Talk:Script (Unicode)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Script (Unicode). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Merging with Mapping
Personally, I like the idea of having single articles that load all at once (perhaps because I have better than average bandwidth). However, I'm sensitive to the concerns raised by others that such large articles are a burden on some readers (those with lower than average bandwidth for example). The current treatment of having a section in the "mapping" article that points to this more detailed article I think is good. My aims in the near future were to split off some more of those sections to main articles (or reduce the lengthy sections to shorter summaries of the main article). Indexheavy 08:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that it is a bad idea to merge this article with Mapping of Unicode characters. It is useful to have a separate page that lists all of the Unicode scripts. BabelStone (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Propose re-move to "Scripts in Unicode"
In this edit, User:Wickey-nl changed the title into "Script (Unicode)", with es: ... No reason for plural. I object, and want to revert the move. First, if it was to take out the plural as the es says, it should be renamed "Script in Unicode", clearly. Still then, that does not describe correctly what the article is about. Second, the word "script" in Unicode is not redefined. Unicode uses the definition of "script" as in Writing system. It is not redefined as if there exists a "Unicode script" or "Script (Unicode)". But the current name suggest a separate definition by Unicode. -DePiep (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- When I look at the title "Script (Unicode)", I think the breadth of the article, as well as the interest, is increased. It suggests an article that deals with the concept of what constitutes a script in Unicode, how Unicode identifies and uses the concept of a script, and so forth. "Script in Unicode" seems like it is talking about a technical property, where "Scripts in Unicode" sounds like a list. While the definition and use of the "script" property certainly belongs in "Script (Unicode)", I don't think some of the more interesting content about how Unicode defines and understands scripts would really belong in an article titled "Script in Unicode" or "Scripts in Unicode". Just my thought. I would also support "Scripts (Unicode)", but I can see why others would balk at it. VIWS talk 04:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hidden table
 |
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page. |
Can someone make the {{ISO 15924 script codes and Unicode}} automatically expand here? It's not normal to have hidden text in article bodies. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Done. I agree: it was likely to be unhelpful to normal Wikipedia users, who don't know about such matters as collapsed text. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
