Talk:Q56627865

Former pIqaD, has been merged with Q6421045. LitigiousOx (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

LitigiousOx i'm not an expert but the english article seems to be about multiple different klingon alphabets of which pIqaD (Q56627865) and Klinzhai or Mandel script are just instances. separately there is also Okrand notation (Q56743290) --Shisma (talk) 05:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Ay you're right :facepalm:. The bad mapping between the different language versions of Wikipedia was confusing. I see Q56627865 has been reverted now. LitigiousOx (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Not a Unicode range

Obviously, pIqaD (Q56627865) is not assigend by The Unicode® Standard (Q8819), and so does not have a range assigned full stop. U+F8D0-F8FF is private-use character (Q109615233), and cannot be claimed this way. You might need a different property or relationship to describe the Conscript statement, but confusion as to "added to Unicode" must be prevented for being, well, not true. DePiep (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

the no value statement has the Preferred rank and therefor the truthy value while all other values are falsy. I'd agree with setting the informal conscript range to depricated instead. How about that? – Shisma (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

additionally reason for deprecated rank (P2241) → unofficial (Q29509080) – Shisma (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit better, but I doubt whether this is the right statement for the declaration we seek. This really is different from, for example, say Early Cyrillic alphabet (Q442244) (not by name, but well-described as part of umbrella script Cyrillic script (Q8209) in Unicode; a range notion there fits the sourced). Even worse, Piqd is explicitly rejected for Unicode.

What is needed is an explicit (and so clear & unambiguous) propertry-form that (a) Piqd is not in Unicode, and (b) the range is PU. Current solution, deranking, is not clear in this. Adding to the confusion is that it is assigned by some official-looking institution ConScript Unicode Registry (Q3685891). DePiep (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. I suppose you are right. I just wanted to express that it is usually assigned to this range in the PUA because the conscript specification says so. Would it require its own property? We can just remove it if you like – Shisma (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not that sure about full removal; could be that current situation is the best-advised in Wikidata orthography. That is, relationship & property & qualifying &tc usage. Don't have much time to dive/research into this this further. We can leave it this way, maybe in the future an other opportunity passes by to invest. Could be ConScript related again ;-) DePiep (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@DePiep, Shisma: As far as I can tell, this property was never intended to be limited to those defined by Unicode (see the examples on Wikidata:Property proposal/unicode range). I also don't see the point in having separate properties for "Unicode range defined by Unicode" and "Unicode range not defined by Unicode" because we can already use ranks and qualifiers to handle things like that.

The fact it doesn't have an officially-assigned range can be represented using a no value statement. An "issued by" qualifier can be added if you want to be explicit. Setting the value to preferred will make it take precedence over the other values.

- Nikki (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks like that's the way to go then. My concern is that a less-well written search will end up with the wrong suggestion.

Additionally Shisma proposed reason for deprecated rank (P2241) → unofficial (Q29509080). Please use as many 'warnings' as possible. Later I will revisit to learn how such situations can be handled, wikidata-wise. (In other topics, I met a very complicated non-understandable spraqle query to ge a quest answered, but if that's WD will have to live with it). DePiep (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)