Talk:Combining Diacritical Marks

Why the colors?

In Block some of the combining characters appear in the chart in blue, some in red. Why? There's no explanation in the article or the reference source.--Thnidu (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Some people like to add wikilinks to every single character in every Unicode block chart, and links with a valid target appear blue, whereas links with no valid target appear red. Personally I would remove all the redlinks and any of the bluelinks that do not link to an article about the actual character, but most people seem to like them. BabelStone (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@BabelStone: D'ohh! Of course. I'm just not used to combining diacritical marks being linked (as if) the names of articles. --Thnidu (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thinking INSIDE the box

Again in Block: the characters were all "combined with" (superimposed upon) the left-hand border of the cell, making them difficult to read and some of them ambiguous. I have put a pair of no-break spaces before each of them, and now they appear clearly in the cell, though not in its center. Thnidu (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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 22:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Page name capitalisation

Should the page name be Combining diacritical marks instead of Combining Diacritical Marks, as it's not a proper noun?

EDIT: Nooo. No wait, my bad. I think I misunderstand the nature of the page name.

——2601:644:8000:48C0:B55D:25B7:B0F5:EE45 (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Fonts and how they handle combining characters

Has there been a study on how the combining characters are handled by different computer fonts available to the public? For example, a 't' above a letter is the combining character U+036D; so w & U+036D, produces (and this will appear differently depending on what fonts the viewer's browser uses) Wͭ. This is an old manuscript abbreviation for "with"; the same "t above a letter" was used to abbreviate "that". In Arial or Times New Roman, the top of the 't' is sliced off. In some fonts the 't' is pushed to the side; in Calibri it appears as it should do. I do not know if this specific issue has been considered by many font designers. Hogweard (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)