Talk:Ideographic Description Characters

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Typography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Writing systems Low‑importance

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 14 July 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Ideographic Description Characters (Unicode block) to Ideographic Description Characters. The result of the discussion was moved.

Duang?

Is it possible to represent Duang using this, for example? I know it is not the intention, but.... – Kaihsu (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe ⿱成龍 is fine. Bczhc (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ideographic Description Characters (Unicode block) → Ideographic Description Characters – The current base title redirects to content related to this code block, so it is unnecessary disambiguation. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Writing systems, WikiProject Typography, and WikiProject Computing have been notified of this discussion. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 22:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the proposed title be plural? Malerisch (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be "Ideographic Description Characters" (with the 's'). There is no Unicode block named "Ideographic Description Character" (without the 's'). I understand that if the article was about ideographic description characters in general the article would be called "Ideographic description character" but this article is about the Unicode block so it should be "Ideographic Description Characters". DRMcCreedy (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Typography, WikiProject Writing systems, and WikiProject Computing have been notified of this discussion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03, are you certain there shouldn't be "s" in the character. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.