Talk:Coptic

Will someone please revert this page to (08:13, 29 Jan 2005 Afanous) User_talk:Afanous#Coptic_et_al.--Alif 12:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The words "language" and "alphabet" are not capitalised in articles' titles. --Alif 16:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) --109.185.175.106 (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)==Coptic alphabet== There has been some discussion between myself and Laternix concerning placement of the Coptic alphabet listing on this page. Rather than have Coptic alphabet listed in the see also section, we've come to an agreement to have it listed thusly:

Coptic may refer to:

• the Copts, Christian natives of Egypt
• the Coptic language
  • the Coptic alphabet

We ask that others please honor this agreement. For the rationale behind this, please see our talk pages (Lanternix's and mine). I would also suggest that any further conversation concerning this take place on this page rather than on individual's seperate pages. Paxsimius 21:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it makes sense to clean pages where we can. There are many articles of this format, which seem to separate rather pertinent information, thus making both pages inadequate. This could be accomplished through the use of a Bot, which could first, Identify articles, topics, pages, etc, for which the format should be to include sub-pages. Second, use or develope a simple code in order to merge articles. This would not only make more sense for the Wikipedia Readers to subject to viewing one page versus two, but would help to,eliminate the additional workflow, which impacts the Admins, Editors and the original Authors. In addition, the merging of information would cut overall costs to the Wikipedia Foundation, as reducing server space, currently allocated to redundancy, would equate to either using that space for other projects, or freeing up money spent maintaining unnecessary redundancies. Mark Halsey 03:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markhalsey (talk • contribs)

Other uses - polyhedron, polygon orphaned

Coptic polyhedron and coptic polygon wikilink to the articles Polyhedron and Polygon respectively. Unfortunately, the term coptic does not appear in either article, nor is it in the current talk pages. However, I was able to retrieve an archived version of the Polygon Talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3APolygon, which has several discussions from 2010-2015 mentioning coptic as a synonym for self-intersecting. The upshot seems to be that coptic, while attested, "is more concise, but outside Grünbaum it doesn't appear to have generated a large following". There is also an archived discussion at https://db0nus869y26v.cloudfront.net/en/User_talk:Steelpillow showing that the usage is cloudy and not well attested.

As the issue seems to have been resolved some years ago in favour of dropping the term, and the definitions of the types of polygon have some ambiguities, I am not going to resurrect the term. I will delete the orphaned lines. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)