File talk:Venn diagram gr la ru.svg

 

I do not understand why my correction of a factual error is unwelcome

The graphic in question.

Dear Commons community,

I changed the graphic displayed on the right by fixing a factual error. The graphic incorrectly classifies Y and У as the same. I made my change in good faith and in accordance with “Be Bold”. However, AnonMoos appears to be adamant about reverting this change and asking me to upload the corrected version as a separate image.

In my mind, this policy would result in a proliferation of multiple incorrect versions of a document. It would make it difficult for users to identify which one is the most accurate one. Is this, in fact, the desired state of things?

If I do upload a new version of the graphic and then nominate the factually incorrect one for deletion, the end-result would be a loss of the version history (including the reasoning associated with all earlier corrections made). Is this considered desirable?

Thanks for any advice. — Timwi (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

ask at COMMONS:AN or any admin's talkpage for a 'history split' and then nominate the one you don't like for deletion. Penyulap ☏ 14:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Dude, I abundantly explained it on your user talkpage, before you wiped your user talkpage. Making people jump through arbitrary procedural hoops is not a constructive way of encouraging people to discuss things. Unfortunately for you, your actions could be seen to be in violation of COM:OVERWRITE, and in such cases the burden is really on the person who wants to change the file to come up with meaningful reasoned factual arguments as to why the file should be changed, and not just to keep repeatedly reuploading over the old file version. AnonMoos (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

AnonMoos, the proper place is the file talk page to discuss it. When he blanked his talk page he referred others to use his en:wp talk page and not the one at commons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever -- most of the time people notice messages on their own user talk pages much more quickly than messages left on file talk pages. If there was an ongoing conversation on the file talk page, or there was an issue that didn't involve any particular user, then the file talk page would be the place to go. However, in the situation as it existed, there was absolutely nothing "improper" about me taking the matter to his user talkpage, or him replying on my user talkpage.

And he can do whatever he wants with his user talkpage (mostly), but if he chooses to impose arbitrary procedural barriers to communication, and I choose not to jump through his particular set of hoops, then that does nothing to move the discussion forward. AnonMoos (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

What I fail to understand is why you two reverted each other two and three times with nothing brought up on the talk page of the file. Next it comes here, then possibly at ani. It should have been discussed after the first revert on the file talk page. Dragging drama all over when simply uploading a new file page will be the solution. The projects can then decide which file to use.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

When only two people are involved, the file talkpage is not necessarily the simplest and most direct discussion path. And it's conspicuous that Timwi has offered little rationale for his actions other than a blanket assertion that his way is the only "correct" way, while I posted a fairly detailed explanation to his user talkpage (before he blanked his user talkpage). AnonMoos (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

According to w:Gamma the upper case Y is wrong in your diagram so he does have a point that it should be removed from that overlap section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

What does w:Gamma have to do with it? It's У, U+0423 Cyrillic capital letter U w:U (Cyrillic) under question. And it's not a factual error, it's a stylistic choice. Whether or not those two forms are close enough to be treated as the same is not a question of fact.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Guys, are you experts on Russian? This is NOT A STYLISTIC CHOICE. "Y" is WRONG. Take it from a native Russian speaker. It is not about style. --Romanski (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There is enough interest at the moment to create a discussion on the talkpage of the file, I've copied everything there to start it off. This is appropriate now because the Village pump would archive the discussion after a week or two and then it would be difficult to find, and even harder to add comments to the discussion. The file talkpage doesn't have those problems. If the discussion stagnates there, just leave a note on the village pump to the effect of "Please comment at File talk:Venn diagram gr la ru.svg so that someone can assist. Penyulap ☏ 21:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Movement of discussion in progress reverted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

{facepalm} Penyulap ☏ 21:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

(addressing the OP) I would just create a new version with a different filename. You could then cross link both files via the other versions field. If I felt strongly about the correctness of any version, I might post a heads-up to the talk pages of some of the wikiproject pages that use the original image, to inform them there is now a choice. -84user (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of anything else, the original correction by Timwi is correct. Latin "Y" and Cyrillic "У" do not differ only on stylistic details (a point that can be correctly made about other letter pairs, such as "K"/"К" or "ŭ"/"й") — to prove it behold Cyrillic letter "Ү" (lowercase: "ү"). This point could be argued on historical grounds, refering to the pre-Soviet, even pre-Graẑdanskaâ, state of the cyrillic scripts, but if so the letterforms of all three scripts should be changed to reflect the period in question, as well as their repertoires (no "J", for one thing); any deeper analysis of this subject should not ignore things like Cyrillic "Н" being based on Greek "Ν" and being only visually similar to "H"/"Η" in a later phase, and many other counter intuitive details. This Venn diagram as it presents itself — a simplistic, syncronic assessment that leaves aside historical and typographic details, should not state that "Y"="У". It should be corrected for useful use. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Tuvalkin -- this diagram has absolutely nothing to do with history at all. It compares only the typical visual shapes of the uppercase letters of the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic alphabets as they are found in modern serif non-italic fonts (and the only form of Cyrillic considered is Russian). That's all it does... AnonMoos (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That’s exactly what I said. This kind of simple diagram has no business in considering that Cyrillic "У" comes from Greek "Υ" — its modern upper case letterform is different from "Y" (so much that there is even a modern Cyrillic letter "Ү", as said, used constratively in some Turkic languages, as different from "Y" as modern Latin "U" from "V", or "I" from "J", and history be damned; not a stylistic difference as said above, unlike Greek shaped "Л" and "Д") and therefore the diagram as it stands now is simply wrong and needs to be corrected — exactly because it «has absolutely nothing to do with history at all». I’m glad that we agree. -- Tuválkin ✉ 06:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

First off, any Cyrillic developments not included in standard Russian are not relevant to this graphic. And the matter is less simplistically black-and-white "correct" than you seem to believe. AnonMoos (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

“Second off”, I understand that this diagram purports to consider only “regular” cyrillic letters (as it doesn’t cover “oddballs” from the other scripts, such as "ẞ" or "Ϙ"), but still "Y" is not an acceptable stylistic variant of "У" in the eyes of any Russian litterate person, just like for the typical educated English speaker "Þ" looks a bit like a "D" but a bit too off. This is not comparable with the “monumental” versions of "Л" and "Д", which do look like their Greek counterparts, as «you seem to believe» it is — here’s a few easily found counter-examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

You can make a case for keeping a chalkboard photo showing "5+5=8", on the grounds that file history must be kept and that anyone is free to upload a changed derivative, but you cannot claim that the original is useful or educational or even correct. -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 84user: we should upload a new file with the "corrected" version. And once this discussion dies down I would either link to it from the file talk page or copy it there as suggested by User:Penyulap. --Jarekt (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this discussion should be moved to the file talk page. -- Tuválkin ✉ 06:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

OP’s comment: After reading this discussion, the message I take away is that Commons does want to fill itself up with lots of subtly wrong versions of files and require users to comb through them to find the correct one. This severely lowers my perception of it as a source of useful stuff. Consequently, I am much less motivated, not only to use it as a source, but also to contribute to it. — Timwi (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Does Commons want that? And who exactly is Commons? Apparently not me — and that makes me a sad panda. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Timwi -- unfortunately for you, you seemed to be quick on the file revert button but rather slow to adduce reasoned factual cogent substantive arguments as to why the file should be overwritten (taking into account COM:OVERWRITE), and in fact you seemed to go out of your way to create unnecessary hindrances to discussion. In this context, assuming that your unsupported assertions should be glaringly obvious to all, and getting upset when others don't treat them as glaringly obvious, does nothing to resolve issues. AnonMoos (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

His assertions, however unsupported, are glaringly obvious to anyone with a shred of actual knowledge of Cyrillic typography. AnonMoos, you understand that there are millions of Russian elementary school students potentially pointing and laughing at you, right? (Vicious little хулиганкы, they are…) Step down from your high horse, and please allow this file to be corrected to actual usefulness — anything else will just spread even wider the stain on your reputation. -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As a native Russian speaker, I just want to mention that the "Y" letter is unambiguously wrong in Russian. This is not a question of styling or font choice. "Y" is wrong. Ask 10 russians about "Yчеба" and 9 will point out the weird letter unprompted. --Romanski (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

This is about basic letter shapes, not about how they look in a certain typeface.
My view (as the creator of this file) is like that of the people who make licence plates:
Vehicle registration plates of Greece: Only the letters from the intersection between the Latin and Greek alphabets by glyph appearance are used, namely Α, Β, Ε, Ζ, Η, Ι, Κ, Μ, Ν, Ο, Ρ, Τ, Υ, Χ.
Vehicle registration plates of Russia: Only a small subset of Cyrillic characters that look like Latin characters are used (12 letters: А, В, Е, К, М, Н, О, Р, С, Т, У, Х).
Watchduck (quack) 09:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Your diagram is wrong, because in the Russian alphabet, there is no letter with a shaped glyph. The shape of a latin Y can – in some typefaces – resemble a Russian У, and thus it is okay to say that the Russian У can be identified as latin Y, but this does not work in the opposite direction. The typical shape of a latin Y does not qualify as a Russian У. -- Sloyment (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

У on a Russian ...

... and Y on an East German licence plate - two completely different letters! *wink*

I agree that Times New Roman was not a good choice for this diagram, and that I should replace it by one with an asymmetrical Y, as seen in the licence plates on the right. But that's exactly the point: It's about the typeface. The diagram is essentially correct, but there is a flaw in the presentation. (BTW: On most East German licence plates the Y was actually symmetrical.) Watchduck (quack) 22:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

If you also find У on a Greek licence plate (or in any greek text), then I would agree with you. Alexei Kopylov (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Links to images are in the file description in the "especially (but not only) in handwriting". The last link is this. Here are two more. I don't think I have ever seen a symmetric Y in handwritten blockletters. (Here are two handwritten Cyrillic Уs for comparison.) Watchduck (quack) 18:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

You convinced me. I closed the nomination. Would you replace the Y -> У in the file? Alexei Kopylov (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. When I find some time I will replace TNR by a typeface with an asymmetrical Y. I try to do it in the next two weeks. Watchduck (quack) 20:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Good!

I’m very glad that, three years after heated discussion, there was an effort to make this work. The points originally made still stand, but having the diagram rendered in an adequate typeface makes it useful to illustrate matters such as Russiand and Greek licence place repertoires and typography. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Cyrillic versus Greek L

Λ and Л can look the same in some special "monumental" styles, but in the great majority of ordinary text they are not the same. I would suggest that you not make any further radical changes to that file without, at a minimum, discussing the proposed changes first. AnonMoos (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: This is the same argument that was used in the Y / У discussion - and my reply is also the same. It is true that in most printed text Cyrillic Л looks different from Λ. But in handwritten blockletters they usually look the same. I did not even find Russian graffiti on Commons where Л does not look like Λ. I have collected a number of examples in the file description. And here is an external example.

What is wrong with having one file that is as inclusive as possible, and one file as exclusive as possible?

Was it really necessary to immediately revert my change? I am also able to answer you without reverting your change. And are you sure "incomprehensible" is the right word here? Watchduck (quack) 13:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

First off, the letters are not shown in handwritten form in the graphic, so the graphic would not really be expected to be about handwritten letter forms. (Similarly, using an italic font instead of non-slanting would rejigger the contents of the intersections, but since the the letters are not shown in italic form in the graphic, the graphic would not really be expected to be about italic letter forms.) Since you said absolutely nothing about handwritten forms in the state of the uploads and file descriptions as you left them on 17:31, 12 August 2016‎, my limited telepathic powers were unable to fill in this gap, and your intentions were incomprehensible to me.

Second, what's wrong with having this graphic be true to the intentions of the original uploader? If there are different opinions about various matters which have proven to be controversial or semi-controversial, then those with different opinions can upload different images...

Third, you've cleaned up some technical details, but some of your sudden inspirations with respect to this file haven't seemed too useful overall, and I wish you would consult with others before initiating significant changes to it... AnonMoos (talk) 06:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

italic

hand

Please note that I am the original uploader. My intentions have changed slightly since the second file has appeared. What other "sudden inspirations"? Are you sure you are talking about the right person?

Handwritten blockletters are not the same as italics. But they are a good way to evaluate what the basic shape of a letter is.

Λ and Л share a common representation (Λ) in exactly the same way Y and У share a common representation (asymmetric Y). The typical representations are different in both cases. The common representation is prevalent in handwritten blockletters in both cases. This diagram shows the common representation of Y / У, so it should also show the common representation of Λ / Л.

Please just revert your change, and spare us the Y / У discussion all over again. Watchduck (quack) 08:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

As you did not answer, I assume that you consider your case closed, and will revert back your change myself. Watchduck (quack) 15:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Whatever -- I got a little confused by your array of multitudinous pseudonyms, including at least User:Lipedia, User:Boolean_Algebra, User:Mate2Code, User:Watchduck, User:WatchDuck, but do not consider that I am particularly to blame for this. You did NOT upload this file as "User:Watchduck" (see the dating on https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Watchduck&diff=154000259&oldid=149801592 ), so my memory was perfectly accurate that the uploader of the original version of this file did not have that name when it was actually uploaded. I guess I won't revert again over that issue, but I still consider it rather pointless to base the inclusion relationships on handwritten forms when handwritten forms are not actually used in the diagram... AnonMoos (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

So you got confused because I occasionally changed my name during the last years. And that is a reason to be angry now? You could just have looked at the file history on the bottom of the page before writing something like "some of your sudden inspirations with respect to this file haven't seemed too useful overall".
Handwritten forms were only a part of my argument. The essential part is documentation of printed forms. Even if you don't bother to click on something like ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● , you can still see File:Указател.jpg on the description page - and you can see that it is neither handwritten nor "monumental", right?
You still have not brought forth a single argument why Λ / Л should be different from Y / У. Given that you argued for treating Y / У as the same letter, I still don't get what your actual problem is. Watchduck (quack) 10:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really "angry" as such, but I have been a little annoyed that you've tried to place onto me the responsibility for the confusion caused by your multiple user renames (at least four). There's nothing necessarily morally reprehensible about being renamed, but if it creates confusion, then it's rather poor etiquette on your part to blame other people for this. I've been on Commons longer than you have (over ten years), and I've never asked to be renamed.

And, my objection to the change in the SVG file, is that it overrides the basic common ordinary text fonts commonly used in printing extended passages of text (as in typesetting books) -- which was also used in the SVG image until last month, by the way -- and instead uses some special non-default or non-bookprinted style. File:Указател.jpg isn't "monumental" as such, but it's very severely sans-serif, and so isn't really a default ordinary style either. To put it in simplest terms, the difference between Л and Λ is very basic and obvious in Times New Roman font, while the difference between У and Y, or between К and K, looks more like semi-minor variations in quasi-ornamental swashes and flourishes.

(P.S. When I mentioned italics, I didn't have Л in mind at all, but "T" becoming "m" etc....) AnonMoos (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

These are normal Cyrillic blockletters (and not some special handwritten form), just like those used in this diagram.

Well, some people are bad at picking usernames, and that seems to include me. I don't think that I blamed you for anything - I simply did not know that you did not know. The Author field on the description page is up to date after all.

When I first made this file, I was simply unaware, that У is different from Y. But I wanted to have Y / У in the middle, because of the licence plates. (Unfortunately I did not adjust the typography until Alexei Kopylov recently brought the matter back to my attention.)

As many people have pointed out, Y is clearly wrong in Cyrillic - just like Л would be in Greek. (So it's not just about "swashes and flourishes".) In my opinion it would have been illogical to treat Λ / Л as different and Y / У as equal in the same diagram. And as the other file shows all the differences, I think everything is fine now.

(P.S.: That sounds a bit like you are confusing italics and cursive. But I was talking about handwritten blockletters anyway, which are neither.) Watchduck (quack) 16:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't mean cursive, I mean italics. Copy-and-paste the character "т" into Microsoft Wordpad or analogous, apply a font such as Times New Roman or analogous, select the character and click on the italics button, and the T shape will magically transform into an m shape. Click on the button again to de-italicize, and it will transform back to a T. I can see it in my browser right now: т т т т т т т т т т (makes more sense than ●●●●●●●●)... AnonMoos (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought you mean cursive, because we were talking about upper case letters only. I guess we can let this discussion rest in peace now. Watchduck (quack) 21:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Cyrillic Л like Greek Λ

Cyrillic Л like, and unlike, Greek Λ

Both styles of Л appear in this image. If the point is to show that it can look like Λ, wouldn't one of the other images be a better example? There seem to be plenty to choose from... 79.73.149.209 03:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The point is to show that it can look like Λ, and that's what the image does. If the point was to show that it must look like Λ, this would be the wrong image - but no one claims that. Watchduck (quack) 11:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)