Template talk:Unicode chart Halfwidth and Fullwidth Forms
![]() | Writing systems Template‑class | ||||||
|
Reverted note. It's useful but misplaced. It should be in one of the articles that includes that chart. Individual characters aren't footnoted and if they were, there would be hundreds of footnotes in the charts.
The following, unsigned comment was added to my user page. I've copied it here so any discussion could have a wider audience:
While I'm not dismissing your decision out of hand, on many pages individual characters are footnoted, if there's something special about them. Your argument that we'd have hundreds of footnotes is clearly a straw man.
A downside of trying to put the note in the specific Unicode block article is that the direct connection between the character and the note gets lost. I know from experience that this makes it harder to find information about a specific character.
But if you really think this footnote clutters up the Hangul article too much (and if you do, shouldn't the other two be removed also?) why not use some template magic that makes the footnote only appear on pages that ask for it?
Here's my reply:
There are four standard notes: version, grey/non-assigned, black/noncharacter, and deprecated. I'm aware of only four templates with custom note(s):
- The Emoji template includes two additional references, but it isn't a Unicode block.
- Hangul Jamo has two custom notes explaining green/white background highlighting.
- Miscellaneous Symbols has two custom notes about omitted and inherited characters, but only if the emoticons parm is passed (using template magic)
- Sutton SignWriting has a custom note of "U+1D84D, U+1D84F, U+1D851, U+1D85C, U+1D85E, U+1D8F6, U+1D904 shown with modifier U+1DA9B SW-F2".
None of the notes are anchored to an individual code point cell; they are all anchored to the chart title. I am strongly opposed to changing this convenstion.
I don't think notes about how a character is used belong in the 300+ code chart templates. I see this as a slippery slope that could lead to hundreds of notes. That said, I probably wouldn't have reverted the edit if the anchor had been on the title instead of the individual code point cell. I'm not sure if others would have though. I retain my position that an explaination of how HANGUL FILLER is used should appear in articles and not in the code chart template. DRMcCreedy (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed that notes on individual characters do not belong in the template, but should be added as text in the appropriate article, in this case Halfwidth and Fullwidth Forms (Unicode block). However, the comment "It is meaningless in Unicode" is not appropriate and should be excluded or rewritten to explain exactly how it is meaningless in Unicode. BabelStone (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)