Talk:Ormulum

The characters mentioned in Orthography were added in Unicode 14.0 in the Latin Extended-D block. These are upper and lowercase closed insular g (Ꟑ, ꟑ), lowercase double thorn (ꟓ), and lowercase double wynn (ꟕ). The latter two are used to indicate vowel length while the former represents the voiced velar plosive. Given this, I am of the opinion that they should be inserted into the Orthography section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Count Cherokee (talk • contribs) 01:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

ꟕ redirects to Ormulum#Orthograpy, but there is no information about the letter in the orthography section of the article. ꟓ also until recently redirected the same way, but I edited it to redirect to Thorn (letter) as that page mentions both the double thorn, and that it is used in the Ormulum (while the page for wynn does not mention anything about double wynn except for its existence). I would recommend either more information about these letters to be added, or that they redirect elsewhere. Syollandre (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I think redirecting elsewhere would make more sense - did you have a particular target in mind? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Probably just redirect double-bowled wynn to Wynn, since i believe it is already listed on there as a variant of wynn Syollandre (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

This article uses a manual system of citations which (as discussed over a decade ago, above) predate the modern Wikipedia templates. They do not work well on mobile devices or with the visual editor, and a few of them are broken due to the manual coding. I would like to update the article with more modern and specific scholarship, as it is unnecessarily reliant on anthologies and encyclopedias, but it is unnecessarily laborious to adapt these to the article. Hence I would like first to update all the citations to the modern Wikipedia citation templates: please let me know if you have any objections. AndrewNJ (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you see as being broken or not working well on mobile? I've checked both mobile and desktop and they seem to be working as expected. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Because all the links are manual, a few of the links lead to the wrong citation in the references. On mobile for me, the footnotes are completely broken: one only sees the short reference, then if one clicks on the link to see the full version, the reader loses their place in the article. Neither of these behaviours happen with the standard Wikipedia citation templates. AndrewNJ (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - fixed the linking errors. I can't replicate the mobile behaviour however. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you; I take it that you have no other concerns about changing the references to use citation templates? AndrewNJ (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, with the errors fixed and without being able to replicate other concerns, I'm not seeing a reason to change the existing format. Changing what sources are used does not require changing how they are cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you would like to keep the references in a format that is incompatible with the visual editor, and thus very difficult for editor to update or enhance? AndrewNJ (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I've checked the page in Visual Editor, and was able to successfully add a reference in the current format. Could you elaborate on what difficulties you're having with it? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)