Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Unicode) (bot |
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Unicode) (bot Tag: Disambiguation links added |
||
Line 296:
Enough. Per OP "what is a <s>Unicode font</s>" etcetera: that does not exist. OTOH, a ''Unicode compliant font'' is well defined. So that is what enwiki should say. The article (with page content) is [[Unicode compliant font]]. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
:Per [[WP:Common name]], "Unicode font" is the term most widely seen. {{as of|20 October 2019}}, Wikipedia doesn't even have an article called "Unicode compliant font". ''This'' article should refer readers to [[Unicode font]] (or alias) for more detailed information, but it needs at least two sentences to give a reason why they should do that. Which is what all of the above is about. --[[User:Red King|Red King]] ([[User talk:Red King|talk]]) 13:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
== Definitions ==
{{Discussion top|reason="The discussion is over. You have anything to say, please add new section"}}
: ''This section primarily discuss {{diff2|926340136|this edit}} made by {{user|Peter M. Brown}}''
: ''The versions of the section being discussed (for comparison)'': {{anchor|da_definitions_versions}}
:* ''{{diff2|925696815#Architecture_and_terminology|version0}} — prior to the following edit''
:* ''{{diff2|926286702#Architecture_and_terminology|version1}} — by {{re|Alexander_Davronov|label1=<span><span style='color:#a8a8a8'>DAVRONOV</span><span style="color:#000">A.A.</span></span>}}''
:* ''{{diff2|926340136#Architecture_and_terminology|version2}} — by {{re|Peter M. Brown}}''
: ''Please use {{t|re}} to notify participants''
: ''Pease use <code><nowiki>{{re|Alexander_Davronov|label1=<span><span style='color:#a8a8a8'>DAVRONOV</span><span style="color:#000">A.A.</span></span>}}</nowiki></code> to notify {{re|Alexander_Davronov|label1=<span><span style='color:#a8a8a8'>DAVRONOV</span><span style="color:#000">A.A.</span></span>}}
{{re|Peter M. Brown}} I'm going to revert back the changes you've made recently and just wanted to know your objections.
<br>{{re|Peter M. Brown}} {{tq|i=1| ... to conform more closely to the Unicode Standard }} [[#da_definitions_versions|Previous version (version1)]] repeated terms almost word by word. Now it doesn't.
<br>{{re|Peter M. Brown}} {{tq|i=1| ... Deleted the inclusion of a long quote in a reference}} It is much more convenient to have it directly inside the article. No reason to delete it.
<br>{{re|Peter M. Brown}} {{tq|i=1| ... Only one reference is needed per paragraph.}} Wiki doesn't impose restrictions on number of sources. If they are reliable removing them is generally bad idea.
<br>{{re|Peter M. Brown}} {{tq|i=1| ... "hex" is nonstandard }} There is some recommendations on it: [[MOS:RADIX]] I'm going to replace it to 16 or just add <code>0x</code> before the number. <span>[[User:Alexander_Davronov|<span style='color:#a8a8a8'>DAVRONOV</span><span style="color:#000">A.A.</span>]] [[User talk:Alexander_Davronov|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Alexander_Davronov|⚑]]</span> 21:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
:{{re|Alexander_Davronov|label1=<span style="font: 900 0.8em "Lato""><span style='color:#a8a8a8'>DAVRONOV</span><span style="color:#000">A.A.</span></span>}} I particularly agree with your third point. If they are non-redundant and reliable sources, having more than one source per claim is a good thing. [[User:BernardoSulzbach|BernardoSulzbach]] ([[User talk:BernardoSulzbach|talk]]) 16:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
::Could someone explain how this {{tlg|re}} template is supposed to work? <span>[[User:Alexander_Davronov|<span style='color:#a8a8a8'>DAVRONOV</span><span style="color:#000">A.A.</span>]] provided a list of objections to an edit of mine in a post yesterday, and I just now happened on it, being mildly curious about the new section in [[Talk:Unicode]]. I’m more than willing to respond and will try to do so by 00:00, 19 November (UTC), but there was no notice in my "alerts", on my user talk page, or in my emails. Am I expected to look at everything that appears on my Watchlist? [[User:Peter M. Brown|Peter Brown]] ([[User talk:Peter M. Brown|talk]]) 22:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Peter M. Brown}} It might have to do with your notification settings in [[Special:Preferences]]. [[User:BernardoSulzbach|BernardoSulzbach]] ([[User talk:BernardoSulzbach|talk]]) 01:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
::::'''Many thanks!''' I didn't know about that page. I've now checked "Notify me when someone links to my user page" and "email". That should work. [[User:Peter M. Brown|Peter Brown]] ([[User talk:Peter M. Brown|talk]]) 03:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
::Taking up the objections in turn:
::*''The previous version repeated terms almost word by word. Now it doesn't.''
:::Almost, yes, but the differences are important. According to the previous version,
::::Unicode defines a ''codespace'' – set of numbers/integers used to encode characters in the range of 0 to 10FFFF<sub>hex</sub>.
:::The reference is to Unicode's "[https://unicode.org/glossary/#C Glossary]", according to which a codespace is "A range of numerical values available for encoding characters." The text in my revised version is word-for-word identical. The "Glossary" does go on to note that <u>for the Unicode Standard</u> the range is 0 to 10FFFF<sub>16</sub>. The previous version of the Wikipedia subsection omits this qualification, incorrectly implying that in <u>general</u> a codespace, regardless of the encoding standard, has this as a range. In the next sentence of my revised version, I do specify the range for Unicode.
::*''It is much more convenient to have it [the long quote incorporated in a footnote] directly inside the article. No reason to delete it.''
:::The quote in question was not directly inside the article but rather in a footnote. According to [[WP:FOOTNOTES]], footnotes have two purposes: documenting an article's sources and providing tangential information. For the first purpose, the citation is sufficient without the quotation. For the second, the information in the quote is mostly not "tangential" as it repeats information in the main text.
:::The only information in the footnote that is not in the main text is a definition of an "encoded character". If this phrase needs to be defined, which I doubt, putting the definition in the [[Unicode#Architecture_and_terminology|Architecture and terminology]] section is too late, as the phrase has already been used three times, including a use in the lead section. I agree with the author of the lead that the average reader does not need a definition. Anyhow, the article often refers to code points, text, and scripts, rather than characters, as being encoded.
::*''Wiki doesn't impose restrictions on number of sources. If they are reliable, removing them is a bad idea.''
:::Agreed. The paragraph has two sources, both from the Unicode Standard, the "Glossary" and the section "[http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode12.0.0/ch02.pdf#G25564 Code Points and Characters]". This remains true.
::*Response to "''hex'' is nonstandard."
:::This is uncontroversial. I have replaced "10FFFF<sub>hex</sub>" with "[[hexadecimal]] 10FFFF", which will be clear to many readers. Other readers can follow the link to [[hexadecimal]]. According to [[MOS:RADIX]], the use of subscripts for numerals not in base 10 is limited to articles that are not computer oriented. If an editor uses prefixes such as {{code|0x}} then, per the same [[MOS]] subsection, the editor must "Explain these prefixes in the article's introduction or on first use." In any case, the previous version of the Wikipedia article requires modification.
::[[User:Peter M. Brown|Peter Brown]] ([[User talk:Peter M. Brown|talk]]) 19:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
:::: {{re|Peter M. Brown}} Sorry for a belated response. I've added [[#da_definitions_versions|three versions]] of the section being discussed so we may compare'em easily.
:::: {{tq|i=1|[...] incorrectly implying that in general a codespace, regardless of the encoding standard [...]}} It explicitly refers to the standard and glossary of Unicode so No, it doesn't justify changes. My [[#da_definitions_versions|version(1)]] of '''codebase''' of definition was shorter. Do you agree to replace words ''«set of of numbers/integers»'' by ''«range of numbers»'' in my version and leave it in place? As well as definition of ''code points''?
:::: {{tq|i=1|[...] citation is sufficient without the quotation. [...] as it repeats information in the main text. [...]}} This part is elaborated more precisely by [[WP:CS#Additional_annotation|WP:CS]] and [[WP:CLOP]], not [[WP:FOOTNOTES]]. The quotation seems to me advantageous since it covers all three definitions and may be placed at three different places simultaneously or at the end and, as I said, it's quick to access. If you insist that the quotation is excessive I would concede.
:::: {{tq|i=1|[...] putting the definition ... is too late, as the phrase has already been used three times [...]}} {{anchor|defintions_a_d_23_11_19-3}} This is unreasonable & subjective. It's never late. It's should be given for the sake of clarity. I insist to return it back as reliable source is given.
:::: {{tq|i=1|[...] This remains true. [...]}} Let's return it back by the end of conversation.
:::: {{tq|i=1|[...] previous version of the article article requires modification }} I suggest to put it this way: ''«0<sub>[[Hexadecimal|16]]</sub> to 10FFFF<sub>[[Hexadecimal|16]]</sub>»''. Any thoughts? <span style="" >[[User:Alexander_Davronov|<span style='color:#a8a8a8'>DAVRONOV</span><span style="color:#000">A.A.</span>]] [[User talk:Alexander_Davronov|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Alexander_Davronov|⚑]]</span> 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Alexander_Davronov|label1=<span><span style='color:#a8a8a8'>DAVRONOV</span><span style="color:#000">A.A.</span></span>}}
:::::I assume that you're referring to a code'''space''', though you wrote "code'''base'''".
:::::*I have no preference whatever between "set of of numbers/integers" and "range of numbers". What is at issue is substantive fidelity to the Unicode [https://unicode.org/glossary/#C Glossary], which has two entries:
:::::::(a) ''A range of numerical values available for encoding characters''
:::::::(b) ''For the Unicode Standard, a range of integers from 0 to 10FFFF<sub>16</sub>
::::::Your version 1 has
:::::::(c) ''set of of numbers/integers used to encode characters in the range of 0<sub>hex</sub> to 10FFFF<sub>hex</sub>''
::::::Why does the Glossary have two definitions? Because (a) is a ''general'' definition covering Unicode, [[ASCII]], [[EBCDIC]], {{nowrap|[[GB 18030]]}}, etc. etc. Each of these has a different range of numbers and hence a different codespace. In ASCII, for example, it's 0 to 255. And in Unicode? The answer is provided in (b): for ''this particular encoding'', the range is 0 to 10FFFF<sub>16</sub> i.e., in decimal, 0 to 1114111. (c) provides a general statement, at odds with (a): with no specification of the encoding, the range is said to be 0 to 10FFFF<sub>16</sub>. Of course (c) is shorter than (a)+(b), because it does less: (a)+(b) provides ''both'' a general definition of a codespace and a specification of the codespace for Unicode.
:::::*''[[WP:FOOTNOTES]] vs. [[WP:CS]]'': You're right, [[WP:CS]] is an official guideline and [[WP:FOOTNOTES]], which flatly contradicts it, is not. I get impatient when I follow a footnote and find the text repeated; "I've already <u>read</u> that," I think. But rules are rules, even when I don't like them.
:::::*''...the phrase has already been used ... in the lead''. I think this is a legitimate complaint. Unless following a section link, everybody reads the lead first, so, if a locution is obscure enough to require a definition at all, it shouldn't be undefined in the lead. Put it back in [[Unicode#Architecture_and_terminology|Architecture and terminology]] if you must, but also define this putatively obscure locution in the lead.
:::::*'' Let's return it back by the end of conversation.'' Hunh? Return what back where by when?
:::::*''0<sub>16</sub> to 10FFFF<sub>16</sub>'' The text in the Glossary has "0 to 10FFFF<sub>16</sub>", as subscripting 0 is not called for; zero is zero. My text "0 to [[hexadecimal]] 10FFFF" provides a link for a person unfamiliar with "hexadecimal" and with the subscript notation, but perhaps no such person would be reading this article. Go with the subscript if you feel strongly about it.
:::::[[User:Peter M. Brown|Peter Brown]] ([[User talk:Peter M. Brown|talk]]) 01:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
:::::: {{re|Peter M. Brown}}
:::::: {{tq|i=1|[...] I assume that you're referring to a code'''space''' [...]}} Yea, I'm referring to a '''codespace''' of course. It was a mistake.
:::::: {{tq|i=1|[...] Why does the Glossary have two definitions? Because (a) is a general definition covering [...]}} I think I got your lengthy explanation. I just discovered that more precise definition of ''codesppace'' exists<ref name="Unicode_Standard_12.0" /> so I suggest to use the following version (I will remove quotations):
{{quote
|title= {{anchor|definitions_draft_1}} Draft 1
|text= Unicode defines a ''unicode codespace''<ref group="note">In the article it is referred simply as ''codespace''.</ref> – a range of integers from 0 to 10FFFF<sub>[[Hexadecimal|16]]</sub>.<ref name="Glossary" /><ref name=":0" /><ref name="Unicode_Standard_12.0" /> Any value in the codespace is called a [[code point]]. Not all code points are assigned to encoded characters.<ref name="Glossary" />
}}
:::::: {{tq|i=1|[...] Hunh? Return what back where by when? [...]}} I'm going to return back citation you {{diff2|926340136|have removed}} once we come to a consensus over definitions' shape.
:::::: {{tq|i=1|[...] Go with the subscript if you feel strongly about it. [...]}} We also may utilize [[WP:REFGROUP|<code><nowiki><ref group="...">...</nowiki></code>]] but I think subscriptions with ''linked type of'' numbers is the best choice so let's got with it. <span style="" >[[User:Alexander_Davronov|<span style='color:#a8a8a8'>DAVRONOV</span><span style="color:#000">A.A.</span>]] [[User talk:Alexander_Davronov|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Alexander_Davronov|⚑]]</span> 12:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
:::{{re|Alexander_Davronov|label1=<span><span style='color:#a8a8a8'>DAVRONOV</span><span style="color:#000">A.A.</span></span>}}
:::I think that we are agreed. to summarize: the Unicode Standard<ref name="Unicode_Standard_12.0" />, as you have noted, characterizes the <u>Unicode</u> codespace as
::::A range of integers from 0 to 10FFFF<sub>16</sub>.
:::The sentence I objected to read
::::Unicode defines a codespace – set of numbers/integers used to encode characters in the range of 0 to 10FFFF<sub>hex</sub>.
:::These are not the same. The first is ''explicity'' a characterization of a <u>Unicode</u> codespace. The second is a general characterization of a codespace and it errs because other encodings, [[ASCII]] for example, have different codespaces. Your proposal to replace the wording with "Unicode defines a ''unicode codespace''..." will correct matters. Unicode nowhere defines a codespace in such a way as to exclude other ranges for other encodings, but that's just what the sentence I reverted claims that Unicode does.
:::Since you have not responded to my point that a definition of "encoded character" should not appear in the section [[Unicode#Architecture_and_terminology|Architecture and terminology]] unless in appears in the lead, I take it that you agree and will alter the lead so that it either does not use the locution "encoded Unicode character" or else uses the locution along with a definition.
:::[[User:Peter M. Brown|Peter Brown]] ([[User talk:Peter M. Brown|talk]]) 21:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
::::I just ran across [[MOS:NOTES]]. Don't {{brackets|MOS:}} sections have priority over {{brackets|WP:}} ones, hence [[MOS:NOTES]] supersedes [[WP:CS]]? Since the long quote I deleted falls into none of the four categories allowed under [[MOS:NOTES]], it seems that my deletion was in order. [[User:Peter M. Brown|Peter Brown]] ([[User talk:Peter M. Brown|talk]]) 16:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
:::: {{re|Peter M. Brown}}
:::: So do you have any objections regarding my [[#definitions_draft_1|draft proposed here]]? If so, let me know. We need agreement to proceed.
:::: {{tq|i=1|[...] Since you have not responded to my point that [...]}} I've answered it [[#defintions_a_d_23_11_19-3|here]].
:::: {{tq|i=1|[...] I take it that you agree [...]}} Do not take anything as agreement until I explicitly express it. Addition of definition of ''encoded character'' wouldn't decrease article's quality I'm sure.
:::: {{tq|i=1|[...] Don't {{brackets|MOS:}} sections have priority over [...]}} It depends on whether it's a policy or guideline. Both (NOTES & CS) are guidelines and I consider them equal. [[MOS:NOTES]] doesn't override [[WP:CS]] cause they govern different parts of the article: appearance and structure of footnotes ([[MOS:NOTES]]) and its content ([[WP:CS]]) respectively. <span style="" >[[User:Alexander_Davronov|<span style='color:#a8a8a8'>DAVRONOV</span><span style="color:#000">A.A.</span>]] [[User talk:Alexander_Davronov|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Alexander_Davronov|⚑]]</span> 21:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
:::{{Wrong venue|[[#Definitions 2]]|2=<span style="" >[[User:Alexander_Davronov|<span style='color:#a8a8a8'>DAVRONOV</span><span style="color:#000">A.A.</span>]] [[User talk:Alexander_Davronov|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Alexander_Davronov|⚑]]</span> 16:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)}}
=== Definitions 2 ===
{{Moved discussion from|[[#Definitions|#Definitions]]|2=<span style="" >[[User:Alexander_Davronov|<span style='color:#a8a8a8'>DAVRONOV</span><span style="color:#000">A.A.</span>]] [[User talk:Alexander_Davronov|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Alexander_Davronov|⚑]]</span> 16:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)}}
: ''The changes being discussed:''
:* ''{{diff2| 925696815#Architecture_and_terminology|Revision 0}} — Prior revision
:* ''{{diff2| 929206134#Architecture_and_terminology|Revision 1}} — by {{user|Alexander Davronov}}}''
:* ''{{diff2| 929307700#Architecture_and_terminology|Revision 2}} — by {{user|Peter M. Brown}}''
{{re|Peter M. Brown}} I suggest to return back to old definition of codespace with additional sourcing. After this discussion I started to think that it's more concise and accurate. Any objections? <span style="" >[[User:Alexander_Davronov|<span style='color:#a8a8a8'>DAVRONOV</span><span style="color:#000">A.A.</span>]] [[User talk:Alexander_Davronov|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Alexander_Davronov|⚑]]</span> 22:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
{{quote
|title={{anchor|definitions_draft_2}}New proposal based on {{diff2|925696815#Architecture_and_terminology|version0}}
|text=Unicode defines a codespace of 1,114,112 [[code point]]s in the range 0 to 10FFFF<sub>[[Hexadecimal|16]]</sub>.<ref name="Glossary" /><ref name=":0" /><ref name="Unicode_Standard_12.0" />
}}
:As it stands, the first sentence of the section contains, ''literally'', [https://unicode.org/glossary/#C the definition of "codespace" in the Glossary]. One cannot be any truer to the sources than that. Now that the reader has got that far, it is necessary to be more specific as to what Unicode's codespace is. The second sentence does this, paraphrasing the second sentence in the glossary; I am uncomfortable with actually ''using'' that second sentence, which starts "For the Unicode Standard ...", since the phrase "Unicode Standard" appears as a proper name (with a capital 'S', no less), and the reader has not been introduced to this usage. That done, proceeding step by step, the third sentence explains the phrase "code point".
:Do I understand you as proposing to ''start out'' with a sentence using "code point" without defining it? If so, I disagree. It is linked but, per [[MOS:LINKSTYLE]], "as far as possible do not force a reader to use [a] link to understand the sentence." {{diff2|925696815#Architecture_and_terminology|Version0}} is even worse, introducing both "code point" and "codespace" without definitions. Admittedly, this is also done in the lead; I maintain that this also needs correction, but one thing at a time.
:[[User:Peter M. Brown|Peter Brown]] ([[User talk:Peter M. Brown|talk]]) 00:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
:: {{re|Peter M. Brown}} {{anchor|definitions_22_41_6_December_2019}} Ok, let's leave definition of codespace unchanged.
:: I was going to ask you to amend your sentence added {{oldid2|929390586|by this edit}}: ''«Not all of these 1,114,112 code points are available for encoding visible characters»''; amount of code points isn't mentioned before so word ''these'' is unexpected here. <span style="" >[[User:Alexander_Davronov|<span style='color:#a8a8a8'>DAVRONOV</span><span style="color:#000">A.A.</span>]] [[User talk:Alexander_Davronov|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Alexander_Davronov|⚑]]</span> 22:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
:::Suppose we change the second through fourth sentences to
::::For Unicode, the relevant codespace consists of 1,114,112 numbers, all the integers from 0 to 10FFFF<sub>[[Hexadecimal|16]]</sub>. Each of these is called a ''[[code point]]''. Not all of them are available for encoding visible characters; some, for example, are assigned to control codes like the [[carriage return]].
:::OK? You handle the <ref>s, please—I'm likely to mess up again.
:::[[User:Peter M. Brown|Peter Brown]] ([[User talk:Peter M. Brown|talk]]) 23:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
:::: {{re|Peter M. Brown}} It's much better for ''second'' through ''forth'' parts.
:::: {{tq|i=1|The second sentence does this, paraphrasing the second sentence in the glossary [...]}} Well I have to revoke my previous [[#definitions_22_41_6_December_2019|agreement over here]]: the current definition of codespace is clunky once again. It's unnecessary to cite general definition ("characterization") as it's obvious what codespace means regardless of type of encoding. I've opened an [[#RfC:_Which_version_you_like_the_most?|RfC]] to see whose point prevails over definitions of both code space and code points. <span style="" >[[User:Alexander_Davronov|<span style='color:#a8a8a8'>DAVRONOV</span><span style="color:#000">A.A.</span>]] [[User talk:Alexander_Davronov|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Alexander_Davronov|⚑]]</span> 16:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk|group=note}}
{{reflist-talk|refs=
<ref name="Unicode_Standard_12.0">{{cite web |title=The Unicode Standard, Version 12.0 |url=http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode12.1.0/ch03.pdf#G2212|page=19|quote=Unicode codespace: A range of integers from 0 to 10FFFF16.<br>• This particular range is defined for the codespace in the Unicode Standard.
<br>Other character encoding standards may use other codespaces.}}</ref>
<ref name="Glossary">{{cite web|title = Glossary of Unicode Terms|url=https://unicode.org/glossary/|accessdate=2010-03-16}}</ref>
<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|url=http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode12.1.0/ch02.pdf#G13708|title=The Unicode® Standard Version 12.0 – Core Specification|last=|first=|publisher=|year=2019|isbn=|___location=|pages=29|chapter=2.4 Code Points and Characters|quote=The range of integers used to code the abstract characters is called the codespace. A particular integer in this set is called a code point. When an abstract character is mapped or assigned to a particular code point in the codespace, it is then referred to as an encoded character.}}</ref>
}}
{{Reflist}}
=== RfC: Which version you like the most? ===
<div class="boilerplate archived" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">{{Quote box
| title =
| title_bg = #C3C3C3
| title_fnt = #000
| quote = There is a clear consensus for {{diff2|925696815#Architecture_and_terminology|Version 0}}.<p>[[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 10:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
| width = 30%|halign=left}}
:''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive top-->
----
This RfS primarily concerns terms and definitions of [[Unicode]] standard. Which version of definitions of ''«codespace»'' and ''«code point»'' you like the most?:
:* ''{{diff2| 925696815#Architecture_and_terminology|Version 0}}''
:* ''{{diff2| 929206134#Architecture_and_terminology|Version 1}}''
:* ''{{diff2| 929451893#Architecture_and_terminology|Version 2}}''
Please, take a note that counting starts from zero and revisions are listed in chronological order.
The discussion may be found here: [[#Definitions 2]]. Any of three versions going to have at least 3 sources. <span style="" >[[User:Alexander_Davronov|<span style='color:#a8a8a8'>DAVRONOV</span><span style="color:#000">A.A.</span>]] [[User talk:Alexander_Davronov|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Alexander_Davronov|⚑]]</span> 16:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
: Version 0 please.[[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk:Spitzak|talk]]) 16:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
: Version 0. Concise, easy to understand, and not loaded with redundant references. [[User:BabelStone|BabelStone]] ([[User talk:BabelStone|talk]]) 23:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
:: {{re|BabelStone}} Why do you think they are redundant? <span style="" >[[User:Alexander_Davronov|<span style='color:#a8a8a8'>DAVRONOV</span><span style="color:#000">A.A.</span>]] [[User talk:Alexander_Davronov|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Alexander_Davronov|⚑]]</span> 17:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
: Version 0. [[User:Chatul|Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul]] ([[User talk:Chatul|talk]]) 21:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
{{Discussion bottom}}
----
: ''The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] --></div><div style="clear:both;"></div>
| |||