Talk:Ÿ (letter)

This should not be a disambiguation page

Every single link to this page is about the character "ÿ" which is the Ÿ (vowel) page. The only thing being "disambiguated" is a use in IPA which is already linked from that page, and it appears it is just an alternative for a more-used symbol in IPA. All other links have (rightly) been moved or reworded because they are not disambiguations, and those links are also on the Ÿ (vowel) page.

I recommend that Ÿ (vowel) be moved here. Spitzak (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Strong support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC – the vowel is the primary topic; use of the symbol for linguistic notation is very secondary and familiar only to a small and specialist readership. The RFD being used to justify the present status quo was actually whether its existence as a redirect to diaeresis should stand. Well yes, that was certainly wrong too but the cure is as bad as the disease. The question was framed as an RFD discussion with just a very few editors. The correct solution is to move Ÿ (vowel) and have a {{for}} or {{about}} advising readers of the existence of the Close central rounded vowel#Close central compressed vowel topic. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

If the vowel were the primary topic, then it should simply redirect to close central compressed vowel like it did before RfD because this is where the vowel is described. But I don't think it is, and the RfD rightly found that it cannot be handled as a redirect to one of the uses of the symbol and therefore needed disambiguation. Existence of a separate article about the symbol itself that naturally describes its uses both in IPA ('the vowel') and in orthographies of some languages ('the diacritic') would be a change of circumstances that would imo mandate relisting it for discussion on appropriate board (probably AfD?) to overturn the previous consensus and eventually move such an article here. – MwGamera (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Spitzak: I agree a proper article about the letter would be better than a disambiguation page and it's good to see it being drafted, but I find "Ÿ (vowel)" not acceptable as a title for an article that is blatantly not about a vowel. That one should be left as a redirect to close central compressed vowel. – MwGamera (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I was unable earlier to create the page Ÿ (letter) and there were already numerous links to a redirect at Ÿ (vowel which is why I used that. Note I have not found a single link to this page that is about IPA. Every link is about this letter in character sets designed to support French which do not support IPA at all so it could not possibly be referring to the IPA use. Spitzak (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I see. Ironically many of these links are result of recent overzealous disambiguation of Ÿ links to an obviously wrong name. I suppose Ÿ (vowel) could be left as a {{R wrongname}} to whatever the article ends up being called to avoid breaking them, but as long as Ÿ is a disambig, Ÿ (letter) sounds like more reasonable place for it. – MwGamera (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The key point is that this should not be a disambig article. The article should just be Ÿ. No qualifications.

Ÿ (vowel) and Ÿ (letter) should redirect to it until eventually they can just be deleted as artefacts of WP moves and shakes, because no-one would ever use either as a search argument. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Many of the changes to (vowel) are the last edit on the referring page and can be undone, so it is plausible that can redirect to the IPA stuff if that makes any sense (I have no idea if it is a "vowel" there however). Spitzak (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The unfortunate result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 9#Ÿ resulted in Ÿ, previously a redirect to Close central rounded vowel#Close central compressed vowel, being replaced by this dab. No tidy-up followed, leaving many incoming wikilinks incorrectly leading to a dab. Most of the links clearly indicated one topic which was not listed on the dab (because it had no article or other WP:DABMENTION), namely the character Ÿ. Realising that such links had no good target but that one might appear later, I created a new redirect, with the aim of allowing all existing links to be diverted to any new article simply by retargeting the new redirect. I chose Close central rounded vowel#Close central compressed vowel as the least bad temporary target. Since that target was a vowel, I named the redirect Ÿ (vowel), though with hindsight Ÿ (letter) would have been a much better choice. If there is consensus to change the RfD verdict, then by all means revert my edits whose sole purpose was to implement that verdict.

One matter which should be sorted out is the cut-paste move from Ÿ (vowel) to Ÿ (letter). Pages with history must be moved, not cut and pasted, to preserve attribution. (Whilst I have no objections to my trivial contributions to the page being lost, others may.) Certes (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I did the move because I figured Ÿ (vowel) should be redirecting to Close central rounded vowel#Close central compressed vowel eventually, and thus should not be the target of Ÿ. You are probably right it should have been a move I forgot how to do that. Spitzak (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Consensus?

It seems to me that there is a clear consensus for this to be a proper article, just like Ä, Ë, Ï, Ö and Ü (and per WP:COMMONNAME). No case for different treatment has been offered. @Certes:, the RfD discussion in January addressed itself to an entirely different question and I fail to see how it provides any reasonable grounds to prevent implementation of the consensus. Yes, the procedural errors (copy/paste) needed to be rectified but now that this has been done, do you have any objection to my requesting a regular technical move? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Ÿ should be a "proper" article and I support a regular technical move. We should ping those who objected at the RfD first, as they may well have changed their minds now that such an article has appeared. Certes (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Colgatepony234, MusiBedrock, TartarTorte, Thryduulf, InterstellarGamer12321, SMcCandlish, Kusma, and CycloneYoris:, please be so advised. The proposed article is currently parked at Ÿ (letter). Thank you. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd be in support of the move as well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'm in support of the move. At the time of the RfD Ÿ (letter) did not exist, but as it exists now, it's logical to move it to Ÿ as it's the clear PTOPIC. TartarTorte 11:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this move too, considering how the other five vowels with umlauts are proper articles. Colgatepony234 (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Can this be fixed now? The autocorrectors are now changing every ÿ link to Ÿ (disambiguation), even worse! Spitzak (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think we have waited long enough for any dissenting voice to emerge. Please request a technical move, pointing to this discussion. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I've fixed those links that link there thus far. TartarTorte 18:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The technical move has been carried out. I've added a hatnote to replace the overwritten dab. Do we need any further clean-up? Certes (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we're all good. The only pages that link to Ÿ (disambiguation) are Talk:Ÿ (letter) and your talk page. Thanks for completing the move! Cheers! TartarTorte 19:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! There still is a bunch of Ÿ (vowel) link changes that need to be reverted, I did a few and it looks like other people are doing some too. Spitzak (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

As "(vowel)" isn't displayed to the reader, those links are WP:NOTBROKEN but I've no objection if people want to revert them. Certes (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It is incorrect and it is displayed to the reader as a tooltip in most browsers. Per WP:DOFIXIT "it may be appropriate to make this kind of change if the hint or tooltip that appears when a user hovers over the link is misleading". – MwGamera (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)