Template talk:Unicode chart C1 Controls and Latin-1 Supplement Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Unicode_chart_C1_Controls_and_Latin-1_Supplement

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Writing systems This template falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system

Got insta-reverted with above comment.

Of course I didn't change all 300 blocks, this is an EXPERIMENT. I'm not going to change all 300 until there is agreement. Sorry but previous experience has shown that NO "discussion" will happen unless the changes are actually made. Prove me wrong by actually posting some "discussion" below this:

My altered version:

Changes (please discuss each individually):

1. Removed dotted boxes and made NBSP smaller to avoid annoying column width variations depending on whether control characters are in them or not.
2. Removed whitespace by changing table class to "chset"
3. Monospace for the numeric code point values to match appearance used in other templates like {{unichar}}.
4. Removed the word "Notes" between the table and the footnotes.

Other changes I experimented with, and either did not like or was unable to achieve:

1. Use {{efn}} for footnote, mostly so they can be more easily added to cells
2. Make the title using "|+" so it matches other wikipedia tables (this produced bad line spacing)
3. Attempt to get the control characters vertically centered.
4. Make the PDF link into a reference or efn

Spitzak (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The lack of dashed boxes around the codes for control characters could be problematic. Those dashed boxes are a normative signifier in Unicode charts for invisible characters. I don't really see any benefit to these cosmetic changes. What were you trying to accomplish with it? Is there a context where the altered version works better? Given that you have a set of hundreds of templates with identical formatting, will the new formatting work for the context in which the rest of the templates are used as well? This just seems like change for change's sake, and that's really not a compelling reason to invest all the time and effort to either migrate everything or to have this one particular template violate the consistent presentation of this standardized information. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 20:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI: Initial discussions with @DePiep: and @BabelStone: about the formatting of these Unicode charts are here.
  

1. Dotted boxes (Unicode's dashed box convension) have semantic value so I oppose removing them. They're not limited to control characters. See Template:Unicode chart Arabic for example.
   
2. The new format seems cramped to me, but I suppose could be considered "compact" to other readers. I wonder how it will fare for items like Template:Unicode chart Arabic Presentation Forms-A, Template:Unicode chart Geometric Shapes Extended, and Template:Unicode chart Javanese. I like the current, loose spacing better.
   
3. I don't see any improvement or detriment to monospaced code point values or the removal of the "Notes" heading in the footer.
   DRMcCreedy (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not an improvement, per the above comments (for starters). Hope to be able to respond more extensively later on. (I was pinged to this talk) -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]