Talk:Miscellaneous Technical

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

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.

Table style[edit]

The following was posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Typography#Unicode tables:

Hi folks. Some articles contains table grids of Unicode glyphs. Each grid row contains information on several Unicode code points. Each grid cell contains several sub-elements for a particular code point. See, for example, [Letterlike Symbols]. I find this layout extremely confusing and hard to use. I would like to change it to a more linear table, with one code point per row. Something roughly like the table in Miscellaneous Symbols. Comments? Objections? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please post any respones at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Typography#Unicode tables.

Sounds like a plan. The current version is too hard to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous Technical (Unicode block) → Miscellaneous Technical – – Page doesn't need disambiguation, Miscellaneous Technical redirects to it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Note on contesting a technical move:] Arguably imprecise, and unhelpful to readers generally. Discussion needed. Noetica^Tea? 05:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is no requirement that the title be descriptive, only that it be correct. While there are many miscellaneous technical things, there is only one that we are likely to have an article on, and it is the proper noun, Miscellaneous Technical. The purpose of the article is to explain what that is, not the title. Apteva (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Our spelling of Unicode block names was discussed into consensus here, though no check on disambiguation was performed. -DePiep (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move, per nom, indeed no disambiguation needed. Not even a close similarly spelled title found that could be confusing. Of course the current name (with dab-tag) will remain as a redirect. re Noetica: it is very precise since it is the Unicode name associated with the Unicode definition. Yes the title in itself may say little, but title clarification is a job for the lead , not for the title itself. -DePiep (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. If titles for Unicode blocks have been considered before, they were not considered helpfully or conclusively. Look at the wild inconsistencies at Category:Unicode blocks. A complete mess. I stand against this move to a confusing alternative, and I strongly recommend that the whole category be discussed systematically. Get it right: in one centralised discussion, once and for all. ♥ Noetica^Tea? 00:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Unicode block articles are named after their Unicode block name. What is confusing? Mind you that the proposal is exactly only about removing the disambiguation tag. -DePiep (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal of unnecessary disambiguation. There's nothing else called "Miscellaneous Technical," so there's next to no chance of anyone searching for the term seeking anything but the Unicode block. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Unicode block which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bad table and too long - I want to know about the block not wade through a technical reference![edit]

That table is really hard to read, the two rows "per row" thing? WTF? Also this is like a reference if anything, I want to know about the block, and a list of symbols is good for that, but this goes way way beyond that. I can't figure out my password (nor to my email) atm so forgive the IP signature 217.45.105.153 (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Table should link through to lists of fonts which support the symbol[edit]

Table should link through to lists of fonts which support the symbol. Such a list exists here: https://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/search.htm with predictable URL search results e.g. https://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2300/fontsupport.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.171.36 (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Fonts change, new ones get added. Creating and maintaining such a list is beyond the scope of Wikipedia – see policy WP:NOTHOWTO. Fileformat.info doesn't give a table for whole block,it requires the user to search for a specific code (and see another advertisement), so is not even suitable to go in External Links. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree as well for the same reason as Friedman. I think a link to other sites that maintain such information, if they exist, is enough. DRMcCreedy (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Angzar" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Angzar and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 5#Angzar until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wrong pictures[edit]

Working and uploading pictures, whenever possible. ~ Tarikash.

Picture [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscellaneous_Technical#/media/File:U+2319_--_error.gif] for ⌙ "TURNED NOT SIGN" is wrong. 68.16.11.2 (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What gives you that idea? U+2319 ⌙ TURNED NOT SIGN is shown correctly. Are you confusing it with U+2310 ⌐ REVERSED NOT SIGN?

By the way, new questions and comments should go at the end of this page. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

⍼[edit]

⍼ redirects here. Is this the place to mention that no one seems to know what this symbol is for?©Geni (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose a sourced note for RIGHT ANGLE WITH DOWNWARDS ZIGZAG ARROW in the Miscellaneous Technical#(2340–237F) section would make sense. DRMcCreedy (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geni, "if you want anything done properly around here, you have to do it yourself". I guess you could start by hunting at unicode.org for any reference to U+237C ⍼ RIGHT ANGLE WITH DOWNWARDS ZIGZAG ARROW. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh people have already done that work to a fair higher standard than I could do https://ionathan.ch/2022/04/09/angzarr.html .I just wanted to check that there wasn't some technical reason why the information (well about once sentence worth of it) shouldn't be included here.©Geni (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]