From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"유니코드" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 유니코드. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 1#유니코드 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dominicmgm (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 September 2021[edit]

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: NOT MOVED: The consensus is that the current name properly describes the contents of this article and is not ambiguous. (non-admin closure) Spekkios (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UnicodeUnicode Standard – The term "Unicode" is ambiguous, and may be used to refer to the Unicode Standard, the Unicode Consortium, Unicode characters, Unicode-encoded text, or any number of things related to the implementation of the Unicode Standard or the processing of Unicode text. The Unicode Consortium actively discourages the use of the term "Unicode" as an isolated noun ("Always use “Unicode” as an adjective followed by an appropriate noun. Do not use “Unicode” alone as a noun" Unicode Consortium Name and Trademark Usage Policy), and states that "The Unicode® Standard" should be used in preference to simply "Unicode" (of course we do not use ® on Wikipedia per MOS:TMRULES). The subject of this article is specifically the Unicode Standard (the opening sentence should be "The Unicode Standard is an information technology standard for ..."), and not the general concept of "Unicode", so the article should be moved to Unicode Standard, with Unicode left as a redirect to avoid having to rename thousands of wikilinks. BabelStone (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. DRMcCreedy (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. See WP:OFFICIALNAMES. We do not use a name simply because it is official, and the common name here is Unicode. O.N.R. (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This does not address the ambiguity issue. "Unicode" is commonly used to refer to the Unicode Consortium. Just one random example from a BBC article: "Rachel Murphy and Amy Wiegand sent sample artwork to Unicode as part of their plea for a drone emoji", "Rachel Murphy thinks Unicode is wrong to not include a drone emoji", "Unicode rejected their proposal", etc. BabelStone (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article refers to the consortium as "the Unicode Consortium" on first reference. -- Calidum 15:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • As Calidum says. And even in its isolated form here, there is no misunderstanding in what is intended: "sent to the Unicode Consortium". How could this be misread? This obviousness is present throughout the article. No ambivalence. -DePiep (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally oppose as per O.N.R. above. As far as I have ever seen, in general usage, "Unicode" as a bare noun is only used to refer to the standard. Even at UTC meetings with actual officers and members present, use of plain "Unicode" referred only to the standard, never the consortium, Unicode encoded text, characters, or anything else. However, I fully agree the article lede should begin with "The Unicode Standard" as the official name. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 04:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article title should match the bolded term in the lede, so if you accept that the lede should start with "The Unicode Standard" in bold then you really have to accept that the article title should also be "[The] Unicode Standard". BabelStone (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • More the other way around: in general, the article title should reappear in bold in the first sentence; an alternative name can be added in bold (as is the case today [1]). -DePiep (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We use common names, not official ones. -- Calidum 15:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support due to WP:PRECISE, not due to official names. That rationale is badly flawed, yes, but the precision one is very relevant. Red Slash 19:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. First of all, possibble ambiguity is limited to "[the] Unicode Standard" and "Unicode Consortium"; other terms mentioned in the proposal (Unicode characters, Unicode-encoded text, or any number of things ...) do not appear as ambiguous terms. What is ambigu in "Unicode characters"? — instead it is fully self-explaining! When specification between ...Standard or ...Consortium characters be needed, one should do so in the text. Also, a name like "Unicode CLDR" is not shortened to "Unicode" ever, nor is any Unicode Technical Report name [2], so these do not apply.
Second, Unicode themselves uses plain "Unicode" for the Standard throughout and consistently: see main TOC, Glossary. Except for self-referring situations, this leaves no misunderstanding (when self-referring could be confusing, one writes like "The Unicode Standard is maintained by Unicode Consortium"). No problem here.
On wikipedia: As others have noted, WP:OFFICIALNAMES applies. Also, per WP:DISAMBIGUATION: we can easily establish that "Unicode Standard" is the primary topic for "Unicode". From there, we can create article Unicode (disambiguation) (with two entrances then) and add hatnote {{about}} to this article. Also, per WP:COMMONNAME, current title is preferred and acceptable. -DePiep (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I disagree with The subject of this article is specifically the Unicode Standard - it is about a broad concept of Unicode characters, Unicode-encoded text, Unicode input systems ... basically anything other than the organization called Unicode Consortium. I'm not opposed to a new History of the Unicode Standard article which focuses specifically on information about the development of versions of the Unicode Standard. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per DePiep and 力 (power~enwiki). Also, if we are to use it, I believe the Wikipedia guidelines for capitalization would indicate that "standard" should be in lowercase (regardless of whether the consortium uses lowercase or not). Wikipedia avoids unnecessary use of uppercase. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2021 (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.


Given what Unicode is, an important part of its history is its adoption by word processors (Word, OpenOffice, but notably not WordPerfect) and operating systems (Windows, Linux, ...) and fonts (TTF). As a practical matter for the end user, it didn't become available in 1988, but when they could use it for their documents (I think for most people this meant 1997). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


A security advisory has been recently released from two researchers, one from the University of Cambridge and the other from the same and from the University of Edinburgh, in which they assert that carefully crafted computer source code can be used to introduce vulnerabilities in apparently harmless programs. Some security groups (like the one for Rust language) are already taking measures and issuing their own security advisories.

I think that is something that affects Unicode as source code is one of the main applications of the standard. What do ye think would be a good way to introduce that to the article?

[1] [2] [3]

Bruno Unna (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like existing Unicode § Issues is the place to go. Indeed, a true Unicode case (U+202E RIGHT-TO-LEFT OVERRIDE). Also consider mentioning at Bidirectional text? -DePiep (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Infobox Unicode block: add a 'related' list?[edit]

See discussion at Template talk:Infobox Unicode block § Related blocks. -DePiep (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Quivira (typeface)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Quivira (typeface) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 15#Quivira (typeface) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234 kb of .rar files (is this dangerous?) 19:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I was designing text shapes for electrical symbols and electronic elements. I design them on the Unicode-encoded FontCreator program, but after exporting it and copying and pasting the symbol I designed into the phone programs, it does not work and appears in the form of a question mark, what is the solution? (Note this topic is important for articles development, I want to design different symbols for non-electrical shapes and not only in the field of electricity and I don't want them to be thumbnails but text). Mohmad Abdul sahib talk☎ talk 18:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]