Talk:Block Elements

Capitalization of article title

This article is one of a series of articles on Unicode blocks (see Category:Unicode blocks), which all use the capitalization used by Unicode as they are articles about the specific Unicode block, and not general articles about the contents of the Unicode block. So in this case, the subject of the article is the Unicode block named "Block Elements", and not block elements in general, which is why it is capitalized as "Block Elements" not "Block elements". The naming of Unicode block articles has been discussed now and then for other articles, and there is consensus to use this capitalization, so please do not change without first discussing and obtaining consensus. Thanks. BabelStone (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please provide exact links to where it "has been discussed" and where is that "consensus". — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Basic Latin (Unicode block).DRMcCreedy (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Can this be codified or at least mentioned in some predictable place? Before renaming this article I tried to check general articles about Unicode blocks and the WP rules but did not find anything useful. (The documents from Unicode apparently do not clarify the naming conventions, and it seemed to me that they just use title case for all headings (f.e. "Terms of Use"), except sentence case for list headings.) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the best place to mention this is. DRMcCreedy (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

If you can prove with reliable sources that Unicode blocks names are proper names (which is not obvious), the best place would be the Unicode block article itself. Otherwise, the current view should be described at least in that article's talk page (with all references to previous discussions, as from BabelStone's comment above it seems that there were more than one). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm obviously not going to be able to prove to your satisfaction that block names are proper names, but it seems obvious to me that they are because they are intended as a unique name identifying a particular contiguous set of characters (see Unicode Glossary). The article Block Elements is about the Block Elements block defined in the Unicode Standard; whereas an article named Block elements would be about the characters included in the Unicode Block Elements block (but not limited to their use in Unicode). If anyone wants to create an article about Block elements that is fine, and then this article would be renamed Block Elements (Unicode block) in line with other articles where there is a name clash (e.g. Emoticons (Unicode block) vs Emoticons). BabelStone (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking not to "prove to my satisfaction", but to provide a sufficiently reliable source that supports your view. It is not obvious that they are proper names and must be capitalized. Here are just several examples where "unique name identifying something particular" are not capitalized:

• Groups of chemical elements, such as "noble gases", "coinage metals" or "rare earth elements".
• Parts of the Solar System, such as "inner planets", "asteroid belt" or "Oort cloud".
• Classes of symbols and marks in musical notation, such as "key signatures", "time signatures" or "articulation marks".

Actually, it seems to me that, in general, identifiers of various parts of a standard are not considered to be proper names.

And please provide links to other previous discussions that you have mentioned ("has been discussed now and then for other articles"). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Example

█     █  ▀  █ █  ▀  █▀█  █▀▀  █▀█   █  █▀▀█
▐█ █ █▌  █  ██   █  █▄█  █▄   █  █  █  █▄▄█
  ███    █  █ █  █  █    █▄▄  █▄█   █  █  █
▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░▒░░▒▒▒░░▒░░▒▒▒░░▒▒▒░░▒▒▒▒░░▒░░▒▒▒▒

Can someone please add this example to the article? There's an edit filter saying that, as this art has too many repeated chars, it's being detected as SPAM. I think it's useful, like in Box-drawing character#Examples...--200.223.199.146 (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@200.223.199.146: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I do not think that this article is appropriate for that, as it is about the Unicode Block and not the characters themselves. Fret not though, I have added your example to Box-drawing character#Examples, which is itself referred to by this article. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Psiĥedelisto, I couldn't understand "it is about the Unicode Block and not the characters themselves". The Unicode Block "Block Elements" is about those characters I used to write the name (U+2580..U+259F). The article "Box-drawing character" is about another Unicode block (U+2500..U+257F), that does not includes those characters I used. On that article, there's a box mapping all characters that are on "Box-drawing character" block, and there is none of these I used, as they are on the "Block Elements" block. --200.223.199.146 (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@200.223.199.146: Oops, you are correct. I removed it from the other article and put it here instead. Thanks again for your contribution. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Block Elements. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130107171616/http://www.fonts.com.hk/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=246 to http://www.fonts.com.hk/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=246

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

History behind Order

There seems to be no useful order to the quadrant characters. In ZX Spectrum character set and ZX81 character set there were an order that helped plot functions. Does any one know of the history of the strange order of these characters in Unicode. Mikael4u (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Space Character

In the article it says: "However, the block doesn't contain a space character of its own and ASCII space may or may not render at the same width as Block Elements glyphs. This fatal flaw tends to discourage their use, as rendering across platforms and browsers is rarely consistent." Is it not possible to use the U+2007 Figure space since it should be the width of digits and the Block Elements seem to have the same width as digits? Another way is to use the full block (U+2588), but with inverted colors. Mikael4u (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

It all depends on the individual font. Most fonts don't support figure space. However, if a fixed width font is used then its space should be the same width as the block characters. BabelStone (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2018 (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 22:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: Example - by Kareemthebest

I'm not sure if ASCII art (which is a sequence of characters like block elements, to create art) is allowed in Wikipedia. This is because ASCII art contains too much letters and spam. This is supposed to be a reply for Example. Kareemthebest (talk) 08:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)