Talk:ConScript Unicode Registry

The John Cowan referred to in this article is not the John Cowan referred to in the article of that name, so the hyperlink is now removed. --07:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Does someone know if John Cowan who is mentioned here is the same one as John Woldemar Cowan who is responsible for the Lojban Grammar? --213.47.109.179 18:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. He has a Lojban link on his home page. Deh 18:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Article expansion?

Does anyone have ideas to expand this article, or should this be merged with something else? I suppose we could list current CSUR proposal scripts like Tengwar and Cirth? -- Jordi·✆ 09:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

CSUR Allocations

There appears to be some discrepancies between the ranges given on the main CSUR page and the CSUR Roadmap for the Aui, Amman-Iar, Streich and Xaîni scripts. I have used the values from the roadmap since using the values on the main page does not allow enough room for the Xaîni script. --Wm243 (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternatives?

Is there any alternatives to ConScript for registering common fictional alphabets? The trouble with ConScript is that it occupies not only the "Corporate" Private subarea, but also the "Private" Private subarea, such that a club that needs a really private alphabet, cannot combine that with also using Tengwar in their discussions. Another trouble is that it has filled up the BMP private area with alphabets with virtually no usage. Tengwar, Cirth and Klingon are widely used, most of the other not. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 12:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any alternatives to ConScript, but the idea with the Private Use Area is that you may use it for any purpose you want, so you are free to create alternatives if you want to. If you need Tengwar, Cirth and Klingon in addition to your club's own private alphabet, you could map Tengwar, Cirth and Klingon to their CSUR positions and assign the other parts of the PUA to the club's own private alphabet. No one is required to use all of CSUR (and I don't think anyone needs all of the scripts at the same time). Besides, CSUR doesn't really use all of the PUA. A few BNP code points are free (but were previously assigned so reusing them might be bad). Most plane 15 and all plane 16 code points are also free. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What is "Corporate" and "Private" in PUA? -DePiep (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no such distinction. His other point of criticism is valid though. The BMP PUA is in some sense a finite resource and I don't see why the CSUR chose to fill it completely with hobby projects that will likely never see any use. If you somehow feel the urge to defend that decision, please first go through the list and really look at all of the exhibits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Unofficial ConScript Registry

It seems the original CSUR isn't maintained anymore, so an unofficial registry has sprung up: http://www.kreativekorp.com/ucsur/ Can we include a link to it on the main page, as well as including some of the new proposed script mappings that aren't in the original CSUR? These are marked in green on the unofficial CSUR page. ThVortex (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do they use "Unofficial"? Already CSUR is "unofficial", i.e. not Unicode Standard. Bad naming. Now you can go and describe it correctly in the encyclopedia. Might even need a Move (name change) into a more general one. Hey, so we do have another forkin' standard for the same!? Great. -DePiep (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, they don't. U stands for Under, not for Unofficial. Zeidra (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

She did when posted: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Should (Under) ConScript Unicode Registry code blocks get pages?

Should (Under) ConScript Unicode Registry code blocks get pages like Unicode blocks? 67.81.132.165 (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Some already exist. See Category:ConScript Unicode Registry charts. My guess is that most would be deleted as "not notable". And if there's not font support and an article that wants to include them it seems pointless. That said, I can easily provide the basic tables if the consensus is to create more of them. DRMcCreedy (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Peperklips should get encoded into Unicode at least into CSUR.

There's a nice semi-phonetic alphabet created for Modern Dutch language, that I think it really deserves to be encoded into Unicode 15 or later, like we have encoded Deseret and Shavian for Modern English. More into on this Dutch conscript: https://omniglot.com/conscripts/peperklips.htm 94.180.96.222 (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

UCSUR, ACSUR

Neither the "Aprilian-ConScript Unicode Registry" (ACSUR, Special:Diff/1129632034) nor the "Under-ConScript Unicode Registry" (UCSUR, Special:Diff/1129634689) appear to be described by other sources than the publishers themselves and a few font projects that intend to include as many scripts as possible in their fonts. Neither of them are reliable sources. It appears that especially UCSUR was publicized primarily through Wikipedia, which isn't compatible with Wikipedia's role as a tertiary source that mainly summarizes what reliable secondary sources say. Using Wikipedia as a promotion platform for alternatives to notable but discontinued article subjects would turn the encyclopedia into a primary source and is incompatible with WP:NOTPROMO.

I have thus removed the completely-unsourced "ACSUR" and the unreliably sourced "UCSUR" from the article. If there are reliable sources describing either of these, please provide them here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much this is worth, but the UCSUR is used for a lot of fonts specific to the sitelen pona writing system for toki pona (there's a big table of them here), which are in somewhat common use by the community (and they keep designing new fonts). Awkwardly the toki pona article currently links in here from "Under-ConScript Unicode Registry", which confused me enough I went to add a brief mention of the UCSUR here before noticing the removal in page history (something should probably be worked out here?). The lack of reliable sources on this probably has something to do with it being a specific technical detail of an already niche subject... best I can do is this article in lipu tenpo (a toki pona zine) that I think Wikipedia would categorise as self-published, though they do have an ISSN (not that that counts for much). Of course the article is in toki pona, though one can at least verify that it mentions "UCSUR" without being able to read it.

(also because I am apparently doing this today, happy new year! Or tenpo sike sin pona, which seems appropriate for the situation :)) twotwos (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I did some investigation into the ACSUR since, while I had heard of the UCSUR, I hadn't heard of the ACSUR and the link on the archived page led to a 404. The first thing of note was that I couldn't find any reference to it outside of this article and a single archive.org page (of the link on the archived page) that also led to a 404 error. The first red flag in the article itself is that the description of the ACSUR is the exact same as the one for the UCSUR, with the acronym changed. From there, I looked at the scripts attributed to the ACSUR on that page. What I noticed is that many of them are seemingly nonexistent, and their names appear to be derived from translated names of vegetables. Of the 13 listed, 6 appear to fall under this category. Of the remaining 7, 2 are current Unicode Blocks (Lycian, Hungarian Runes [now Old Hungarian], and Kaktovik Numerals). Of note is that Hungarian Runes appears to have been, and to an extent still is, a separate PUA encoding prior to its acceptance into Unicode (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). These aren't great sources, but they're all I could find even mentioning it. One of the remaining ones is a proposed addition to Unicode (as can be seen here). Two of the other three appear to be currently non-existent extension blocks to current UCSUR blocks (Sylabica does appear to have precomposed syllable characters that aren't included in the UCSUR at this moment, and including these syllables appears to have been considered at one point for the CSUR. Verdurian Extended appears to simply not exist (as far as I'm aware).). The last one, Hanamoji B, appears to not exist at all. From what I can tell (I am not by any means an expert here, if you know more feel free to correct me!), Hanamoji is simply a style of Japanese calligraphy (although, I can find a few sources calling various stylized Latin texts Hanamoji B). While I am not an expert here or anything, it does appear that this is simply a hoax. While I can't really say this for certain without asking people involved, most of the information that I could find appears to lead to this as the conclusion. 47.220.194.160 (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if this could be a reliable source, but GNU Unifont officially refers and supports glyphs defined in UCSUR.

There is also growing coverage of the Supplementary Multilingual Plane (SMP), in the range U+010000..U+01FFFF, and of Michael Everson's ConScript Unicode Registry (CSUR) with Rebecca Bettencourt's Under-CSUR additions.

Hkw5879 (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hkw5879 I suppose that this is one of the font projects that intend to include as many scripts as possible in their fonts described by @ToBeFree. However now that I think about it, there's, well, probably enough sources establishing the UCSUR to at least justify some brief mention of it (lipu tenpo wouldn't actually count as self-published, I think?). Including a table of characters in the UCSUR is a bit much, yes, but deciding it shouldn't be written about at all would mean taking it out of four articles by current count, and this seems harsh to me. Regardless of whether Wikipedia was used to promote the UCSUR in the past, which isn't obvious, it's able to survive on its own now, so I don't believe NOTPROMO applies here. So, and with the distinct sense I'm doing bold-revert-discuss in the wrong order, I've gone in and added a brief mention to the lead with citations. I leave it to other interested editors to decide if that's justifiable! twotwos (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Correct.

This seems pretty well-reasoned to me; I'm fine with the result. Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

References

"Rebecca Bettencourt" and "Rebecca G. Bettencourt" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Rebecca Bettencourt has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 9 § Rebecca Bettencourt until a consensus is reached. SnorlaxMonster 11:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)