Talk:R rotunda

Typography Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Writing systems Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Meaning?

"The half-r probably was not used in the British typefaces used during the American Revolution, or it would have been remembered by Americans, as is the long s."

It's not clear what the purpose or meaning of this comment is intended to be. Is the intended sense "the half-r fell out of use before the long s, and was obsolete in printed works by the time of the American Revolution, which is why it is not so well known today"? If so, then a less culturally-biased reference point should be chosen, and the relevance of the point made clearer. (Incidentally, I am not aware that the half-r is any more widely known in Britain, Australia, or Timbuktu than it is in America, so perhaps a more general point about when it became obsolete would be more appropriate for this encyclopedia?)

The whole paragraph was rather odd, though that was the most bizarre comment. "Probably"? As though we no longer have access to anything printed in 18th-century England, apart from what fragments we can reconstruct from American cultural memory? — Haeleth Talk 12:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image of normal r for comparison

It would be nice if there was a corresponding image of the "normal r" in the same typeface and size -- and perhaps some example text -- otherwise it's a bit hard to picture it.--Ejrh 14:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Supplied! --Stemonitis 16:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coding

~~Unicode Consortium is planning to add uppercase R rotunda to U+A74E, while the lowercase to U+A74F. --Hello World! 09:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)~~ Appeared in N2957 but did not appear in UnicodeData-5.0.0d10.txt --Hello World! 09:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not for Unicode 5.0, but rather for Unicode 5.1. Evertype 14:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the article currently state that it's "always lowercase"? I'm confused as to whether an uppercase version "really" exists or if one was just made up out of whole cloth for the purposes of the Unicode proposal. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph

In my opinion, the private use character should not be included after "Rotunda r", in the parenthesis. It is defined by MUFI to be there, true, but being PUA-character, this cannot be assumed when not within the MUFI framework. As there are already images showing the form, I propose removing the PUA character from the text. Let's add the proper Unicode character once Unicode 5.1 comes out. Szabi 10:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified {{mufi}} on general principles, based on a conversation on its talk page; it now includes a note that the character "may not display properly". We can use "What links here" from that template later to find all articles that need so updated when the characters exist properly. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've got the Unicode version in now, hurrah! I changed an instance of the MUFI version on Tironian notes‎ as well. We're leaving in the one in section "Demise of the r rotunda", right? It makes sense to have the MUFI one there, since that's what's being talked about. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Leeds Uni" font

referenced in the example image. The Leeds Uni link isn't helpful, as it merely redirects to University of Leeds, rather than anything directly related to the font. An actual reference to the font would be much more helpful: can anyone please supply one? Kay Dekker (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One sign for rc.?

I was wondering if there is a Unicode rc. combined into one single character, i.e. Tironean et with point in one? — Fritz Jörn (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, and there is no need for such a code point, as the sequence ⁊c. can be represented without problems by U+204A tironian et + "c" + "." (using a Fraktur (blackletter) font where the Tironian et correctly has a r-rotunda-like glyph). -- Karl432 (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode character missing

How do I get this ꝛ to show?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 22:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need a font that includes the character installed on your system. File:R rotunda in different fonts.png lists some fonts, and on my system Geneva contains it. If all else fails, there's always a unicode font. Opencooper (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

R rotunda in different fonts.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No stroke on the d?

This phrasing—currently in the lede—bothers me: "...in typefaces where this letter has no vertical stroke; as in ⟨ẟ⟩, ⟨ꝺ⟩ and ⟨ð⟩)". As is plainly apparent from the accompanying picture, clearly at least the ⟨ꝺ⟩ has a substantially vertical stroke, at least in some calligraphic variants, albeit its top part (above the x-height) curls to the left. The questionable phrasing was added in this edit, which removed a MUCH better explanation of what's really going on, and basically copyedited this part of the lede down to the point of incomprehensibility. Obviously this edit cannot now be simply reverted, due to intervening edits, but this needs clarification badly, and I contend that restoration of most of not all of the earlier phrasing would probably be a good thing.
In truth, the rotund R was used when it followed a letter that had a stroke —whether completely vertical or not— that (or at least part of which) could double as the R's left vertical (the resultant lowercase R thus being rendered in a style alike to small caps). The presence of a preceding (and at least somewhat vertical) stroke suitable for merging was the entire point, but the way the current phrasing has ended up would tend to suggest the opposite, so it's hard to grasp, misleading, if not outright wrong. I wonder if what happened here was that the copyeditor misunderstood the earlier clearer phrasing and hence added their own confusion to the article. Perhaps they were thrown off by the word "curved". I can see what the earlier author(s) meant, but I can also see how that could be misinterpreted. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the previous version was better. You can't do an automatic revert but you can certainly copy/paste back from the earlier version, giving attribution per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia (you don't need to find out who wrote it, just cite oldid=656395309 as the source. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the way I read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, this should-follow guideline applies just to copying from one article to another. Granted, I've done enough binary searches of article histories myself to understand that tracing things back to the original contribution is not always easy or 100% reliable, though it remains possible (so long as the evidence isn't destroyed – which btw. is precisely what some forms of deletionism do accomplish or effectively accomplish). AFAIK possible and preservation of evidence is all that's strictly required – there is no legal requirement to make things easy. While I think I've probably been good about referring back to origin diffs in edit summaries, if militant hyper-vigilance were required, even for copying within articles or from their own history, then I worry that could quickly become a rabbit hole of onerousness, and at that point I would hesitate to get involved. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I can just see it: In a body of work as big as Wikipedia, there have to be thousands of identical turns of phrase just by coincidence. Are we Shakespearean chimps really going to have an attributions arms race, with internecine Wikipedians accusing each other of infringement within? One shudders...

PPS: I forgot who said it first, but forgetfulness of whom one is quoting is an exceedingly common form of originality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReadOnlyAccount (talk • contribs) 21:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may have made it seem more of an issue than it really is? I would just reinstate the sentences you have identified and then, write up the edit note to say Restored previous better description from oldid=656395309 per talk page. See history to that point for provenance. That's it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]