Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various Unicode-related pages
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep Special Romanian Unicode characters, transwiki others. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Various Unicode-related pages
[edit]The pages in question are: Table of Unicode characters, 128 to 999, Table of Unicode characters, 1000 to 1999, Table of Unicode characters, 32 to 9999, Table of Unicode precomposed characters, Unicode 1-50, Unicode 51-75, Unicode 76-100, Unicode 101-125, Unicode 126-150, Unicode 151-175, Unicode characters 0-31, Unicode characters 32-63, Unicode characters 64-95, Unicode characters 96-127, Unicode characters 160-191, Unicode characters for the Arabic alphabet, and Special Romanian Unicode characters.
I think all of these belong in Wikisource because they are not encyclopedic (and probably mostly auto-generated anyway). But at the very least, many of them should be merged together; some of them overlap. — Timwi 15:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree to move or delete, with exception of Special Romanian Unicode characters which shows the difficulty of unifying versus separating charcters. --Pjacobi 15:43, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
- Delete or Transwiki/Delete. Also, at over 400 K, Table of Unicode characters, 32 to 9999 needs to be broken into managable chunks, first. Niteowlneils 17:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly Keep and reorganize (along the lines of the officially listed ranges in the standard), unless deletion or transwiki should be a precedent for all tables of encodings. (Examples: tables appearing in article ASCII, Code page 437, members of Category:Character sets, etc.) Presumably Unicode tables are broken up because: (1) They are officially broken into ranges by the standard and (2) combining them into one page, especially including them all in the Unicode page, makes the page too large. I don't think Unicode is any less notable than, say, ASCII -- so are the encodings unencylopedic because of their number? How does it compare with pages like Table of divisors or Scottish Football League Tables, 1893-94? Note: There are other related pages that don't have Unicode in the title, like Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics character table. --Tabor 18:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- For purpose of reorganizing, one suggestion would be list of character blocks in Unicode 4.0 [1] --Tabor 18:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think all character set tables should be moved to Wikisource (why is that a problem? We can link there from here). Yes, I also think Table of divisors should be moved to Wikisource. And I would have listed Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics character table too if it had had a Category:Unicode tag in it. — Timwi 20:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like Wikisource material to me. Radiant_* 20:29, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Please folks, before casting a summary vote:
- Read Special Romanian Unicode characters. This is a genuine article about a special character encoding problem, with a tiny table.
- I don't agree to mass execution of charset articles. In typical charset articles, there is a 128 entry table summarizing the charset which seems valid article content. Anyway, that would require separate VfDs or a policy discusson.
- The other articles Timwis listed are indeed a stillborn attempt, strange selection of character ranges, etc.
- Pjacobi 20:41, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
- Please folks, before casting a summary vote:
- Keep Special Romanian Unicode characters; it's not autogenerated. --Prosfilaes 22:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Should the similar articles in Chinese, Japanese, French and Norwegian Wikipedia be moved to Wikisource? (I am the one who created Table of Unicode precomposed characters and zh:Unicode编码表/0000-0FFF etc, and I do not oppose the move of such articles to Wikisource. Nevertheless please copy/move/transfer those articles to Wikisource as well, if such decision is made. --Hello World! 14:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Special Romanian Unicode characters, transwiki the rest. Perhaps a case for Wikidata in the long run? -- The Anome 14:24, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Special Romanian Unicode characters. For the others, transwiki to Wikisource or keep. However, delete redundant tables. Eric119 23:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Extreme keep. I just wonder on what basis User:Pjacobi, User:The Anome voted to keep only one and transwiki the rest!! Because of the difficulty of unifying versus separating charcters?! If it's the case, than the same applies to many others. Cheers and respect -- Svest 01:19, May 29, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
- Unicode characters 160-191 etc. are only subsets of the offical Unicode code charts, no article prose was written, and it may be hard, but not impossible to make this into an article. OTOH Special Romanian Unicode characters already is a (short) article. And ISO 8859-10, KOI8-U, or Kamenicky encoding -- to name a few -- are also articles, and I'd consider it a needless exercise in purity to force removing their charset tables. --Pjacobi 15:42, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
- This is what I talked about. The same applies to many others. One is Unicode characters for the Arabic alphabet! Could you please recheck if it's prose or no prose? It's not about being short, prose or whatever, it's about their usage. I use that almost daily and I would not like to look for it somewhere else, just like you do. Cheers -- Svest 21:16, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Uh, yes, Unicode characters for the Arabic alphabet has potential, too, but in its current state, almost all important information is missing, let alone the difficult points. And the table formatting is abyssimal. Keep that one, too. --Pjacobi 12:19, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
- This is what I talked about. The same applies to many others. One is Unicode characters for the Arabic alphabet! Could you please recheck if it's prose or no prose? It's not about being short, prose or whatever, it's about their usage. I use that almost daily and I would not like to look for it somewhere else, just like you do. Cheers -- Svest 21:16, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Unicode characters 160-191 etc. are only subsets of the offical Unicode code charts, no article prose was written, and it may be hard, but not impossible to make this into an article. OTOH Special Romanian Unicode characters already is a (short) article. And ISO 8859-10, KOI8-U, or Kamenicky encoding -- to name a few -- are also articles, and I'd consider it a needless exercise in purity to force removing their charset tables. --Pjacobi 15:42, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
- Keep all, useful to have in encyclopedia. Grue 14:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep useful pages. JamesBurns 11:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- At least some of the articles should be merged or re-organized. For example, there are overlappings between Table of Unicode characters, 128 to 999 and Unicode 126-150, Unicode 151-175 etc, just name a few.--Hello World! 03:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.