Talk:CJK Symbols and Punctuation

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)

IDEOGRAPHIC NUMBER ZERO
In the context of Unicode-related articles, why should U+3007 IDEOGRAPHIC NUMBER ZERO be singled out as "not unified"? The CJK Symbols and Punctuation block alone contains 14 non-unified ideographs: U+3006, 3007, 3021-9, and 3038-A per Unicode's PropList.txt. All of these except U+3006 are Han per Scripts.txt. I'd agree with U+3007 IDEOGRAPHIC NUMBER ZERO being an example of a non-unified Han ideograph but it's misleading to say it's the one non-unified Han ideograph in the block. DRMcCreedy (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * U+3007 is commonly used in Chinese and treated as a Chinese character (see reference). U+3021..3029 and 3038..303A are Suzhou numerals and they are not Chinese characters (although used along Chinese characters). The Chinese character 〇 is mentioned in the Chinese version of this article and in Chinese numerals. Side note: 〇 was also considered as one of the Chinese character coined by Chinese empress regnant Wu Zetian equivalent to 星 (star), which is mentioned in Wiktionary. NFSL2001 (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But from a Unicode perspective, which is the topic of this article, how is it different? Is there a Unicode property that differentiates between Chinese character and not a Chinese character? You added a section called "Han character" (singular) but 13 characters in this block are listed with the Unicode script property of "Han".  That may work in an article about writing in China but it's confusing in an article about Unicode. DRMcCreedy (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Changing the section heading from "Han" to "Chinese character" is an improvement but there's no reason to list the code point in both the lede paragraph and the dedicated section. It's duplicate information.  I've removed the code point itself from the lede and left the section because the section contains a bit more information. DRMcCreedy (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)