Talk:⺁

@2600:1:B149:DAA8:1D70:B789:3188:8091: Personally I feel that they should be treated differently in accordance with Unicode's decision to disunify them from "CJK Unified Ideographs" and strip them of use as "normal" characters, instead treating them as pure symbols. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: Well, but can ordinary people (those who don't know much about Unicode) tell the difference between U+2EA1 ⺡ and U+6C35 氵? That's the important question. --2600:1:B149:DAA8:1D70:B789:3188:8091 02:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Certainly not, but the same can be said for other symbols such as x and × (and ✕, ✖? but these are redirected).

There's also the question of how to handle oddities like ⺀ that have no "Unified Ideographs" equivalent. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

At least other characters (such as x and ×) have somewhat different visual appearances and sometimes belong to different scripts. But CJK Radicals and their equivalent CJK Unified Ideographs have the same visual appearances and belong to the same script. It does not really make sense to have a "symbol ⺡" and "real Han script 氵" (especially to ordinary people).

The ones with no unified ideographs equivalent should be left as-is. --2600:1:B149:DAA8:1D70:B789:3188:8091 03:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Leaving alone the ones without equivalents feels inconsistent, and I still personally think that they shouldn't be merged due to the conceptual difference, but if you want to take responsibility, I don't really mind. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)