Unicode" section by uncommenting the content of the |unicode= parameter? Should there be a "See also" section using the |see_also= parameter, linking to the Right single quotation mark article? Xoontor (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No please put the Unicode (especially any discussion about the code points) in a list in it's own section of the article. Spitzak (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although in general I consider that the unicode codepoint to be a 'must have' in the infobox, in this case, I agree with Spitzak. This is for the simple reason that the Unicode canonical names (U+0027 ' APOSTROPHE and U+2019 ’ RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK) are just too confusing to be given without the explanatory text. Despite their names, each is an apostrophe and a quotation mark, depending on context.

The lead already says The same mark is used a single quotation mark. It is also substituted informally for other marks – for example instead of the prime symbol to indicate the units of foot or minutes of arc. I don't see that we need it in the infobox too. Again, remember that this article is about the apostrophe itself, not about the mark(s) used for it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Punctuation apostrophe", "typographic apostrophe" or "typesetter's apostrophe"?

’

In the article, the names "Punctuation apostrophe", "typographic apostrophe" or "typesetter's apostrophe" are used liberally and without much explanation that they are all the same thing (U+2019 ’ RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK). I've always believed "Typographic apostrophe" to be the common name, but Google Ngram doesn't even recognise it (although no shortage of web page hits on google search). The Unicode Consortium uses "punctuation apostrophe"^: 270, which is also the only term that Ngram recognises.

So should we follow the Unicode precedent? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]