Talk:Left-to-right mark

Merger proposal: RLM into LRM
RfC renewed. Nathan2055talk - contribs 16:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I propose to merge Right-to-left mark (RLM) into this Left-to-right mark (LRM) page. Both marks are as symmetrical in this as can be. Most of the definition, description and usage of these bidi formatting characters is identical, only the direction is opposite (mirrored really, which is another tying aspect of the two). They should go together in this page (LRM surives b/c it is the English writing direction, here at en.WP -- perhaps the tiniest argument left). Most text could go to explaining the Directionality issue, where LRM and RLM are for. -DePiep (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would recommend merging both Right-to-left mark and Left-to-right mark into the article Bi-directional text. This would not make the resulting article too long, and it avoids the problem of deciding which article gets to "survive". Indefatigable (talk) 16:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, points to think of: there are seven of such "bidi-control characters" in Unicode (see the table on the bidi page). And, the bidi text page describes as if bidi text it is a general principle, and "Unicode supports it", while it is more like Unicode "defines" it, especially RLM LRM, in their bidi algorithm UAX#9. So the page needs a big write then. For now, I think the bidi text page is not suited to receive these more factual descriptions. -DePiep (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I also think that both Right-to-left mark and Left-to-right mark articles should be merged into Bi-directional text. If this requires substantial changes to the target article, so be it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Support merging Right-to-left mark with Left-to-right mark, but weak oppose merging them both into bidi. Bi-directional text isn't too long yet, but merging would make that page a little more cumbersome.--Robert Keiden (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Merger
I strongly support merging Right-to-left mark and Left-to-right mark -- as the original proposal says, they are completely symmetrical. Please let me know if this proposal is re-opened, and I'll be happy to participate in the discussion. As for merging into Bi-directional text, this is probably a good idea, too, but best left to a later, separate discussion. --Macrakis (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. Actually, the closing conclusion (no consensus to merge) looks like a non sequitur to me. The only dispute left was what to merge. No one was opposing. I think you can be bold and start. -DePiep (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)