Talk:N-apostrophe

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

On 17 October 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved. The result of the discussion was moved to N-apostrophe.

Not a letter

This character is deprecated, and this article is wrong. "ŉ" is not a single letter; it is a sequence of an apostrophe and an en that got a single code point for compatibility. Gorobay (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any source/citation for this? I came here to try and find exactly whether this is currently the right thing to be using or not. dewet|✉ 17:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- “The Latin Extended-A block contains five compatibility digraphs, encoded for compatibility with ISO/IEC 6937:1984. [...] Finally, U+0149 latin small letter n preceded by apostrophe was encoded for use in Afrikaans. The character is deprecated, and its use is strongly discouraged. In nearly all cases it is better represented by a sequence of an apostrophe followed by “n”” (The Unicode Standard, chapter 7). Gorobay (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - So this article really needs to die then, right? dewet|✉ 06:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - It shouldn’t use a deprecated code point, but the information about the character sequence is worth keeping. Gorobay (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the deprecated character used in the article?

If the character is deprecated, then why does the article then use the deprecated character throughout instead of the two character combo that replaced it? --Dan East (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article originally didn’t mention that the character was deprecated; I added that information in 2015 but was unsure about what to do with the rest of the article, so I left the rest as it was. Presumably it should be cleaned up somehow. Vorziblix (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 October 2022

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: moved to N-apostrophe. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ŉ → ? – The current title of this article will become invalid due to the Unicode 11 case map migration. If we don't do anything, it will get moved to ʼN (technical rename), which is clearly unideal. ʼN (a redirect to this article) isn't ideal either, since that's two characters and not what the article is talking about. Suggest moving to N-apostrophe, but open to other suggestions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support N-apostrophe per nominator. The naming scheme of main-glyph followed by name-of-diacritic is a common one, so it should be fairly understandable to readers. The official Unicode name of the character is "Latin small letter N preceded by apostrophe"; while the Unicode name is too long to be preferable as a title, it's useful to help corroborate that the diacritic here is indeed an apostrophe. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.