This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography 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.
Hi folks. Some articles contains table grids of Unicode glyphs. Each grid row contains information on several Unicode code points. Each grid cell contains several sub-elements for a particular code point. See, for example, [Letterlike Symbols]. I find this layout extremely confusing and hard to use. I would like to change it to a more linear table, with one code point per row. Something roughly like the table in Miscellaneous Symbols. Comments? Objections? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
[Note on contesting a technical move:] Arguably imprecise, and unhelpful to readers generally. Discussion needed. NoeticaTea? 05:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment. There is no requirement that the title be descriptive, only that it be correct. While there are many miscellaneous technical things, there is only one that we are likely to have an article on, and it is the proper noun, Miscellaneous Technical. The purpose of the article is to explain what that is, not the title. Apteva (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Note: Our spelling of Unicode block names was discussed into consensus here, though no check on disambiguation was performed. -DePiep (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Move, per nom, indeed no disambiguation needed. Not even a close similarly spelled title found that could be confusing. Of course the current name (with dab-tag) will remain as a redirect. re Noetica: it is very precise since it is the Unicode name associated with the Unicode definition. Yes the title in itself may say little, but title clarification is a job for the lead , not for the title itself. -DePiep (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. If titles for Unicode blocks have been considered before, they were not considered helpfully or conclusively. Look at the wild inconsistencies at Category:Unicode blocks. A complete mess. I stand against this move to a confusing alternative, and I strongly recommend that the whole category be discussed systematically. Get it right: in one centralised discussion, once and for all. ♥ NoeticaTea? 00:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Question. Unicode block articles are named after their Unicode block name. What is confusing? Mind you that the proposal is exactly only about removing the disambiguation tag. -DePiep (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Support removal of unnecessary disambiguation. There's nothing else called "Miscellaneous Technical," so there's next to no chance of anyone searching for the term seeking anything but the Unicode block. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.