Talk:Unicode anomaly

Tag "needs expert attention"

Unicode is a deep subject, this should be followed up and a greater need for this information as a Wikipedia page should be found.ESMcL 21:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand you are User:ESMcL. I added the sectiontitle here. Could you be more specific about your tag/question? I will note your talkpage soon. -DePiep (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:PROD ?

here the PROD tag was added, with "concern = Complete unsourced OR". Which is incorrect, since the existing reference leads to this, is where the U+0818 anomaly is described (agree, it needs one more click from there). So the word "Complete" is used wrongly, and I oppose the PROD and plan to remove the tag.

Interpreting the tagging more useful & constructive, I can & will add sources. -DePiep (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for adding sources to the article! However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't WP:OR. However, I will await your input! Thank you again. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not added sources to the article after your PROD tag. There was a source already.

Please do not say "thank you" (twice?) for something I did not do. Might be a US-habit, but surely not my wiki-en (English language) habit.

You could have put another tag, couldn't you?

-DePiep (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Reason for a seperate article?

I have added the Noteability template to the article because I fail to see how it is at all noteworthy or deserving of a seperate article.

This article looks like it is just a report of some minor errors or anomilies made while naming characters in the Unicode Standrd - or a user's complaint. These errata have no consequential effect on the utility of the standard. The topic certainly does not deserve a seperate Wikipedia article (or perhaps we should have individual articles on every incosequential bug in software applications as well?). AFAIK Unicode character names are just informational unique strings. Anyway if these errata do have any relevance at all, I see no reason why the contents of this article couldn't just be added as paragraph or section in the main article on Unicode?

I'd suggest either merging this article with the main article - or deleting it entirely.

Also since I cannot see how this article is related to Typography or Writing Systems I'm removing the templates on this page which lists it as within the scope of the Typography and Writing Systems projects. Unicode specifically encodes characters not glyphs and is only indirectly related to Typograpy and Unicode character names have nothing to do with typography or writing systems at all.

Chris Fynn (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I've long thought this was an unnecessary and gripy article, and would have nominated it for deletion if I thought that had any chance of succeeding. The best course of action is probably to merge with the Unicode article. BabelStone (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes totally unecessary - and IMO just the sort of article that lowers the reputantion of Wikipedia. I'm going to wait a while and see if anyone feels it is worth merging. Otherwise I think it should be put up as a candidate for deletion.

Chris Fynn (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

About the projects: Unicode has been added to WP:WikiProject Typography: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Typography/Unicode. As Projects work, that is not based on individual pages, but on their topic (i.e., Unicode). For WP:WikiProject Writing systems I invite you to do a same research. I suggest you put the templates back.

I get the impression that you could not decide between merging or deleting. While actually, they are opposites.

It is not just about "every incosequential bug". First the character name is not just "informational" (whatever that may say) - it is part of the definition. Most errata are examples where the toughness of the standard conflicts with practical issues (never change a name vs. misspelling). Unicode has a Stability policy, which is serious matter in a Standard.

The other impressions you described are, well, impressions, and so not debateable. They convey that you did not get the background (as I described a bit here). That is no problem, but it is not a base enough to conclude. -DePiep (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)