Category talk:Unicode blocks

This category 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

Typography

This category 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

Writing systems

This category 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

Updated & completed

I have checked this category against all formal Unicode block names (13.0.0). All existing block names are present, by redirect if needed.

Also, some wider articles are present, when the block does niot have its own article. Example:

Dingbat & Dingbats (Unicode block) (R)

Dogra (Unicode block) (R) & Dogri script

Because, first intention is: when a reader looks for a specific, existing block name, it must be in this list.

When the article is a list of blocks somehow, it is sorted under *:

Arabic script in Unicode, List of radicals in Unicode, Playing cards in Unicode.

Any supporting category (like Category:Latin-script Unicode blocks‎ (14), Category:Unicode blocks with characters for games‎ (6)) may exist, but should be extra (=double listing of the pages). Think about you being that reader, searching. ;-)

-DePiep (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]