Talk:̐

̐|&#9676;̐
Why do we merge terms from multiple scripts (!!!) under one single entry? They should be split up and moved back to where they belong. -- Liliana • 19:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, because it's basically the same diacritic mark (the candrabindu) in all of the scripts. Yeah, it's got separate Unicode points for each of the scripts where it's used, but it's the same mark anyway, just as the acute accent used in the Latin alphabet and the acute accent used in the Cyrillic alphabet are the same. —Angr 20:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference being that there is no "Cyrillic acute accent" in Unicode, though. -- Liliana • 20:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For my money, it'd make more sense to have each Unicode point as its own entry, and then link to each of them from the relevant candrabindu entries. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see that Unicode is the end-all and be-all of what is and isn't appropriate here. Just because Unicode gives a separate code point for each of these candrabindus doesn't mean they're really different from each other. The candrabindu has the same shape and the same function in each writing system where it's used. All of the other Unicode candrabindus redirect here so everyone can find what they're looking for. I think keeping information together is a good idea, as is using common sense as opposed to slavishly following whatever Unicode does. —Angr 22:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your sentiment, but two things come to mind:
 * The shapes and layouts are actually different for each different candrabindu codepoint. This is more obvious if you zoom the text up substantially.  Telugu is even on the side instead of on top.
 * Testing has actually shown my second concern to be moot -- it seems all of the various candrabindu characters redirect to this page, so discoverability does not appear to be an issue.
 * Ultimately then, I guess I'll bow out -- my main technical issue with this combined page is not an issue, so I leave this up to the sense of organization and aesthetics of those working with the related Indian languages. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As of today, the only language section, which is out of place is Bengali but c(h)andrabindu in Hindi, Sanscrit, Nepali (also Marathi and some other languages) is the same. Providing the info for other scripts with links is useful but they don't have to be on one page. The code point info can go into appropriate pages. It needs a translingual section with "see also's". --Anatoli (обсудить) 00:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it even a good idea to have entries for combining characters? --WikiTiki89 09:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe, maybe not. They're hard to type in, but there's no non-combining character in this case as far as I know, so we have little choice. -- Liliana • 16:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've always been curious about this kind of entry. What is the population of users that would know how to find this and not know what it means? Are there links by which the user is led to the entry? Does it make sense for such things to be in principal namespace rather than an appendix? I hope that these do not end up populating one of the s that constructs a complete list on the fly. DCDuring TALK 18:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * People arrive at these entries by typing (using appropriate language keyboard or transliteration conversion tools) or copy-pasting, as usual. The only problem with this entry is that it refers to a similar but different Bengali character (currently missing) as described at the top and listing others - Gujarati, Oriya, Telugu. All other Devanagari-based language entries are relevant and correct.

split up, done -- Liliana • 19:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)