Help talk:Special characters

How is this so hard

Its 2024, and its still impossible to easily show all characters on Wikipedia. Can you just make an "install this and it will work" package or something. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.0.114 (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

IE for the Mac

"This relatively common browser translates to mac-roman for the edit box with the result it munges most Unicode stuff (usually but not always by replacing them with a question mark). It also munges things that are in ISO-8859-1 but not mac-roman (specifically ¤ ¦ ¹ ² ³ ¼ ½ ¾ Ð × Ý Þ ð ý þ and the soft hyphen) so the problems it causes are not limited to Unicode wikis (though they tend to be much worse on Unicode wikis because they affect actual text and interwiki links rather than just fairly obscure symbols)."

Could we possibly reword this? 72.21.196.66 (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have just done so. The thing that struck me was the "relatively common", which for a browser they stopped making seven years ago was plainly incorrect, but while there I cleaned it up. I don't know if anything else needs adding - a note that it and Netscape 4 are pretty historical browsers might be in order.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Instructions for Firefox

With Mozilla Firefox, the default setting must be changed. To do that, use the 'Tools' menu, the 'Options' tab and select the 'Content' icon. On the resulting menu click the 'Advanced' box. Uncheck the default box "allow pages to choose their own fonts", and choose one of the Unicode options (e.g. "Unicode (UTF-32BE)") or Arabic (ISO-8859-6) in the 'Default character encoding' box. Brews ohare (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

A different alternative is to switch font to 'Arial Unicode MS'. Then the default box can be left checked. Brews ohare (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph above is now in the help page and works as far as choosing one of the Unicode options. However, the change did not help the browser display either the Coptic fonts at Coptic alphabet or the runic fonts found at Runic alphabet: they still appear as boxes with numbers. The runes on wikipedia do not display in any of my browsers: Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari. These browsers display most other 4 character unicode fonts I tried from Category:Scripts with ISO 15924 four-letter codes: Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and so on. With Burmese I had to install the suggested font, which worked, but Balinese script also shows boxes in the Unicode table, with no helpful link to the reader. I also tried each of the Unicode options in Firefox, to no avail. If there are more suggestions, could they be added to the help page? -84user (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The directions above are not correct, or there is some incorrect code on Print Screen. I'm using Firefox 3.6.9, and it's not displaying the print screen symbol, U+2399, on that page. Even if we fix the above directions and put them at the beginning of this article Help:Special characters where they belong, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U%2B2399.gif should be used instead since most normal users will not know how to fix the problem if there is one, especially since there is no link to this help page.

In addition, Help:Special characters should first and foremost be just that, a help page for normal users, not an article on the history of Unicode, and the help for editing Wikipedia should come farther down in this article. --Espoo (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The directions are not complete for Firefox version 37.0.2. When the Fonts dialog is displayed, and after you have performed the action, "Uncheck the default box 'allow pages to choose their own fonts'", you must click the OK button to return to the Options dialog. 24.222.87.186 (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, the font "Arial Unicode MS" does not appear in the font list in the Default Font list under the Content tab in the Options dialog.24.222.87.186 (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Shavian

The link under Shavian font doesn't link to a Shavian font. --70.29.63.230 (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Webfonts

It would be great if Wikipedia could detect if the characters on a page are supported by the client's installed font, and use webfonts otherwise. Or SVG/PNG images for old browsers. Checking for font support can be done via measuring a chunk of rendered text in Javascript. The webfont needn't be big, it could be an extract from a comprehensive Unicode font that covers only the block(s) used in the article. I guess the great majority of articles with non-Latin characters doesn't use more than one non-Latin Unicode block.--94.223.167.143 (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Order of polytonic characters

I have proposed a different ordering for the Greek polytonic characters in the insert box below the edit box on the talk page of WikiProject Greece.  --Lambiam 18:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Displaying special characters

What do Mac users do, pray tell? Batshua (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Real help for newcomers

As noted above, there is no explanation for a newcomer who wants to use special characters on Wikipedia, unless you count this sentence buried in the middle of the article: "Use a link to a special character listed under the edit box to insert that character." Things like bolding are explained here, but there is no similarly detailed explanation for special characters. Did I miss that explanation, or is it really missing? The first thing a newcomer wants to know is how to enter a phrase like "Erwin Schrödinger" into his article, not a lecture on MediaWiki 1.5, Unicode, ISO 8859-1, and whatever Windows-1252 is. He needs to be fully introduced to one method before he tries to learn four at once, because he only needs to learn one method to enter his phrase, and after that he's bored. He needs to know where to find the special character link (preferably the new improved Vector skin link above the edit page, because it's better than the old one below). He needs to know how to navigate the menus to find his character. And he should be warned that if he clicks the special character first and then clicks its destination, as someone accustomed to copy and paste would expect, then he will get a typo that could easily go unnoticed until long after he saves his edit. Do you agree that we need such an explanation, and where should it go? Art LaPella (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that, in addition to any general introduction, we need help for the special character insertion links both above and below the edit window. And the former should be mentioned in the list under the section Editing. As it stands, an editor of ordinary intelligence must guess and experiment to learn how these mechanisms work. Entering special characters isn’t that difficult; many methods are available, but the effort to discover them may cause many editors (and not just newcomers) to give up before finding the necessary information. JeffConrad (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Should we add mention of some of the techniques given in Wikipedia:How to make dashes to the list under Editing? I’d think Alt codes Hex editing would be useful. I think we also should mention the Special characters feature that’s above the edit box. JeffConrad (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a copy editor so this kind of collaboration is fairly new to me. But I'd rather not add any more alternative ways to make special characters here. The reason I mentioned them at Wikipedia:How to make dashes was political; the last time it came up, everyone had their own favorite way to make dashes, but nobody made any effort to explain it except on the talk page. So the "long explanation" part was aimed more at Manual of Style regulars than people who just want to make a dash, explaining why I prefer my "short explanation". That page is still there, so I may have done something right.

Having looked at it again, I now think that "links both above and below the edit window" do need to be mentioned, just because each has many special characters that the other doesn't mention. The best way to explain how to find them is with a screenshot. That article gives directions, but perhaps JeffConrad or someone else has more experience (I've never uploaded an image of any kind to Wikipedia.)

I'm not getting any response here, except from JeffConrad who followed me from the Manual of Style. I'll try Wikipedia talk:Help Project#Special characters help. Art LaPella (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should at least add Alt codes (and perhaps Mac equivalents) to the list, because they’re arguably the easiest approach (apparently both Art and I use them). JeffConrad (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

We would need to link to lists, not just 2 characters. A list of Alt codes probably wouldn't work according to this article; I don't understand much of it, but near the end it says "The default font for Latin scripts in Internet Explorer (IE) web browser for Windows is Times New Roman. It doesn't include many Unicode blocks." This might work for Macs.

My intent was to mention Alt codes, and if necessary, provide a link to a table such as User:JeffConrad/Keystrokes; someone else would need to provide the Mac equivalents (the en dash is not my only special character, nor is it even the most common). Every Alt code in my list works fine with IE 8 and Firefox 3/4, but this is really a separate issue from what a particular combination of browser and font can display. I’ve had no problem with display of characters, either (except a hair space), having used Time New Roman as the default font for IE for years. JeffConrad (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to write that part. Once again, my point was that the reader should be presumed to want to enter his special character, not to enter it six different ways, which will confuse him with descriptions of things he doesn't have to do. But since nobody else sees it that way, including the previous authors of this page, I see the rewrite like this:

One or two screenshots showing both links to special characters (one screenshot is better, but showing both special character locations on the same screen would make it harder to create the screen). Some special characters can be found from one link, some from the other link, and some from either one. A detailed explanation (in addition to the perils of clicking the character before the destination, some things like clicking "Latin" for German letters, even though Germans don't speak Latin). A heading, "Other ways to insert special characters". Next, the text of Help:Special characters#Editing, with some modifications like Alt codes, and without the subheadings starting with "Esperanto". Next, another heading, "Advanced special character help". And finally, everything else on the existing page. Art LaPella (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that most editors probably don’t need or want six different ways of entering special characters, but an editor may still use more than one (I use both Alt codes and the links at the bottom of the edit page). And not all editors may prefer the same method(s), so how would we choose? I also agree that many Germans don’t speak Latin, but most nonetheless use the Latin alphabet nowadays. And the ISO 8859 standards for European languages accordingly use the term. But perhaps we should add a sentence explaining it. JeffConrad (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

My thought is that the editors who most need this help page are the editors who can't enter a special character, not the editors who prefer a specific method, and not the editors who might want a lecture about any related issue. If you just want to enter a special character, your needs are best met by one system that works, even if chosen at random, without the added complication of needing to identify alternatives so you can ignore them.

My mentally written text for the Latin issue goes like this: "You may need to click several categories in both places to find your special character, because some special characters aren't in the category you might expect. Russian letters are in the "Cyrillic" category. Most other European letters are in the "Latin" category, even though no modern country speaks Latin. Mathematical symbols can be at "Symbols", "Insert", or "Math and logic" (the latter two are only at the bottom link), or at Wikipedia:Mathematical symbols and its linked articles." That text omits any explanation of why Russian letters are Cyrillic or German letters are Latin, but remember my focus on the editor who just wants to enter a special character. I wouldn't want to rename the Latin category if I could because no one word explains it as well: "normal"? "English"? "ö" is neither one. "Roman"? As obscure as "Latin". "West European"? 2 words, and Finnish isn't West European. Art LaPella (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It’s OK by me except for “even though no modern country speaks Latin”, which is an unnecessary op-ed. I might also avoid the direct juxtaposition of the first two sentences; I’m sure not everyone is aware that Russian uses the Cyrillic alphabet, but I think implying that this is unexpected is going a bit far. I don’t think explanations are needed or would even be helpful—the shorter, the better. As you note, the objective here is to help editors enter special characters, not to teach them about alphabets. As for the name Latin, well, that’s simply the correct term and using something else would be very confusing. JeffConrad (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"even though no modern country speaks Latin" can go. I think "I don't think explanations are needed" was agreeing with me. Do you have a suggestion for what to write about Russian? One reason it's there is because the next sentence says "Most other European languages ..." Art LaPella (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe what you had in mind is more like: "Some editors may need to click several categories in both places to find special characters, because some special characters aren't in the category that everyone might expect." Art LaPella (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

“I don't think explanations . . .” was indeed agreeing with you. What about something like

Russian letters are in the "Cyrillic" category; most other European letters are in the "Latin" category. You may need to click several categories in either place to find your special character, especially if it's non-alphabetic: mathematical symbols can be at "Symbols", "Insert", or "Math and logic" (the latter two are only at the bottom link), or at Wikipedia:Mathematical symbols and its linked articles.

I suggest “either place” rather than “both places” because an editor would probably use only the top or the bottom link area. JeffConrad (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The rewrite is OK but I don't understand the "either". Some characters such as Thai are only in the top, and some math symbols are only in the bottom, so I think the simple way to say that is to look in both places. Art LaPella (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps we could mention that some math symbols (and wiki markup) are available only in the bottom area, and that some Eastern languages are available only in the top area. I don’t have strong feelings about either or both; better to get the ball rolling than to nit-pick it to death.

At some point, in some place, it’s probably worth mentioning that clicking on a link at either the top or the bottom enters the character at the current position of the edit cursor. As we’ve discussed, this should be under Help links for both the top and bottom areas; until that can be done, however, a brief mention here might be better than nothing. What about replacing the first list item under Editing with something to the effect of

• Use a special-character link. Links are available under Special characters above the edit window, and below the buttons at the bottom of the edit window. Clicking a special-character link inserts that character at the current position of the cursor in the edit window, so you need to position the cursor where you want it before clicking the link.

  Russian letters are in the "Cyrillic" category; most other European letters are in the "Latin" category. You may need to click several categories in both places to find your special character, especially if it's non-alphabetic: mathematical symbols can be at "Symbols", "Insert", or "Math and logic" (the latter two are only at the bottom link), or at Wikipedia:Mathematical symbols and its linked articles.

  Note that some characters are not displayed in Internet Explorer 6: Special characters under edit box, IE. In some fonts, e.g. Arial, all the characters in this box are displayed, but it is not convenient for a user to have to switch fonts between webpages. You have to install the CharInsert extension to use this.

We’d need to use HTML rather than wiki markup, much as I’ve done here, to get the text indents to work properly. An alternative would be to avoid the paragraph breaks, like this:

• Use a special-character link. Links are available under Special characters above the edit window, and below the buttons at the bottom of the edit window. Clicking a special-character link inserts that character at the current position of the cursor in the edit window, so you need to position the cursor where you want it before clicking the link. Russian letters are in the "Cyrillic" category; most other European letters are in the "Latin" category. You may need to click several categories in both places to find your special character, especially if it's non-alphabetic: mathematical symbols can be at "Symbols", "Insert", or "Math and logic" (the latter two are only at the bottom link), or at Wikipedia:Mathematical symbols and its linked articles. Note that some characters are not displayed in Internet Explorer 6: Special characters under edit box, IE. In some fonts, e.g. Arial, all the characters in this box are displayed, but it is not convenient for a user to have to switch fonts between webpages. You have to install the CharInsert extension to use this.

To me, it’s easier to read with the breaks to separate different ideas, but either approach is acceptable. JeffConrad (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Inserting all the new stuff under "Editing" goes back to the existing system of presenting 4 alternatives without even emphasizing one of them. I assume that people who can't insert special characters like I can, will be even more lost in the "Editing" paragraph than I am. So they are unlikely to survive that paragraph long enough even to understand that they are alternatives they don't have to figure out. Art LaPella (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

But then we get back to the issue of which one to emphasize, which is a personal and somewhat arbitrary choice; a case might even be made for choosing between the special-character links above and below the edit window (I personally would use the ones below for the English Wikipedia, but others clearly disagree with me; I might change my preference if the Wiki markup and Math and logic selections were added to the links at the top).

That said, I’m not sure the current list suggests that a new editor need learn every technique—it seems to me that we’d be emphasizing techniques by their positions in the list. I personally would have the order something like

• Special-character links below the edit window.
• Alt codes for Windows computers (option codes for Macs).
• Special-character links above the edit window.
• A common “Character map”–type external program.
• HTML named entities.
• Other stuff, including specialized external programs or browser plug-ins. Programs or plug-ins that require considerable learning to program (e.g., AutoHotKey).

I’d probably put HTML entities slightly higher were they not apparently deprecated. But again, this is clearly a personal and arbitrary preference. I think maintaining the current order with at least a minimal explanation of how special-character links work, and perhaps adding Alt/Option codes) would be an improvement. If a appropriate Help links were added, the entries for the special-character links could simply refer the editor to the Help links. JeffConrad (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If that's all the change that we have a consensus for, then let's use it. It's better than what we have now. But I'll try to explain one more time. Is there really any doubt which version better explains how to input special characters, to someone who doesn't already know how? If so, a fairly conclusive way to decide is by direct experiment. I had my 13-year-old son try User:Art LaPella/Help for special characters version 1 and User:Art LaPella/Help for special characters version 2. For version 1, first of all he didn't know what "special characters" means, but neither version explains that. After that explanation, I was surprised to see him wading through the first few paragraphs of computerese. He actually tried to add &#8364 and &euro to the page, which is recommended by the bullet point that starts "special characters that are not available in the limited character set ...". Neither &#8364 nor &euro successfully made a euro sign, because he entered them the same way I just did. Your changes to the "Editing" paragraph didn't matter at all, because we never got that far. He asked some questions, but of course the point of the instructions is for people who don't have me standing next to them for answers. Next we tried version 2. Like most people other than myself, he learns more by experimenting than from instructions. So as soon as he read that there were special character links, that was all he needed to know. He didn't even bother reading the rest of the spiel. He just navigated the categories, clicked characters and inserted them. So I think it's obvious which version teaches special characters, and which version seems more intended to please those who already know. Art LaPella (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I neglected a fairly obvious question: what specific changes were you proposing? I agree that there are several issues with this article, not the least of which is that the computerese that begins the article is somewhat tangential, and should be moved to after the practical advice on editing (or perhaps the more obvious Entering special characters).

I also think this article conflates several issues:

1. Special characters, in general.
2. Entry of special characters.
3. Articles that make extensive references to non-latin alphabets.
4. Browser display issues.
5. Fonts with limited Unicode support.
6. Formal computerese relating the above.

The basic topic is touched on in many articles, including Unicode input, and method-specific articles such as Alt code; perhaps this article isn’t the best place to address it, although given its title, it’s a logical place for new (and perhaps not-so-new) editors to end up. One reason for my preference for describing more than just the links is that even experienced editors (e.g., Tony) were long unaware of the Alt code method, which is arguably the most efficient for a few commonly used characters (again, this is the English Wikipedia).

One obvious issue demonstrated by your experiment with your version 1 is that typography for actual keystrokes is critical; e.g., it must be obvious that for €, an editor should enter € rather than &euro. We could even go further with notation such as “€” or even €, though the latter gets mighty tedious mighty fast. Incidentally, here’s a good example of where use of the proper typographical quotes helps make clear that the quotes aren’t part of the text to be entered (compare "€", which isn’t as obviously different from "€").

In any event, we seem to agree that there are structural issues with this article if it is to serve the second purpose above. One possible rearrangement is at User:JeffConrad/Entering special characters; the article obviously needs some additional work, including updates to several areas, such as browser display issues, and on ensuring that a browser is properly set to display UTF-8 (browsers’ “auto-detect” usually, but not always do this). Another option is to make a separate Help:Entering special characters that corresponds to the section of the same name in my draft, and include only a brief summary of that article in this one. JeffConrad (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

User:JeffConrad/Entering special characters is preferable to what we have now, so let's go with that, preferably with the separate Help:Entering special characters. ("proper typographical quotes" is an argument one might think should be presented at WT:MOS, in order to change WP:PUNCT: "Typographic or curly style: “text”, ‘text’. Not recommended at Wikipedia.") Art LaPella (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I’ll see what I can do. At the very least, a separate article Help:Entering special characters should have some flesh for Alt codes (with a quick followup to include Option codes for Macs). If we go with this separate article, we need to agree on what would be included in the summary in the revision of this article. Perhaps we could get by with a list to the effect of

• Using a special-character link, available under Special characters above the edit window, and below the buttons at the bottom of the edit window.
• Entering the character directly from a foreign keyboard, or by cut and paste from a "Character map"–type application, or by some special means provided by the operating system or text editing application.
• Using Alt keycodes (Windows OS) or Option keycodes (Mac OS).
• Using an HTML named character entity reference like à.
• Using an HTML numeric character reference like ¡.

As for “proper typographical quotes”, the comment was just an aside. We recently had an extended discussion (in which you participated) at WT:MOS, and found no consensus, much as previous discussions. Consequently, I interpret the MOS as unchanged: typographical quotes are not recommended, but they aren’t banned, either (much as a judge would interpret a statute). Additionally, my sense would be that changing quote styles in an existing article such as this one would be bad style, and that using typographical quotes in a new article would commit the creator to ensuring consistency after subsequent edits. To me, this would be trivial in comparison with the substantive issues. Of course, controversy could be avoided completely by simply using monospace font for literal entries, e.g., €. JeffConrad (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. Art LaPella (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I’m working on the entry-specific article first; conceivably, it could be used without changing the current article (though the latter at least needs some cleanup with regard to input methods). Even the entry-specific part of the current article needs more work than I had thought. For example, the Alt keycode section refers to entry using three-digit codes (without leading zeros) that correspond to code points in the computer’s default OEM code page (437 for most computers in the US) rather than those of Windows 1252. Because the code page 437 is missing many of the characters commonly needed in English Wikipedia, and because the Alt codes shown in the Character map window and the Penn State pages linked in the Alt code article correspond to Windows 1252 (with leading zeros), I think we should go with the latter. Perhaps we should briefly mention the former to stress the importance of including the leading zero with the latter. Documentation is admittedly weak, but I assume the Penn State pages, in combination with the Character map display and this very brief article from Microsoft constitute sufficient authority. JeffConrad (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The short article is now at User:JeffConrad/Entering special characters. I think it’ reasonably close to usable. In keeping with what I think is Art’s objective, I’ve tried to pare it to the bone while still giving editors new and not-so-new enough information to complete the appointed task. See if it’s at least on the right track.

The rework of the present article is now at User:JeffConrad/Special characters; it remains a work in progress. My thinking is to tread fairly lightly (even if I have questions or problems with parts of it) to avoid breaking something that neither I nor Art may be aware of. At the very least, though, I think we need to have it use monospace typeface for literals that are entered by the user, and ensure that, whatever the order of sections, editors are easily directed to the practical information in the short article. JeffConrad (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Details:

I'm especially interested in the first alternative, as I think most readers have no reason to go on. So what does "Note that some characters are not displayed in Internet Explorer 6: Special characters under edit box, IE" mean? I think it means that some characters shouldn't be used even though the software provided lets you use them, because readers who haven't updated their Internet Explorer won't be able to read them. But I couldn't guess which characters should be avoided for that reason. It probably means the characters that show as squares when I click "Special characters under edit box, IE". But what are those characters you don't want me to use? I can't tell by comparing it to the "Insert" line, because the visible characters have been rearranged.

Also, "it is not convenient for a user to have to switch fonts between webpages" is an understatement that seems to show difficulty putting oneself in the readers' place. Most readers would need to spend several minutes or more researching such a switch, so it's unrealistic to expect such a research project just to read our favorite character; that's our priority, not theirs. This is especially true because many misprinted characters look like spaces or some other normal-looking character (or is that still true?), so the reader wouldn't even know he needs another font. Also, many special characters exist only because they are part of the proper name of something, not because they help the reader understand anything else except the correct name. I'd rather omit both sentences about fonts, at least in the simple version (or is CharInsert for something else? You have to install CharInsert to use "this", but what is "this"?) Second choice, replace "it is not convenient for a user to have to switch ..." with "it is not realistic to expect a user to switch ..." Art LaPella (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"easily directed to the practical information in the short article" Yes! Even though the short article is included in the long one. My son's first reaction to the page was something like "Read all that?" One idea is a Wikipedia:Hatnote such as {{For|simply entering special characters|Help:Entering special characters}}. Art LaPella (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I’ve added screen shots and subsections for the different techniques—see if this is getting to where we want it to be. I’ve also shown some of the text in strikeout, wondering if we really need it; some of the text I question is the same as what you question above. It’s been a while since I’ve used IE 6, but I don’t recall having any particular display problems with it (or IE 5, for that matter), but then I never had the need to write in Turkish (English is enough of a challenge . . .). Could we just leave some of this stuff in the current article (just in case it’s relevant for some people) and omit it in one that deals primarily with how to enter special characters and is aimed at the English Wikipedia?

The hat note seems a good idea. I’d also change the section Editing to Entering special characters, and include

Main page: Help:Entering special characters

at the beginning of that section. Aside from that, I’d probably leave much of the article as it is, except for changing all text literals to monospace typeface (which seems to be a nearly universal convention in WP as well elsewhere, and rewording a few things that aren’t clear. And using sensible spelling for converter. JeffConrad (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those are certainly the kind of changes I have advocated.

IE6: I don't have any idea how serious the IE6 problem is, but I do know that they shouldn't give us a direct way to enter special characters on the edit screen if they don't want us to use them. Help pages are only one way people learn how to use software, so they can't assume everyone has read the IE6 warning. If there are characters we shouldn't use, they shouldn't be on the "palette" (and if we're using that buzzword, it could be linked to palette window).

For the "Alt code or Option key" and "HTML character entity" paragraphs, a person might give up when they are told to enter a code without being immediately told where to find that code. I think that is in the Windows 1252 link for alt codes, and List of XML and HTML character entity references for HTML codes. But there is a lot of text between "a decimal character code" and "Windows 1252", and you have to know that "decimal character code"="The numerical code". For HTML, there is even more text between "like à", "like —", and "—", and the list at List of XML and HTML character entity references. Anyway, I think the list only explains things like à. I think the U+nnnn stuff is something else. Art LaPella (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think some of the IE 6 stuff, like much of what’s in the current article, is way out of date (I think the caveat about no one watching this page, which shows up when editing, may understate the case).

For Alt codes or Option key, perhaps we could specifically direct the reader to the external links to Penn State and alt-codes.org (my User:JeffConrad/Keystrokes doesn’t seem to be finding many fans . . .). In a case like this, I have no problem with alleged over-linking. In any event, if the explanation isn’t clear as it stands, we need to keep working on it until it is.

For HTML character entity, I’ve reworded in attempt to clarify the code in a numerical entity—see if this helps. Again. perhaps we could add something like “See List of XML and HTML character entity references for a complete list of entity names and Unicode code points.”

I’m no fan of gratuitous buzzwords; if palette is too “buzzy”, I think we should find a better term, because what I currently describe isn’t really a palette window. JeffConrad (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I’ve given User:JeffConrad/Special characters a rough copy edit—see if what I have is close to an acceptable cleanup of the current article and sufficient to direct the user to the potential new article Help:Entering special characters. I think this version still has many problems, most of which I am not willing (and in many cases am unable) to address at present. JeffConrad (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

My thought for Alt codes and HTML was that first you determine the code, then you enter it. I think "Here's how to get the code, and here's how to enter it" is less confusing than "Enter this, the code, this, and this, and do something else. What code? If you're still reading, here's where to get the code." Thus the Alt code "Under Windows" paragraph would become something like: "Under Windows, first determine the numerical code by (existing paragraph without the first sentence, paraphrased to fit). Next, enter that code by (existing first sentence, similarly paraphrased)." I don't know which link provides the best codes; that wasn't my point. Similarly for HTML. The first paragraph might be OK because the reader might click character entity reference to find his character. But for the second paragraph, "To use an HTML numeric character reference or the decimal equivalent, first find the numeric code at List of XML and HTML character entity references [or wherever] ...".

I've encountered the term described at palette (computing) a few times, and its meaning can be guessed because it resembles an artist's palette. But this palette has no colors. If we don't have an article to link it to, I suggest simply omitting the word like this: "list of palettes with groups of special characters" --> "list of groups of special characters", and "closes the list of palettes" --> "closes the list".

If we don't know how to fix User:JeffConrad/Special characters, at least we haven't made it any worse. Art LaPella (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Alt codes: unless you know that a code is needed, there is no need to learn it . . . but let’s see if there’s a better way to explain it. I guess if extant explanations were crystal clear, we wouldn’t be working on it, and the topic would not be raised so frequently in WT:MOS by many experienced editors.
• HTML character references: let me try use terminology closer to that of HTML 4.1 and Unicode 6.0 (my reference books don’t seem to be much help). It’s debatable whether there’s still much point in using numeric references; I used them a dozen years ago because brain-dead Netscape 4.x didn’t recognize the named references, but I’d forget most of the common codes if I didn’t use them for several months. Unfortunately, there are a few characters that don’t have names, so numeric references are the only HTML option. As painful as named references are to type and read, I still use them in Web pages I write because they don’t need Unicode support, and work even if a user has the browser’s encoding incorrectly set.
• Perhaps we could mention at the outset that there are two basic approaches—Unicode, which in essence enters the character in the text, and an HTML reference, which uses an ASCII name or numerical code to describe the character. But I guess it’s also possible that some readers would find this even more confusing.
• We can probably do without palettes—that we’ve both encountered it doesn’t mean we should use it. I guess I just got too cute . . .

I think User:JeffConrad/Special characters is a slight improvement (at least the literal text to be entered is a bit more obvious, and we immediately redirect the reader who just wants to enter a character or two). But at least for me, we’ve hit a point of diminishing marginal returns; unless someone sees an egregious error with an obvious fix, I’m done with it. So we should work on tuning Entering special characters—the main objective. I’ll make another attempt with Alt codes and HTML. JeffConrad (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless you know that a code is needed, there is no need to learn it, hence my word "first"; but another way to do it would be to add the words "(explained later)" after the first mention of the code.

I occasionally see those &# things in places like what is described at WP:NC-SLASH, where a character can't be entered directly because the software interprets it as a command to do something unintended.

From the target audience's point of view, I don't see much difference between Unicode (if you mean alt+nnnn) and an HTML code. Either way, you use a mysterious number because the character isn't on your keyboard. So I don't think explaining that distinction first, would clarify more than it obscures. A more user-oriented distinction would be like "you can click your character, find a numerical code for your character, represent it with a word like – or copy and paste." But I don't think that does much to help the reader decide. So I think it's better to get directly to the alternatives, and then see how each alternative works. Art LaPella (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reworked both sections; the one about HTML references is a almost complete re-write. I’ve also attempted some general cleanup. See if this helps.

• The “numerical code” is explained in the sentence that immediately follows its first mention; isn’t this close enough?
• Some ASCII characters are interpreted (sometimes depending on their positions) by wikiMedia software; similar issues exist in HTML with &, <, and > which must be entered as &, <, and > to be completely safe.
• The main difference is that with one of the methods that enter the Unicode character, the actual character is entered in the article and displays (more or less) in the edit window, whereas the HTML entity, named or numeric, displays in the edit window with its name or code, and (hopefully) displays as the actual glyph only after the page has been saved. I added a brief explanation at the end of the section HTML character reference but removed it because it didn’t seem essentially (or perhaps even useful). Whether the codes are “mysterious” is in the eye of the beholder, but they definitely aren’t on the keyboard, and they’re neither mnemonic nor obvious (at least named references are reasonably mnemonic).

Entering characters by some reference to a numerical code is hardly an approach anyone in his right mind would choose. Much of today’s software development would be difficult (and almost impossible to maintain) if it had to be done in assembly language; the thought of doing it in machine code boggles the mind. A better alternative to numerical codes might be to have software (wikiMedia or otherwise) have the option to recognize HTML named references, and convert them to Unicode upon previewing or saving the page. I use a similar approach (but with shorter names) in Microsoft Word because I can only remember 8 or 10 Alt codes, and find using Insert|Symbol or Character Map mighty tedious. JeffConrad (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I made some minor edits. What does "list of groups of images special characters" mean? Does it mean "list of groups of images of special characters"? Other than that we may be done. Art LaPella (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, it seems to be word salad . . . fixed. What about the stuff I have in strikeout? Can we just get rid of it? We’ve not had comment from anyone else; should we mention this in a place such as WT:MOS and ask for comment here? JeffConrad (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been assuming that the strikeout stuff is gone. Of course I don't object to asking at WT:MOS, but Wikiproject Help wasn't interested, so they can't say we didn't try. People who want special characters are likely to use this, but I'm not expecting medals or anything. Remember the dash issue wasn't explained beyond this until I started it, although dashes are perhaps their most frequent issue and a main obstacle to dash acceptance is how to enter them. Art LaPella (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I just gave Wikiproject Help an update; a major revision is ready. Art LaPella (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The text in strikeout is history . . .

I’ve added a couple of general references, mainly to indicate the HTML and Unicode versions that were consulted; I can add specific page references, but wonder if they’re really needed in a Help article.

On second thought, perhaps it’s better not to bring this up at WT:MOS; as I recall, similar comments have been deprecated as being way off topic (though the ensuing discussions there have seemingly been seemingly interminable anyway). If that’s OK, I’m inclined to create the page and incorporate the changes at User:JeffConrad/Special characters into this article. I certainly don’t expect a medal; quite honestly, I’m not even certain anyone will notice. In any event, if a discussion arises somewhere about “How in the world do I enter . . .”, it will be much easier to provide a link than to get sidetracked in a “how to” discussion. JeffConrad (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

OK! Art LaPella (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit of 6 April 2011

As a result of the discussion above, this article was updated to direct the reader interested only in entering special characters to the new Help:Entering special characters. Additional changes included moving the section on Unicode and ISO 8859 from the beginning of the article to after the sections dealing with the practical tasks of entering and displaying the characters, and changing the typeface of literal text to monospace (or in some cases, graphical representations of keys) to make it more obvious what a user must actually type into the edit window. JeffConrad (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Chrome

I'm using Chrome, and I don't see anything about it in your page. I have some characters showing up as squares, so if you could address please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.247.90 (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm using Chromium on Mac... characters rendering as squares... help please! :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.92.213 (talk) 05:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

daggers

For years certain tennis articles have used dagger by just placing the symbol in the html like this, †. Now someone is changing it to {{dagger}}, using the { brackets. It seemed just fine before but is there an actual policy on what is correct or are both acceptable? To me it seems like the brackets add a whole lot more unnecessary coding. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible problem with Cardo - may contain a trojan

I just tried to download Cardo. I have Kaspersky Internet Security and it wouldn't let me access the Cardo page because it said it contains a Trojan. Just thought I'd mention it. Ninanta (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

android

no mention of android?--85.76.171.31 (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

what is there to mention? Unicode text input mostly isn't specific to Wikipedia, it should be on Wikiversity or similar. --Ysangkok (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

As the last unhelpful detailed response is now 10 years old, it's time for a more helpful specific response. Android use is now much more common, especially on mobile phones, which can often be the only way (although tablets also) used to access WP as well as other systems. Probably iPhones too, but not specifically my problem. 14.202.240.20 (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

formating question

I need to write a caret notation in italic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8422:1191:6E00:56E6:FCFF:FEDB:2BBA (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Italicisation of Arabic script

OK, this is probably the wrong place to ask, but I couldn't find anywhere that seemed better. There seems to be problem with the italicisation of Arabic script in en-wiki. In ar-wiki, italics are used, as here, for book titles. There, the upper part of an italic character slopes forwards, just as in Roman script. Arabic is written from right to left, so the characters point towards, say, 11 o'clock, just as Roman italics point towards 1 o'clock or so. But in this wiki, Arabic italics have the same slope as Roman, and thus lean backwards in relation to the direction of writing or reading. Is this a browser problem, or something at a more fundamental level? As an example, the references here are apparently copied from those here, but display differently (to me). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You might be better of posting to the Technical Village Pump, i.e. WP:VPT. It sounds like something more fundamental, which may or may not be easily fixable. Otherwise it might need a style guideline not to use italics, such as exists for Chinese, as Chinese doesn't look right when italicised.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

UTF-16 implied not "Unicode-safe"

"If the console character set is UTF-8 then these browsers are Unicode safe but if it isn't they aren't.". I don't even think the section on text browsers is relevant, is anyone even using text browsers on non-Unicode terminals anymore? I don't think it's worth mentioning. --Ysangkok (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Confusing and unhelpful

'Default character encoding' box? Oh, Unicode where art thou?

... nobody here but us boxes

The section "Displaying special characters" does not help me get the characters in Alchemical symbol to display in Firefox 31.0. All I see are rectangular boxes with hexadecimal codes inside. Furthermore, the Opera browser version 12.17 only displays blank rectangular boxes. More is needed to get these special characters to display for ordinary readers, maybe a single browser extension or a straightforward single-click script? This help page raises more questions: Exactly what steps must the user follow? Will any one of the fonts listed after "Please download and install one of these freely licensed fonts" suffice for all wikipedia pages?

Also, the instructions are confused as to their target audience: one paragraph appears aimed at the reader while the next is clearly addressing the editor. These paragraphs need to be in clearly seperate sections.

One specific problem (for now) is the instructions do not match what Firefox 31.0 presents, see the thumbnail on the right.

Other problems could be fixed with copy editing by someone who knows the correct procedure, for example, what precisely does "after the previously mentioned steps were followed," refer to? I could go on, but I hope any reader will get my point. -84user (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC) (added what I and Foxit see -84user (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC))

Says it all. Nothing appears to have improved over the years. 14.202.240.20 (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

What to do to use a special character

I have need to use a combining acute accent and a combining dieresis (two superscript dots, in Spanish used over theu), in the article tilde. In this help page I cannot find how to do it or even where to go to to find out how to do it. The page on "Inserting Special Characters" does not help. There are lots of interesting characters in the Insert menus at the bottom of my edit screens on WP, but not those. I am using the Safari browser on IOS 9.1. I imagine I have to type in something like { {Unicode|some hex number}}, but I don't know what. deisenbe (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes, if I don't want to look up the hex code, I'll use HTML entities, like &aacute; or &Uuml; which render as á or Ü (First, an ampersand, then a vowel or sometimes another letter, in upper or lower case, followed by the combining accent name [dieresis is called "uml" in these], ending with a semicolon.) Someone eventually comes along and converts it to the proper character. —PC-XT+ 05:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Is CSS class "Unicode" still supported?

It seems that there is no longer a CSS class "Unicode" supplied in Wikipedia CSS files. It is mentioned in section Displaying special characters. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Problem displaying Old Hungarian script on mobile

I am using version 78.0.3904.108 of the Chrome mobile app on a Samsung phone running Android version 9. The app displays the Unicode characters for the Old Hungarian script on its page as those improper-display boxes. I cannot find a section on Android in this help article, and I see no option for fonts in the Chrome settings in the app.146.7.4.77 (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Dead links

List of Ancient fonts for Windows users contains mostly dead links. Is there any help to be had in this regard? 109.174.113.221 (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)