New Standard Keyboard was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 16 October 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Keyboard layout. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

To-do list for Keyboard layout: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2010-03-30 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : * Clear distinguish physical layout from logical layout. This is certainly at the basis of this article's usefulness. For starters: http://www-306.ibm.com/software/globalization/topics/keyboards/physical.jsp Would it be a good idea to create separate Wikipedia articles for each language (like "English keyboard layouts") or other small group (like there is already for "Dvorak simplified keyboard")? Then this article could be restricted to general issues and a list of links to those articles. Describe technical aspects. How various operating systems translate keys. History of keyboard layouts? When article gets too big, split lists of to separate articles?

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Writing systems B‑class Mid‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Computing B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

As it forks both this and Keyboard technology, I plan to delete the current content of Computer keyboard at the end of March and change it to a disambiguation article. Please join the discussion at talk:Computer keyboard#Deletion plan if you have any concerns or suggestions. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will give this wiki article bad note. I mean especially See also section. I am ordinary PC (Linux) user, and I would like to find out quickly through wiki site how to turn on Sounds during typing on Keyboard. I need that for languages: Hebrew, Arabic, Hindi, Chinese & Japanese. And See Also section does not help we with that!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.187.193.238 (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Imagine how long this article would have to be to include a section on enabling sounds when typing on a keyboard on Linux. Wikipedia is not meant to be a guide (WP:NOTGUIDE), you could try the Arch Linux wiki. I'm not sure Linux includes "make noise on each keystroke" functionality though Akeosnhaoe (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This laptop I'm using now says "PrtScrn", as do a couple of random keyboards around me at the moment. But the illustrations in the "IBM XT Technical Reference Manual" show the keys on the XT as labelled PrtSc - looks like Windows 104-key keyboards say PrtScrn and original 5150/5160 keyboards say PrtSc. This is probably too obscure a change to merit reverting the edits, and no-one should care this deeply about a keycap label. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What one encounters on an individual keyboard is not a good guide because either ‘PrtSc’ or ‘PrtScn’ can be encountered in roughly equal numbers. My main desktop PC actually spells it out as ‘Print Screen’. I initially restored the article to the established stable version but on reflection decided that there was no reason not to mention both alternatives.

I have not seen ‘SysRq’ on any keyboard or laptop made less than around eight years ago. -Vuehalloo (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. And here on my upstairs machine ,which came with Windows 8, the keyboard says "prt sc/ impr. écr." and "SysRq" is nowhere to be seen. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• My keyboard layout.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can’t seem to find any credible sources for the size of keyboard layouts. Even if I use .org instead of .com, it usually lists piano sizes, not computer ones. Any help? Senomo Drines (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please create new sections at the bottom of the page, not the top.

You need to explain what you mean by "the size of keyboard layout" as it is not obvious. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will try to be more specific, although maybe I am approaching this the wrong way. Senomo Drines (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed your edit and now realise that you are talking about physical (hardware) layout rather than logical (software) layout: I should have guessed that you didn't want to know how many MB is a typical mapping.

I'm afraid I had to cut your contribution, good faith though it was, because it is in the wrong article. The information you wanted is in (or should be in) Computer keyboard#Types and standards. (IMO, the info there is very thin and poorly cited, so "your mission, if you choose to accept it" [ta-da] is to develop that section with the citations you've been digging out. Don't forget that Apple keyboards are different again but need to be covered.)

BTW,we actually have three articles about keyboards: there is also an aricle about keyboard hardware, see Keyboard technology, though it more about components than about the overall keyboard. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is it called Workman? Equinox ◑ 21:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a layout designed around the year 2000 that puts 80% of the most commonly used letters on the right 50% of the keys. Also places the most commonly used 3 letter groups to be struck in a pinky to index pattern which is faster than index to pinky. It was designed by data basing 300,000 letter keystrokes from a random selection of Internet texts, and news articles. It was suggested it be altered for specific technical writing that have different frequently used words, and, letters. It included the number of times in the 300,000 key strokes the individual letters were struck in a bell graph curve showing that the data base results are an accurate reflection of actual writing usage. It also included a picture of the layout, and a list of the common 3 letter groups like the, ing, tio, and ion. Tio, and ion being parts of the common 4 letter group tion. I still have the diagrams if someone wants to fight it out to have it added to the page.2600:8807:5400:28F0:53C:D203:5DD6:97A1 (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obviously there's going to be layouts not mentioned here; there are hundreds of keyboard layouts, this article isn't notable enough to list all of them. Floenele (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most of the thumbnails have an upright 1.5, to upscale them by 50%. This seems counterproductive to me. It disrupts the layout because so much white space is generated between entries. It doesn't make the images much more legible: yes the major keys are better but keys with two – let alone four – symbols aren't usefully easy to read. Surely if anybody needs to examine a layout, the will need to see the image full size so will use click to expand.

Is there a convincing reason to retain the upscaling? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]