Talk:Halfwidth and fullwidth forms

Untitled

Added link to a fullwidth converter in the external links section. 70.144.143.38 (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I propose Fullwidth form be merged into Halfwidth and Fullwidth Forms. The two are usually mentioned together. There's not enough reason to keep a separated Fullwidth form article. --Bxj (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge complete. --Bxj (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Scope of article

 Done
We can make do with the current article title, though the main topic isn't the unicode block, "Halfwidth and Fullwidth Forms," but halfwidth and fullwidth forms in computing in general, beyond just the block. --Bxj (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Done by swapping intro and 1st section. -DePiep (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ideographic Plane link

The red link for Ideographic Plane could be updated to point to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_%28Unicode%29#Supplementary_Ideographic_Plane

Since it's a section within the page, I wasn't sure how to properly create the link, rather than just pointing to the parent page, which may be confusing to some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.137.2.51 (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Halfwidth and Fullwidth Forms (Unicode block)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge —ajf (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Essentially the same article; the target to be merged into already incorporates the page that would be merged into it B.Rossow · talk 17:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• I made the Unicode block article, and I agree, we can probably safely just move the infobox to this article, and make the disambiguation a redirect to this article. It looks like it was a mistake to create a separate unicode block article. VanIsaac_WS^cont 06:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• I agree, no point in it being separate. Merging. —ajf (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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.

Purpose of fullwidth Latin characters

It'd be nice if this page included the reason why fullwidth Latin (English) characters are useful (they permit the insertion of English text without disrupting the alignment of non-Latin characters; see https://stackoverflow.com/a/28122314/2274765). 158.106.108.130 (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Current status of this article, and proposals to address this

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No objection to the second option was raised, so I have split the article back. --HarJIT (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

---

1. Its title is currently "Halfwidth and fullwidth forms (Unicode block)", which is inconsistent in capitalisation with other articles on Unicode blocks, which generally treat the block name as a proper noun (i.e. "Halfwidth and Fullwidth Forms (Unicode block)").
2. As things presently stand, this article cannot simply be moved to "Halfwidth and Fullwidth Forms (Unicode block)", because content from an article previously at that location was merged into this one, and its page history must be kept for attribution. Perhaps the most elegant option would be a title swap, in this sort of scenario.
3. This article was previously named "Halfwidth and fullwidth forms". It seems to have been boldly moved from that name prior to this mass-rename proposal to the same effect (which failed to gain consensus), possibly before realising that the proposer's concerns affected many more articles.
4. Presently, this article bears a disambiguator, but the title without the disambiguator redirects to it, rather than to any alternative article or dab. This is perhaps counter-intuitive.
5. This article was one of those raised as attempting to combine a Unicode block article with a general coverage article. It was questioned whether this is appropriate.

So, how to proceed? I see a couple of options:

1. Move this back to "Halfwidth and fullwidth forms" (the status quo ante).
2. Split this into two articles, one for the block and the other for the concept. I recognise that this is a reversal of an existing merger. However, if the Unicode block specific content is isolated from this article as it presently stands, like so, it contains considerably more substantial content than the block article prior to the merger, so a split might nonetheless be justified.

I have drafted a possible general concept article, which would act as the parent article of both half-width kana and the block article. It takes some content from this present article, and also incorporates relevant content copied or edited from Big5, Half-width kana and Duospaced font, for a deeper coverage of the general concept, plus some new content about the Unicode EAW property which is a conspicuous omission from the present article. This could be moved into mainspace to serve as a general-purpose article (possibly at the "Halfwidth and fullwidth forms" title, although that could alternatively be made a dab like so, since the name "halfwidth-fullwidth typography" strikes me as a better summary of the general concept). Alternatively, it could just be merged back into the present article (requiring appropriately crediting the Big5, Half-width kana and Duospaced font articles, of course).

Thoughts?

-- HarJIT (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Split back into two articles. The merger was wrong, and the naming of this article even wronger. There should be a general article Halfwidth and fullwidth forms which discusses the use of halfwidth and fullwidth forms in East Asian computing (going back decades before Unicode was invented, so " (Unicode)" in the title is totally wrong), and a specific article Halfwidth and Fullwidth Forms (Unicode block) which discusses the history and contents of the particular Unicode block. Therefore I support Option 2. BabelStone (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree it should be split. DRMcCreedy (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

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.