Talk:Symbols for Legacy Computing Supplement
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Notability and primary sources
[edit ]An article should show that it is about a notable subject by having multiple reliable independent sources discussing the topic at length, providing background or critical commentary: one source (a developers blog) just announcing that they include support for this Unicode block is not sufficient at all. And as everything but one short line is based on the primary sources, the tag stating that this article relies excessively on primary sources is also completely appropriate, and shouldn't be removed without actually adressing the issue. Fram (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
Aquarius, Aquaaaarious!
[edit ]To challenge the notability of articles on Unicode blocks is to demonstrate one's ignorance of Unicode, and of how and why each Unicode block has a story to tell. You don't get to be (in) a Unicode block unless you're literally significantly notable. W/r/t this block, much of that story is evident in the PDFs herein, as recorded by the Unicode Consortium, who are major gatekeepers and demand that every Unicode block, nay character justify itself.
Furthermore, those currently challenging this article's notability —besides being clueless about Unicode— are very probably ignorant of the Aquarius connection. This article supplements the Mattel Aquarius article really well, and demonstrates just how much stock is still put (or, only now put) in the legacy of but the least of the early home micros.
Can you tell that it bugs me when people blithely yet aggressively push for deletion of things they simply don't understand? I think there's a word for the ignorant destruction of cultural content. Just what was it? Randal? Any ideas? —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]