Talk:CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C

Computing Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Typography Low‑importance

	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.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Writing systems Low‑importance

	Writing portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arrangement of all of these pages

Right now, we have the following situation:

{{CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C}} has a lot of information in a tabular format.
List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension C has nothing except a transclusion of {{CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C}}
CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C has a transclusion of that template, plus a few other things.

What's in the right place, and what still needs to be moved? Remember that the protection is solely to prevent edit conflicts, because it's obvious that we're all trying to work together. Once we agree that things are where they belong, I will remove protection immediately; if I'm offline by then, just file an {{editprotected}} (with reference to this comment I'm making right now) asking for unprotection. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so obviously we have WAY too many locations for this content, so nobody knows where the content is, or should go. I've identified 5 places with essentially the same content: two articles, and three templates

So which do we want to keep, and which should get axed?

My vote: Keep this article, and have one template at {{Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C}}, like all other Unicode blocks that can transclude the whole block in one chart template. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 01:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can dispense with List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension C (preferably by redirecting it somewhere), since it's always been purely a transclusion of a template. Template:2A700-2B73F appears to be just a redirect with trivial history; let's just leave it as is or change its target. {{Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C}} was never substantial; it started by simply transcluding the other template and then becoming a redirect. We can keep it as a redirect somewhere. That leaves this article and {{CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C}} to worry about. Is there a problem if we keep them around? Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without pointing any fingers (yet), I must say that this is a complete nightmare. The pages "List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension D" and "Template:CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C" should never have existed. If anything, they should just be bad redirects to "CJK Unified Ideographs Extension D" and "Template:Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C", respectively—although the former redirect would likely end up being deleted anyway, as it is, for the most part, pointless; it does not follow the expected format for redirects to Unicode chart templates. This should be resolved as quickly and as cleanly as possible. — |J ~Pæst| 02:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To give you a little bit of history, this is actually a result of Extension B and the original CJK Unified Ideographs being too large to put in a template. So they split them up into parts and made a "List of" article, instead of a template, for each of the parts of the block. The problem came when someone decided that all the CJK charts should be treated the same way, so the Unicode chart templates all got moved to "List of" articles, with the template left as a redirect. Well, in the mean time, the templates were still getting transcluded, which is how we ended up with the mess where main space articles actually contained template content, and trying to fix the mess ends up breaking everything. Yes, we have the same problem at Extension A and D, and maybe even at some of the compatibility blocks as well, but let's figure this one out first. The problem with redirecting from CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C to the template namespace is that we do actually have article content – both actual and theoretical – in addition to the block list. I do, however, agree that the "List of" articles should only exist where the block has to be broken up, ie for CJK Unified Ideographs and CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B. That content is already in the Unicode block articles and can just be redirected, but we want to keep them for CJK Ideographs and Extension B because that content won't otherwise be present in article space. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 03:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be a redirect. →

Attribution histories

I can't see any admin actions other than my own protection of several pages; you need admin rights to rearrange page histories, so I don't think we have problems there. Really the only other way to cause attribution issues is copy/paste moving, and I see no evidence that any of them have been copy/paste moved. Consequently, I don't believe that we have any attribution problems. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected all three pages — the lack of discussion here right now makes me think that people aren't thinking a ton about this situation at the moment, so we're not going to have the edit conflicts that I was trying to prevent. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for helping sort this out. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 03:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Unicode block which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]