Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various Unicode-related pages

Various Unicode-related pages

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. R adiant _* 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)

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}