Talk:List of Unicode characters/Archive 1

AfD # 1

Proposed for deletion 16 April 2007, result keep 28 April 2007

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC) List of Unicode characters List of Unicode characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) If this list would be complete, it would be well over 1 MB large, besides, there's another such list on Wikibooks. Prince Kassad 20:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Keep It is incomplete, but we could possibly transwiki the list from Wikibooks to here. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 18:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC) keep or move to Wikipedia space 132.205.44.134 00:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC) delete it is too incomplete to be useful, See the Unicode article for a list of better tables. DGG 07:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC) We could always copy the list from Wikibooks. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 19:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Delete - serves no useful purpose given that all this information is easily accessible from the character map. In an incomplete form it's pointless, and in a complete form it will be unmanageably long. A goodly chunk of the characters won't even display correctly on most people's computers, anyway. If it must be kept, keep it as a character map style grid, rather than this sprawling laundry list - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Keep - This is an ISO standard. See other members of Category:ISO standards or even List of ISO standards. See also Unicode - jc37 13:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Keep - this article is clearly useful and the space on wikipedia doesn't seem to be a problem (note how many pages of history there are for some articles). Dean Sayers 19:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Keep - While this could have been Speedy'd at the beginning (as it was obviously work in progress), I think it is 'full enough' to stay. Of course, the other options are: Move to Userspace Keep article, but split it up, i.e. List of Unicode characters 0000-0999 List of Unicode characters 1000-1999 etc etc (this helps with the space problem). Personally I'd sooner split it up but only as a secondary option to keeping. --NigelJ talk SIMPLE 20:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Keep but split as NigelJ suggests. The entire Unicode code space is clearly too large to fit into a single article. -- BPMullins | Talk 21:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Keep but limit to the standardized subsets. — RJH (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Agreed, with the possibility of spliting. Not sure how large this format would make the list. Then again, we could REALLY go nuts, and in the process rename to Table of Unicode characters --NigelJ talk SIMPLE 08:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Keep as no convincing arguments have been presented for the deletion of this list; encyclopedias can and do provide tables of this sort, and there is no reason that an electronic encyclopedia, not bound by the limits of paper, cannot do the same. Burntsauce 17:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

At the time this AfD was closed, the article was 28,109 bytes. With recent substitutions to keep within template limits, it's now up to 244,876 bytes. The 28 April 2007 article had six sections:

1. Basic Latin
2. Latin-1
3. Latin Extended-A
4. Block elements
5. Geometric shapes
6. Miscellaneous symbols

and no sections for non-Latin characters. The current article has 138 sections.

• "Keep article, but split it up, i.e. List of Unicode characters 0000-0999 List of Unicode characters 1000-1999 etc etc"
  • See Wikibooks:Unicode/Character reference/0000-0FFF and Wikibooks:Unicode/Character reference/1000-1FFF. These are organized by and linked to from Template:Planes (Unicode). The number ranges are in hexadecimal.
• "Keep but limit to the standardized subsets."
  • This is an interesting possibility, which I will explore further. – Wbm1058 (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics character table into this article

The mentioned article lists one block, this article lists all blocks (or at least it will once I complete it) - logically, the one-block article should be merged into the all-blocks one. -- Prince Kassad 17:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree seems illogical otherwise --NigelJ ^{talk SIMPLE} 11:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Still sounds good...go ahead and do it if you're still around. -Elmer Clark 09:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I did this. Rmsuperstar99 (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics (Unicode block) is not part of the Unicode § Standardized subsets. This edit perhaps expanded the (poorly defined) scope of the article, but perhaps other non-standardized subsets had already been added. – Wbm1058 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

redirect

this should just redirect to Mapping of Unicode characters. The idea of providing a full list in a single page is obviously going nowhere, and that article already does a good overview of the individual codepoint blocks. dab (𒁳) 19:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I stated this in the AfD, but the article was still kept, so I just tried to complete it until someone would notice that this is pointless. This 'someone' is you. -- Prince Kassad 11:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This is actually a great page for me. I used it to see if I had every font installed... which I don't. Question below 74.129.182.66 02:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because this is helpful for a few people doesn't mean it really does much for the majority; how many people does this article really help? Probably less than the amount of things listed hereAzureAzul 01:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I use this to find and use obscure unicode characters on my laptop; there's no keypad so I can't enter them directly. I'm sure there's a more technical solution, but copying and pasting from this article is convenient and helpful. 24.2.51.248 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Mapping of Unicode characters redirects to Universal Character Set characters. See what else redirects to "Universal Character Set characters". And here is the former Mapping of Unicode characters article, from before it was merged to Universal Character Set characters. I wonder if the fact that article isn't titled Unicode characters misleads or confuses anyone? The latter seems to be the more common name.
• Proposing a merge which one feels "is pointless" in order to make a point doesn't seem to me the most constructive thing to do.
• Why would you want to install "every font", including those that support a dozen languages you don't know how to read?
• It would be nice to know whether all of the "obscure unicode characters" you want to find are part of the standardized subsets. – Wbm1058 (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

why can't i see all the letters

title.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.104.51 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 2 June 2007

You need certain fonts to see all the letters. Of course it would help to know what kind of leters you don't see, because there's no all-in-one solution. -- Prince Kassad 05:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I heard that Internet Explorer totally messes up non-latin letters. Don't know if it's true, but if you use IE, why don't you see if switching to Mozilla Firefox or Netscape Navigator solves your problem?--Puchiko 20:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Windows (all versions) suck and don't support Unicode, and even in Linux you need a font to show all characters.SSPecter ^☎|✉ ♠ _{01:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)}.

Windows Glyph List 4 supports 652 Unicode characters, so Windows does support a subset of Unicode. 652 characters is a lot more than the 128 that older computers supported with ASCII. WGL-4 is one of the standardized subsets. I'm not sure there's much call for Windows to support something like the Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics, though those characters do display on my Windows 7 machine, so I must have something installed that supports them. Anyone have an idea what that might be? Random Aborignal Syllabics: ᑔ ᓻ ᕔ ᓏ I can't see any Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics Extended though. – Wbm1058 (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

20

Isn't 20 the code for the whitespace? Albmont 13:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It is, but you can't see spaces so that's why I didn't include them (along with diacritics which only show up with a character to combine with). -- Prince Kassad 16:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Combining Diacritical Marks, Combining Diacritical Marks Supplement and Combining Diacritical Marks for Symbols are all part of this page now! It might be helpful to merge those three related pages. – Wbm1058 (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What fonts do I need to display the following:

(If you just edit this with the font name where [font] is that would be great)
U+0234 thru U+024F = [font]
U+02AE and U+02AF = [font]
U+02EA thru U+02FE = [font]
U+037B thru U+037D = [font]
U+03F7 thru U+03FF = [font]
U+04FA thru U+04FF = [font]
U+0510 thru U+0523 = [font]
All of N'ko = [font]
U+2672 thru U+26B2 = [font]
U+2768 thru U+2775 = [font]
All of Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-A = [font]
Supplemental Arrows-A = [font]
and Latin Extended-C = [font]

I'm currently using Lucidia Sans Unicode as my default unicode font but the characters I've listed aren't available. Thanks 74.129.182.66 03:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I added footnotes with links to the fonts you're needing. Additionally, note that all characters which have <reserved> as the description don't need to show up, this is just an indication that these will be added in future versions of Unicode. -- Prince Kassad 17:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow thanks! That helped a LOT! 74.129.182.66 02:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Zodiac Stuff and Tiny Glyphs

Which font is best for viewing the zodiac characters? I don't know if there's a way to tell which font my browser is currently using to display them but it's got them all wrong. The Sagittarius symbol is being displayed as a bow and arrow instead of an arrow and the Pisces symbol is being displayed as two (American) footballs with eyes. Also the Wheel of Dharma and the little frowny face right after it are being displayed WAY too small (along with a few others symbols.) qlɘH RedAugust 19:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You probably refer to the Miscellaneous Symbols group. I use the Unicode Symbols font for most of the symbol blocks, it has some errors but otherwise it works fine.

Your browser, if it's not Internet Explorer, will usually try to use the font which covers the block the most. Because Unicode Symbols includes characters which will be included in the next version of Unicode, it's almost always the first choice for browsers. If that is not the case for you, and the characters still display wrong, it may be best to remove the offending font, unless it's required for other Unicode blocks for which no replacement font exists. -- Prince Kassad 21:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

How am I to tell which font is the offending one? RedAugust 06:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You can use an appropriate character map such as BabelMap. Look which fonts cover the miscellaneous symbols range, then compare the glyphs and you may find the right one. If that doesn't work, trial and error is the only option (again, look which fonts actually cover the range so you don't remove unrelated fonts). -- Prince Kassad 13:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As it turns out the Chinese fonts (MS Mincho namely) covered more of that block than Arial Unicode so it was using one of them to display it. Since I can't get rid of those fonts I added Unicode Symbols which covers 100% (I think) of that block and now FireFox uses that font to display it. I just wish that font wasn't so small by default.RedAugust 04:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that the Windows Character Map application shows me all the fonts I have installed (with a drop-down menu) and a table of all the characters which each font displays. BabelMap looks helpful too. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Fonts supplied with Windows 7

Aha. I see from here that Euphemia (typeface) supports Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics. – Wbm1058 (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Windows 7 typefaces and Category:Microsoft typefaces are underpopulated, but at least Template:Microsoft Windows typefaces includes Euphemia. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Urgent need to split page

This page causes many browsers to freeze or crash, due in part to the extra fonts, but also due to the sheer length of the page, particularly on low-memory systems. I propose that each "section" of the page be moved to a subpage - eg. move the latin characters to "List of unicode Characters/latin"

Do not complete the proposed merges until that is done. It's already the longest page on the whole of wikipedia, and we're making an encyclopaedia, not trying to set records! 87.127.98.185 18:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the pages has been denied per AfD to one of the former subpages, so this is not going to be done. -- Prince Kassad 18:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sweet mother of god, what special form of insanity was necessary to create a single page this massive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.67.210 (talk) 04:11, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the need to split the page in either sections, or set a maximum number per page and put the rest on following pages, similar to how categories work. The list is nice and all, and while I can see every symbol, even on a decent computer the loading time and the lag do not contribute to the article, less making this encyclopedic (since it's only a list afterall). There's nothing preventing the current article from being put up for deletion, and it can be argued that the goal of wikipedia is to reach out to as many people as possible, not only people with the best computers, fonts, and internet connections. - Io Katai 00:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This article must be split. It creashed both browsers (opera and IE). It's no better than spyware as it fucks up your computer. Someone just split it - forget the long pointless discussion just do it! 213.230.155.24 23:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Great attitude pal. That's not exactly the Wikipedia way. -Elmer Clark 09:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Have a "Flip Page" or "Turn Page" at the bottom of the split sections. :3 Lovok 00:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sweet lord this page is amazingly huge. And you want to EXPAND it? Powrypop 13:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The AfD decision I mentioned earlier is preventing me from finishing this list so I'm not actively contributing to it anymore. But the German version of this list is nice, it's much more complete, split up, and contains the english descriptions. We could possibly take some ideas from there. -- Prince Kassad 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This page doesn't just cause problems for old browsers or slow computers; it froze my browser for about a minute, and I use the latest version of Firefox on a computer with a gigabyte of RAM. Someone really should find a way to shorten this. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a vote from me NOT to split the page as it's much easier to scan and search a single page than start navigating to different pages. The anchor hyperlinks at the top serve their job to categorize the page into multiple subsections. I tried four browsers (Firefox, IE, Opera, Chrome), and it took 25 seconds maximum to display the page on my apx. 5 year old laptop. --Skytopia (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What a difference 5 years makes. Where once a gigabyte of RAM was a lot, it's kind of under-powered for running today's Internet. Technical limits aren't what they used to be, but we still need to stay outside of Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded.

Looking at the interlanguage links, I see three other versions. The Chinese version (zh:Unicode字符列表) and the Japanese version (ja:Unicode一覧) look similar to ours in layout but are distinctly different in content. Imagine that we would really blow the page up if we included those characters! While the German version (de:Liste der Unicodeblöcke) looks like—and interwikis to—our Unicode block article. List of Unicode characters, since the sections were all collapsed, is looking more like Unicode block too. The difference being while Unicode block wikilinks to a different page, List of Unicode characters just has a [show] this section button rather than a page-link. – Wbm1058 (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

AfD # 2

Proposed for deletion 22 September 2007, result keep 27 September 2007

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC) List of Unicode characters AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/List of Unicode characters Articles for deletion/List of Unicode characters (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/List of Unicode characters (3rd nomination) List of Unicode characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A data dump with no context, that serves no purpose not better served by actually going to look at the unicode standard, is not useful. —Random832 21:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC) delete, per what I just said above. —Random832 21:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Delete Agree that it's presented in a better format elsewhere, and with a higher degree of reliability (who would possibly check these are accurate?). Since raw data like this is not encyclopedic, and not as useful as the official sources, it belongs here to the same extent a phone directory would. Thomjakobsen 22:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Strong Keep Unicode characters make me horny Xizer 22:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Comment, Keep Encyclopedia's exist to find knowledge right? So what if someone who did not know what this was, copy and pasted one of the symbols like "§" into the search, they would then learn all about unicode characters and how to write them. Or if someone wanted to edit wiki and needed to know how to write a "|" then this is where they would go. I don't know if this article belongs or not, but it seems like useful knowledge that would be a shame to delete. Viperix 22:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC) If they copy-pasted § into the search, they would arrive at section sign, which is far more useful than this one in finding out what “§” is. And, this article says nothing about how to write a “|”, nor is it in a form that would make it reasonable to add that information. —Random832 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC) I think you missed my point, if they type any of these characters in it should bring them to this list. Because it helps them to learn "hey I can type all this stuff by typing in this combination of numbers" and the learning process continues from there. Also it does teach how to write the "|" "U+007C | Vertical Line" under Basic Latin. Viperix 06:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC) if they type any of these characters in it should bring them to this list would be a BAD idea. We have actual articles about many characters. And, this list does not give any way of typing in the characters, it doesn't discuss HTML entities, alt codes, gnome "ctrl-shift" entry, etc, and none of that would be useful at all anyway for | because, well, it's _on the keyboard_. Its on the keyboard? I don't think its on mine..... If it is let me know where, should save me time lol. Anyway I still think you miss my point, if it teaches how to use it or not is irrelevant really. This list passes WP:SAL, is useful for identifying these charictars, and to answer a question below, while researching things on WP, people don't necessarily want to go to a bunch of other cites, thats why they come here. And I don't think it exists elsewhere on the internet is a valid reason for deletion, If it was, WP would be nothing but links with no information at all. Viperix 22:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Keep I am against list-cruft, but this is not cruft. Wikipedia is not paper, and this information is extremely useful and cannot be stored as a category. This is an internationally accepted standard(ISO) the has gained enormous acceptance, none of Wikipedia's sister projects are better suited for it. This is a classic case of when a list is a good idea. The article can be made more encyclopedic by adding short one or two sentence explanations next to notable characters, and links to articles if they exist. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC) If none of Wikipedia's sister projects are better suited for it, Why does one of them have it? and mostly in a more useful form, too. (no, it doesn't have the list of character names, but it could reasonably be added.) —Random832 13:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Keep This is good reference information and while one might be able to find the same information in different places on the web, if one is looking for the info in wikipedia, it's nice to have it in a familiar format. Capmango 23:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC) But it's unencyclopedic. Why would someone be looking for this info in wikipedia and not be happy with an external link at the bottom of Unicode? —Random832 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Delete. Just a data dump of information already provided on other websites.-Wafulz 23:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Keep whether information is on other websites or not is irrelevant to whether it should be on wikipedia. We're a encyclopedia, not a mere guide to the web or a supplement to the web. And what makes something encyclopedic? that's just saying it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. But why? All encyclopedias have always had tables of information of this sort. DGG (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Keep. This list cannot be said to have no context or to be indiscriminate. I find it useful and informative, and I'm sure others do as well. —Nricardo 01:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC) It provides no context. It's a list of characters and names. It does not explain the history of the characters, etc, and it is not in a form in which it would be reasonable to add that information. —Random832 13:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Keep. This article lists the characters of mankind's most widely used character encoding system. This is just as important as English alphabet, in my opinion. Try to remember that Wikipedia is more than just a traditional encyclopedia. --- RockMFR 07:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Keep Serves a useful purpose; no real need to delete. -Elmer Clark 09:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL. Except, it's NOT. It's, in fact, _less_ useful than a single external link to unicode.org. —Random832 13:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Keep. It's just as important as the ASCII set. --Ancheta Wis 11:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Keep but split into separate articles - it's too big and will cause problems for many people that look at it. violet/riga (t) 13:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC) I agree a split makes sense. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Keep — This is exactly the type of notable information that I'd use as a reference. — RJH (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia is not for raw information for use as a reference. Wikisource is over there —Random832 13:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Keep - Deleting it would only make Wikipedia less useful as an encyclopedia. Tim Q. Wells 18:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC) delete- This is not the right forum for this, love page of some sort methinks.JJJ999 22:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Keep - it's actually quite useful and is (mildly) encyclopedic. I've referred to it myself here in the past - Alison ❤ 01:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Keep somewhere. I'm not completely sure that Wikipedia is the best permanent place for this reference but I'm not sure that any of our sister projects are any better. I just found the page while attempting to research a question about domain-name spoofing (exploiting the similarity between the Cyrillic "Ye" and the Roman "E"). This page quickly answered my question when none of the other pages I'd found could. Note: If it is removed in favor of one of our sister projects, the page should be overwritten with a soft-redirect to that sister project-page. Deleting all traces of this page would be very unhelpful to our readers. Note 2: Splitting the page would, in my opinion, make the page much less helpful. Perhaps the goal could be met through reformatting on the same page? Rossami (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Keep This is a reference content..wp->reference. fixed :).--Alnokta 21:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Keep. This reference material fulfills the criteria suggested by Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia (note: this is an essay). Burntsauce 22:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Keep - this looks like a nomination for the sake of nominating something. You do realise an encyclopedia is supposed to be a comprehensive reference work, right? - David Gerard 11:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Delete or soft redirect to Wikibooks which has a much more efficient reference. Cary Bass demandez 13:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Keep and perhaps fix up the formatting, but keep it because it is useful knowledge. We're not limited by shelf space here. The more info, the better. -Slipgrid 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikibook

This article should be moved to Wikibooks:Unicode/Character reference. --Voidvector 20:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The template in the next section is Wikipedia's index to that Wikibook. We shouldn't reinvent that wheel here, but rather have a list with distinctly different format and scope. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Why?

UnicodeData.txt provides all this information in a useful and complete format, as does a character map program. Wikipedia is NOT a directory or a repository of source data. Who uses this page? Why do we have it? --Taejo|대조 21:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference." I agree that the page should be split though. Alexandermiller 22:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The page also includes links to the articles on the characters (when they exist). I've found this list to be useful a number of times in the past. --Gmaxwell 01:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This page concerns me

As mentioned in Why, this page contains a bunch of information that is more accurately found in the standard. It is woefully incomplete and at severe risk of errors as proofreading it is a huge task. What purpose does this page serve? If it has a purpose, maybe that should be mentioned? A pointer to the current unicode version source should definitely be on top, lest someone consider this page authoritative.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80e8:ed31::2 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 8 September 2014

Page view stats show this page has been viewed over 35,000 times in the last 30 days, so it seems that a lot of readers are finding it useful, unless they're all landing there unintentionally. UnicodeData.txt is a nice repository of source data in machine-readable format. Perhaps a script can be written that translates that data into a more human-friendly format. Links to detailed articles about specific characters are a big plus, in my opinion. I don't think this page should try to be complete; technical limits make that currently impossible. The scope that's covered here needs to be defined. Links to other, supplemental and more detailed references should definitely be included for readers who need or want to go beyond the scope that we settle on using here. I regret that, due to technical limits, I removed Template:Planes (Unicode) from the bottom of the page, and that should be restored, once there's room for it. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for shortening the article

STOP PROPOSING MERGERS INTO THE ARTICLE! 70.185.211.46 22:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose that we merge this article with every other article on Wikipedia.

The ULTIMATE article! Yes! 24.154.68.194 02:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not an article...that's an OMNI-cle!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.251.157 (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am against merging this article or shortening it. It is a comprehensive list of all unicode characters. Why leave any out? This isn't a typical article with proper paragraphs and such, it is a long list of single characters. I think people can handle it. There is no need to shorten it. --Elysianfields (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

How about the fact that it crashed my browser when I tried to open it? Though I do only have 2.5 GB of memory and 400-odd megabytes of swap space (Safari, OS X 10.6.5). <sarcasm> At least provide a warning page that says the main page of 600 KB.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.142.188 (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a permalink to the revision of 2 March 2011 which apparently crashed your browser. It's 121,859 bytes, and has 69 sections. Post-expand include size was just 1,220,156/2,097,152 bytes, so it had some room to grow in that regard. CPU time usage in preview: 3.757 seconds. Statistics for the current version: 244,876 bytes, 138 sections, post-expand include size 2,097,125/2,097,152 bytes (so no room to grow), CPU time usage in preview 9.829 seconds. And it's still definitely not "a comprehensive list of all unicode characters." Where's the Chinese? Where's the Japanese? You know how many Unicode characters those languages have? Wbm1058 (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see: Kangxi radical. That's just one set of 214 Chinese characters. We have them in section 87 of the current revision. This article just transcludes {{Unicode chart Kangxi Radicals}}, which is towards the bottom of the more complete Kangxi radical article. Now I see that this article also has section 95 for Chinese, Japanese and Korean (CJK) Unified Ideographs, and 86 CJK Radicals Supplement, 89 CJK Symbols and Punctuation, and 95 CJK Unified Ideographs. Maybe it makes sense to split all of these to a List of CJK Unicode characters (unified) (ideographs) article. Section 95 just transcludes {{Unicode CJK Unified Ideographs}} – a collapsible box hidden inside another collapsible box! Like a Matryoshka doll! Note that the Kangxi radicals, which I originally found in section 87 (the first "CJK" "characters" I stumbled across) are also a de facto subsection of section 95! So the subsection appears in the TOC ahead of the mother section! Wbm1058 (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Mmm, I see that my idea for a List of CJK Unicode characters with all Chinese characters is running into trouble. Just the main Han language has been split into four parts: List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 1 of 4. I'll assume there was a good reason why our Chinese editors decided to do that. "Extension B" has been split into seven pieces: List of CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B (Part 1 of 7). Wbm1058 (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Solution: Factoring page into sub-articles

I like Kassad's idea to base the article structure on the German Wikipedia. I see this has already been done for the Basic Latin, Latin-1 Supplement and Latin Extended-A blocks. By continuing this effort through creation of the new article Latin Extended-B unicode block, the overall size went from 112K to 101K -- still not small enough for Wikipedia article standards, to be sure, but a start in the right direction. Objectivesea (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have cut out another 4K by creating the new article IPA Extensions unicode block. -- Objectivesea (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. Here's the diff where you did that. It's illustrative of the history of this page. The first five sections have all been "carved out", and are empty but for a hatnote to the newly carved-out sub-pages. Then that revision abruptly transitions back to the way it used to be done. The problem is that this approach destroys the entire raison d'être for this page. If you're going to do that, then you may as well simply redirect this to Unicode block, which essentially does the same thing. – Wbm1058 (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Another solution would be to use code from this page: http://www-atm.physics.ox.ac.uk/user/iwi/charmap.html Take a look, and see if that can be included here. It is GPL, and provides a useful table as well as other tools, such as pagination. swiftarrow9 03:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that idea's a nonstarter now, I got a 404 (not found) error, and they don't want us to even crawl the archive! Maybe all the hits they got from Wikipedia put a strain on their servers. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not find these sections to be constructive

Great article Guys! Wow, this is a really great article guys. I printed out the whole thing on un-recycled lemon scented paper so that I could enjoy reading it at my leisure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.237.99 (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Whoa, I did just the same. Also, I used ink which I had just squeezed from endangered squid. Simply to worship the incredible awsomeness of this incredibly useful article. 80.123.15.21 02:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC) You environment-loving hippie. I printed it on the notes pages from my Gutenberg Bible, using only the finest vial of Shakespeare's blood. Such are the means required to begin to appreciate the sheer genius and humanitarian service of this illustrious article! I shiver to think of those who dare to observe this living miracle using their "screens!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.161.164 (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Wimps! Wimps, all of you! I ran gold leafed titanium sheets through my printer and had the ink cartridges emptied, then filled with liquid silver. The whole thing is held together with diamond threaded Siberian Tiger sinew, and covered by two large Kauri wood covers. It's quite a heavy book, but it shines in all it's Unicody glory. Long live King Unicodicron! 98.203.251.157 (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC) shrug* As for me, I merely cut it into the skin of a live lion. It's important since I'll need this information later and might not have time to stop being mauled to check the webpage. 24.174.30.146 (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC) OMG! Simply one of the best articles I have ever read. After reading it through twice (it took two days), I decided I still hadn't got my Unicode fix. So, I thought, how can I keep it for reference? My printer wouldn't be able to cope. So I thought, I will tattoo it all over my body! I have the first 100 signs on my face, and the rest in other places. And yes, I did tattoo it absolutely everywhere, such is my devotion to Unicode characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.Taylor 1610 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Hey guys I updated the article. you'll have to do all that again. sorry :) 203.45.39.170 (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC) Audio recording Can we please get an audio recording of this page? Why hasn't Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia picked this up yet? ~MDD4696 01:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Dude-- YES!!!! If they refuse, let's MfD them and shut them down for discrimination! But I was wondering if you could help me before I start. You see, I was wondering how to pronounce these: ❦, ❄, and ⚱. Any help would be appreciated. Also, could someone tell me why the marriage, divorced and unmarried partnership symbols were inveted? Next time I go into the doctors will I have to circle one of these: ⚭ ⚮ or ⚯? Or maybe they'll spell out them in unicode: U+26AF. Because I don't think that any font in the world supports them. Seriously, I don't think they'd accept. - ђαίгснгм таιќ 02:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Proposed Merge of List of All Possible Future Unicode Characters into this article It is obvious that the woeful incompleteness of this list is hindering its use for serious research. Propose that this article be tagged 'incomplete' until such time as the list referred above can be fully incorporated. ...Or you could just list unicodes under the headings for the relevant alphabets and symbol sets. Seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.16.107 (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Needlessly detailed entry

List of Unicode characters is listed as number one on Cracked.com's The 8 Most Needlessly Detailed Wikipedia Entries. Please try to address the concerns listed in Cracked.com's article. -- Jreferee t/c 15:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just before this article was published on September 27, 2007, this is the revision that was live. Over half of the article space was taken up by the 29th section, on CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B. Was someone making a point? So now, as I noted above, this has been split into seven pieces. The article drew a lot of editing traffic that day. The first edit of the day removed that section, with the edit summary "remove pointless table full of "?" alone; this section is 276 kilobytes, adds nothing and crashes browsers". I'm actually seeing those characters, so these may be code-points that Windows 7 supports with one of its fonts, but that doesn't mean we should give those characters high-profile exposure on English Wikipedia. As for the Cracked article, I didn't see any actionable advice, and my only takeaway from that is: the Unicode 4.0 book is BIG. – Wbm1058 (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The list obviously needs more photos of Anna Kournikova. Dr. Cash 21:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Alternatively, propose to the Unicode people that there needs to be an Anna Kournikova symbol. 81.86.140.231 20:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC) I dare anyone to present an argument as to why some of these symbols are more important than having a picture of Anna Kournikova. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.161.164 (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Black/White vs. Solid/Hollow?

Does Unicode actually refer to the solid-filled symbols as "black" and the hollow ones as "white?" I thought it was about portability, and those designations make no sense when doing different color fonts... don't the designations "solid" and "hollow" make more sense? 64.142.9.38 15:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Unicode uses "black" and "white", because fonts are usually black & white. I agree with you that the "black" doesn't really make sense if you use markup to color the letter, but Unicode assumes a 2 color environment, where this isn't a serious problem. At least the "white" is always right, because empty space cannot be colored. -- Prince Kassad 19:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The white is no more always right than black is, it simply depends on the color of the background instead of the font. - MTC 20:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, I forgot that. The 2 color argument still holds true, though. -- Prince Kassad 20:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why has this not been moved to Wikisource? Neil ム 21:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it keeps passing AfDs. Rightly or wrongly, the last discussion (just a few weeks ago) demonstrated a clear consensus for keeping this page. This won't get deleted or moved unless a consensus arises in support of that action. Terraxos 03:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was... After this article got deleted from here (like 2-3 years ago) it was moved to wikisource, but got deleted there too. It was then moved to wikibooks and is there until now. Don't know why it is being resurrected here. Unicode table got deleted from wikisource because it currently do not allow reference data pages. To know more see it here: [| Talk:Unicode (wikisource)]SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{03:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)}.

Delete this article...again???

Very odd to see it in wikipedia again. And already being voted twice for deletion. Here is the deal: This article was deleted from here before because the whole reference is too damn big for wikipedia, and it is just a reference (not wikipedian). For the same reasons, it WILL be deleted again. The best place would be wikisource. But for some reason it was rejected and deleted there too. Currently I salvaged it in Wikibooks. Until now it wasn't deleted. Here is the link: Wikibooks:Unicode. SSPecter ^☎|✉ ♠ _{01:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)}.

How about moving it to Wikipedia:List of Unicode characters ? I'm sure it's helpful for editing. Dan Pelleg (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it is too damn big! This article is already one of the biggest in wikipedia, and don't have even a fraction of all characters! And it will continue to grow and grow. Note the many merges proposions in the article. You can't blame the people who keep proposing it: the suggested articles are also a set of Unicode characters that is not covered here. SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{05:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)}.

agree. This page is defining the list of unicode characters, it's a reference page, not a page about unicode characters. As such it does not belong on wikipedia. I don't know where it should go, but not here. perhaps it should go on a regular old website like people used to do? -- 65.116.251.178 22:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It is already in wikibooks. Why not just leaving there? (this article even link to there) SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{05:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)}.

Because this article contains the unicode names, and not just a table of characters without any sort of description. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only the names, but more importantly the link to the articles on some specific characters (and many more exist that are not yet linked. I took some time to link the latin characters a while ago but there's a lot more woek to do yet). This list is just one of many in wikipedia. If you support deleting this for not being encyclopedic then alt the other list should go too. Which I evidently disagree: lists have their value. I do support changing each section into a sub-article of this, perhaps leaving in the main article only an introduction and a brief description of the characters covered in each section/subpage. Waldir ^talk 15:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD # 3

Proposed for deletion 26 October 2007, result keep 30 October 2007

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was κЄ٤Ϸ. krimpet⟲ 00:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC) List of Unicode characters AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/List of Unicode characters Articles for deletion/List of Unicode characters (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/List of Unicode characters (3rd nomination) List of Unicode characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) I know it have been nominated twice in few months but i believe the users who previously voted don't know the full reasons why it should be deleted. I will list here: It is a reference article, and not a encyclopedian article. It give nothing about meanings, it is just a reference. It break wikipedia format The full table is too big to be maintained here (The previous deleted Unicode reference was the biggest wikipedia article ever made, as far as I know) It was already deleted from wikipedia before, mainly for the above reasons (it was also deleted from wikisource, which is why I salvaged it on wikibooks) There is already a wikibook set of articles about Unicode reference (you can see it here, it is also linked from the article), and this article can divide the work to maintain it. SSPecter Talk|E-Mail ◆ 02:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC). Delete, for the reasons I posted above. SSPecter Talk|E-Mail ◆ 19:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC). Speedy Keep. It is less than a month since the last attempt to delete this article. The nomination indicates that other Wikimedia don't want it. Since the information is so important and useful, this list should be retained to ensure availability while its technical issues are hashed out. Colonel Warden 04:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Speedy Keep - Agree with CW. - jc37 08:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Keep: we have many lists ("reference article"s as the nominator puts it), many of which are excellent and useful; "it breaks wikipedia format", what does that even mean?; if its too big, split it up; I dunno if it was deleted before, but the last two times the AfDs ended a keep; a subject being present on Wikibooks doesn't mean it can also be here. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC) You guys seen to be forgetting that unicode have about 100,000 characters. If it passes out it can spread into 32 huge pages like this one (number of unicode character reference pages in wikibooks) or stay as it is: a mix between wikipedia and wikibooks articles. Note the article is already asking to be expanded ("This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it", and the current merge problem, asking to merge all specialized Unicode tables in this one). Please note I am not complaining, just argumenting. But remember this warning: It is still a mere fraction of the full extension it can grow (100.000 chars) and it is already the biggest article in wikipedia (If not it is one of the biggest for sure) with a lot people complaining it (in discussion at least, not here for sure :P)SSPecter Talk|E-Mail ◆ 18:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC). Speedy keep. Most print encyclopedias of my knowledge include tables of alphabets for various languages. Not at all surprising that we should have one for electronic alphabets. Repetitive nomination with no really new claims made in this one. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Please, read my argument above SSPecter Talk|E-Mail ◆ 18:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC). Speedy Keep per reasons above Bjewiki (Talk) 15:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Keep per Smerdis of Tlön's arguments about tables of alphabets. Not to mention, *I* find it useful to have here, so I assume others do too. —Quasirandom 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC) I too find it useful. But I also think it will become a nightmare to maintain the mix wikipedia + wikibooks or import all the articles of Unicode in wikibooks. Why not just leave it in wikibooks and link to there? SSPecter Talk|E-Mail ◆ 18:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC). Keep Useful article. Mindraker 19:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Does anyone else think it's WP:SNOWing? CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC) tw to Wikibooks Will (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Speedy Keep per snow, and that it has only been a month since last AFD. Finally, if it is so big, the editors could find a way to split it up. Viperix 21:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Keep this sort of nomination is abusive. The matter has been thoroughly discussed, and I think we need some sort of a rule that after three keep afds, it can not be brought up again for 6 or 12 months or so. Personally. I would tend to support regarding any attempt at doing this without deletion review as interfering with the operation of wikipedia. DGG (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Keep Splitting it up might be a good idea. Transwiki to wikisource would be a better idea. jonathon 04:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Strong Keep article and subject are notable. Suggestions for possible reorganization should be made on the article's talk page, not via AfD. Alansohn 05:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Migrating the reference from wikibooks

Ok, now that I made a 3rd nomination and people voted keep and got pissed at me for nominating it again, I am moving to plan B... This article truly have a problem as it is too damn big and don't have a focus (Is it the List of all 100.000 characters??? Or just the most used characters? Or just an article to point to the all the Unicode characters in the wiki books?). So, before I start making a heavy edition to fix it which I am sure many will be pissed, I must ask you guys some questions:

1. What exactly is the focus of this acticle? To have a list of all 100.000 unicode characters (which is impossible), to have a list of lists of unicode characters, or have only the most used characters, or to just serve as a portal to the characters in wikibooks?
2. Can I migrate the whole Unicode reference from wikisource to wikipedia? (32 articles)
3. What you guys think of the way this article is linking to wikisource? (at the end of the article)
4. how we can assure this article won't be deleted again, just like before, let's say in 4 years, and transform all our work here into dust?

Depending on the answers I will take different approaches to edit it. SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{04:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)}.

Persian Letters

Someone (24.8.195.130) reverted my edit on Persian letters as Vandalism! First of all, there are some letters such as گ چ پ ژ that are Persian-specific and they don't exist in Arabic. Second, Arabic font is called kufic. What you see in the Unicode list, is how the Persians transformed the font. I don't think you can put the letters now shared between the Persians and the Arabs under the "only" Arabic section. I put the letters that are shared between the two nationalities in one section, the letters used only in Persian in another section and left the letters used only in Arabic to be on their own section. Is this called "Vandalism"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahbaz Yousefi (talk • contribs) 11:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

24.8.195.130 did not revert your edit, they committed vandalism. Your three consecutive edits were reverted with the edit summary "rv, this list is sorted by Unicode, not by local alphabet so your edits are better done at Perso-Arabic script". No, you were not accused of vandalism. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic

What is this page about? Currently some 32 named sections. Unicode has about 200 named blocks. OR there are missing blocks, OR this page is conflating Scripts in Unicode with Unicode blocks. Whatever, useless on Wikipedia. -DePiep (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a permalink to the revision of 23:56, 23 May 2010. Your point is a good one. Hmm.

List of Unicode characters refers to a (random) list of Unicode characters.

List of Unicode characters may also refer to:

• List of Unicode blocks
  • Basic Latin (Unicode block)
• Table of scripts in Unicode
  • Latin script
  • Latin script in Unicode

{{Set index article}} Hah!

Is it true that the only way to link to Latin script in Unicode from the Script (Unicode) article is by expanding the Template:Unicode navigation navigation bar at the bottom, then expanding the Scripts and symbols in Unicode bar at the bottom of that, then clicking on Latin in the "Modern scripts" section? Gosh, another Matryoshka? Well no, but strangely enough, that's the first way I found and I was looking for links. The redirect from Latin characters in Unicode in the lead section threw me off. I fixed it, and for good measure, added a link in the see also section. List of Unicode scripts? – Wbm1058 (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't help that the word script is so ambiguous.

• Script (Unicode), collections of letters and other written signs used to represent textual information in writing systems, each assigned to a Unicode number

Isn't "collections of letters and other written signs used to represent textual information in writing systems" just a roundabout way of saying "characters"? Wbm1058 (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Review needed...

Vandalism has slipped into this article and gone unnoticed for ~3yrs, someone with some time (or some scripting skills) should double check the article's contents for other vandalism.

—Hobart (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Missing Characters

There are many mathematical symbols missing! Esoteric characters from "Miscellaneous mathematical symbols-A" are listed here, but the far more common ones from "Mathematical Operators" are missing, as well as those from "Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-B" and "Supplemental Mathematical Operators". But I still mean especially, why is "Mathematical Operators" not listed while "Miscellaneous mathematical symbols-A" is? Only "Mathematical Operators" contains actual commonly used symbols. 85.4.110.95 (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"Mathematical Operators" were missing for the same reason as everything else missing from Wikipedia: the encyclopedia relies on you to edit it and add when it is incomplete. Look here to see how easy it was to add the "Mathematical Operators" section. By using the chart at Unicode block plus Category:Unicode_chart_templates, a patient person could complete the whole list. Wareh (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That cat was renamed to Category:Unicode charts (259 pages). See also Category:Unicode blocks (258, hmm).

• Basic Latin (Unicode block) and Template:Unicode chart C0 Controls and Basic Latin
• Bengali (Unicode block) and Template:Unicode chart Bengali

The (Unicode block) articles transclude the templates.

The Unicode § Standardized subsets include a portion of the Mathematical operators and symbols in Unicode. Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-A, range U+27C0 through U+27EF (48 code points), is not part of the standardized subsets (our table of standarized subsets doesn't have a row 27). This, although apparently corrected now, further supports the idea that List of Unicode characters refers to a (random) list of Unicode characters. We need a better definition than that. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that there are three "script in" articles in Category:Unicode blocks:

• Arabic script in Unicode
• Cyrillic script in Unicode
• Latin script in Unicode

It looks like this "script in" article concept isn't fully developed. For example, the four articles Ethiopic (Unicode block), Ethiopic Extended, Ethiopic Extended-A and Ethiopic Supplement could all be combined into Ethiopic script in Unicode. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This is very useful

I am using a Mac so Word does not have a real insert symbol like a PC, so I google the character I need, which is fine, this page is great reference page for that. --Squidonius (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, your post is old as hell now, but just in case you're still Googling to get special characters: OS X can absolutely insert special characters and it can be done in a few ways (other than copy-pasting). You can use Option+[Key] and Option+Shift+[Key] for a variety of symbols (limited to the number of alphanumeric keys on your keyboard); or you can use the keyboard shortcut Control+⌘+Space to bring up the character palette; or, if you're feeling particularly spry, you can enable the Unicode Hex Input as an input source (in Yosemite, you do this by opening System Preferences, navigating to Keyboard > Input Sources, clicking the "+" button and selecting Unicode Hex Input). After you've done that, you can switch to it and enter any Unicode character by holding Option and typing the code. ☉ nbmatt 01:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Very long list

I noticed that the list is very very long, (IMHO mostly because tables are really thin relative to the whole page) and that's said in the top-page template, too; what about adding a column to the right? Like this:

Code	Result	Description	Code	Result	Description
U+xxxx	'X'	Letter description blahh	U+xxxx	'X'	Letter blah-de-blah
U+xxxx	'X'	More letter description	U+xxxx	'X'	Even more letter blah

Just asking around :) --Nickotte (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice idea, especially for widescreens, but I'd put some white space before the second Code column. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

U

What does it mean to press u plus the character code? I just get a string of u's when I do that. Interchangeable|talk to me 22:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you give the source of the instruction "Press 'u' plus the character code"? As you have found, it does not work as you expected – perhaps the context might provide some clues. —Coroboy (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I’m no techie and only know Word but I think what I say next works for other operating systems.

‘U+’ is just shorthand for ‘the Unicode character No is ... ‘

If, in a Word document, you place the cursor behind a character and press Alt+X, the character will disappear and be replaced by its hexadecimal Unicode number. Press Alt+X again and the character will return. If you take a U+ number and do this (if necessary highlighting the whole number) you will get either a character or an empty rectangle. If you get the rectangle it means that the font you are using doesn’t include that character. Try highlighting it and changing the font to ‘Lucida Sans Unicode’ (on Word’s standard drop-down Font menu). If that doesn't work you could import a Unicode font from eg Unifoundry Dinoceras (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

1. The U+ notation is a standard way of giving the hexadecimal value of the Unicode code point of a character. 2. The Microsoft Word ToggleCharacterCode command, to which Alt+X is assigned by default, is available in Word for Windows, but not in Word for Macintosh. 3. I don't know what system you are using. In Windows XP at least, when Alt+X is used to produce a character not in the current font, the installed fonts are searched to find a font with the character, and the rectangle is only produced when no font on the system contains the character – there is no point in trying to find a font on the font menu that might work. —Coroboy (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Split article into sub-articles

As has been pointed out many times over the years, this article is too large. It is one of the largest pages on Wikipedia (does anyone know of a place to see which article holds the record? - I think List of HTML decimal character references once held the record, but that page was deleted) and as such puts a strain on browsers, especially mobile browsers.

I propose splitting it into smaller articles and changing the present article into a set of links to the smaller articles.

Unless someone has a better idea, the list could look like this

List of Unicode characters (Ogham)
List of Unicode characters (Runic)
List of Unicode characters (Tagalog)
List of Unicode characters (Hanunoo)
List of Unicode characters (Buhid)

and so on.

Ideas for better ways to organize the sub-pages would be most welcome, but I don't think there is any question that it does need to be split. Comments? Suggestions? Brickbats? Rotten Fruit? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, List of HTML decimal character references was deleted 24 December 2006, after its 4th nomination. This list, which wasn't created until 28 March 2007, has only been nominated three times, but a less radical solution is forming in my head. Latin script in Unicode, which I just mentioned above, is a good approach, in my view. But, beyond Arabic and Cyrillic, we don't have anything else along that line, yet. The esoteric examples listed above, are just things that need to be excluded from specific inclusion in the highest-level list, except perhaps for a link to the list, making this a list of lists. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassin's_Creed_II#Development On the right is a table with a show/hide button. Is there no way to use this on this page with a default of hide? I'm not sure how much it would help with load speed etc (although I would hope most browsers would render things on-demand) but it should help with length at least.

Of course there may not be an in-article equivalent of a collapsible section, I haven't really looked. 88.202.201.82 (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Could it be something like the Track listing template

Unicode

No.	Title	Length
1.	"Unicode"

--Least1234 (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2011

Alas, that wouldn't help page load or browser crash problems. Here is the Raw HTML that that clickable "show" button sends to the browser:

Raw HTML

<div class="tracklist" style="margin: -1px 21em 0 0; border: #aaa 1px solid; padding: 3px"> <table class="tracklist collapsible collapsed" cellpadding="0" style="width: 100%; border-width: 0px; border-collapse: collapse;"> <tr> <th class="tlheader" colspan="10" style="text-align: left; background-color: #fff">Unicode</th> </tr> <tr> <th class="tlheader" style="width: 2em; padding-left: 10px; padding-right: 10px; text-align: right; background-color: #eee">No.</th> <th class="tlheader" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; background-color: #eee">Title</th> <th class="tlheader" style="width: 4em; padding-right: 10px; text-align: right; background-color: #eee">Length</th> </tr> <tr style="background-color: #fff;"> <td style="padding-right: 10px; text-align: right; vertical-align: top;">1.</td> <td style="text-align: left; vertical-align: top;">"Unicode"  </td> <td style="padding-right: 10px; text-align: right;"> </td> </tr> </table> </div>

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe the raw html is irrelevant. The bottleneck is the rendering of the page - compare the relative load speeds of User:Aphswarrior/List_of_Unicode_characters_display_none and List_of_Unicode_characters. On a slow machine the first is far faster than the second (for the initial load).

I used Wikipedia:NAVFRAME along with a forbidden attribute (style="display:none;") which means the browser doesn't attempt to show the content - it just loads it. Removing style="display:none;" (which is necessary, as explained by the NAVFRAME page) slows it back down to its former speed because the browser (seems to) render it first, then hide it - User:Aphswarrior/List_of_Unicode_characters

Just some food for thought.

Aphswarrior (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that is interesting! If we can manage to not render big chunks of the page, I think that would solve the browser crash problems as well as the slow loading. The question is, can we make this page do that? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that that would be an ideal solution and much better than dividing the content. Wareh (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Irritatingly, I don't believe so (although I'm not a web expert). Wikipedia has a policy of accessibility (judging by the final sentence of the third paragraph of Wikipedia:NAVFRAME#NavFrame_divs), hence there must be a default for non-javascript users to be able to see the tables. Unless there is a way of changing the style of an element after page load without JS, the initial page load must by default show the tables. And this is the problem. Aphswarrior (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I was just thinking about accessibility of this page this morning. Can you imagine being vision-impaired and trying to make sense out of this using a text-to-speech screen reader? However we solve this, we need to make it more suitable for the blind. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well this section is interesting. That sentence says "Do not add style="display:none;" to the NavContent element, because that will make it impossible for users without Javascript to see the content." I actually modified Template:Orphan to use style="display:none;" to hide the orphan tag, after many users complained that they didn't want to see it. I wonder what percentage of readers don't have js enabled? Wbm1058 (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Euro

I was looking for the Euro symbol on this page. The code is U+20AC, which belongs in a "Currency Symbol" section that this page doesn't contain. Is that worth adding? mg (talk) 13:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's also missing TM, which is probably the most used of the U+21xx set which is entirely absent. Hazelsct (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Both € (U+20AC) and ™ (U+2122) are in the current revision of the page – as they should be. I'm happy to report that both are included in the Unicode § Standardized subsets. – Wbm1058 (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

HTML

I was thinking that it might be useful if 1 or 2 more columns could be added for characters that show up in HTML.

Kielhofer 19:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kielhofer (talk • contribs)

See List of XML and HTML character entity references. – Wbm1058 (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

All characters can be shown in HTML by specifying their numeric character reference in either hex or decimal. The revision at the time this suggestion was made did show decimal character references for HTML in some sections, but not in others such as the first block. This is simply reflective of the piecemeal way articles are often constructed by multiple editors over time. I'll remedy this by showing the decimal values consistently throughout. – Wbm1058 (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

error in Arabic characters?

U+066D ٭ Arabic Five Pointed Star

I get a 6 pointed star. Is that right? I'm using Chrome, on OS X (snow leopard) and the font should be Lucida Grande or Verdana. If it's wrong, how do I go about asking the font makers to bug fix it? 31.127.105.71 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The name of this character should not be relied on as a guide to its glyph shape. The Unicode Standard notes that the appearance of this character is "rather variable", and it can be 5-pointed, 6-pointed or 8-pointed depending upon the particular font. BabelStone (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Missing characters

Is it possible to add to the article such important symbols as dashes (— and –), minus, and ellipsis (…)? Maksa (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the Dash characters (Wikipedia:Hyphens and dashes;o) They're in General Punctuation (Unicode block), which is in the current revision, and of course the standardized subsets include them too. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

They were also included in the 18:13, 21 June 2013 revision of the page, so they weren't actually missing when you asked your question. Just hard to find, I suppose. – Wbm1058 (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Contents List

The Unicode article is very long and can take older machines a while to scroll it properly. It is therefore particularly important on this particular article that the contents list is the best it can be to minimise the need to scroll. When I want to look up a particular symbol where I know the unicode hex number, I want to be able to see at a glance from the contents panel which contents item I need to click to go right there. It would be really useful if instead of numbering the contents items 1, 2, 3 etc, they were numbered by the first character number in the set. That way, if I have a character 2225, I will be able to see from the contents that this is a mathematical symbol and jump straight there. Can the contents be renumbered like this?, or can we include the hex number of the first symbol in the set as the first item in the description ie "2200 Mathematical Operators" instead of "Mathematical Operators"? FreeFlow99 (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If you're talking about the numbering in the table of contents (toc), I believe that is done automatically in straight numerical order. However, you can look here, WP:TOC, to see if there are ways to customize the toc. Other than that, if you're talking about the numerical order in which the codes appear within the actual tables (not toc), then I think you'd be looking at completely re-doing the tables from scratch... and have fun with that, see ya in a month. - thewolfchild 12:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to navigate using the character numbers is using something like Template:Planes (Unicode). That links to Wikibooks, but there's no reason we couldn't fork it for internal navigation within this list. Having all the content hidden in collapsible boxes makes navigation more difficult. If there was a single sortable (not collapsed) column for character numbers, then you could search on that. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Next

I made some changes to make this page a little more manageable. But, really, this article needs to be divided into separate pages, around 8 to 12. That's what should happen next. - thewolfchild 07:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If consensus favors the creation of subpages, I suggest naming them after blocks (e.g. List of Unicode characters/Basic Latin) rather than numbers. It seems, though, that these subpages duplicate the efforts of e.g. Basic Latin (Unicode block) and {{Unicode chart Basic Latin}}. Is it possible to make this page “manageable” without forking content? Gorobay (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think consensus is required to create these sub-pages because this is not a standard article, it's simply a huge page of lists of code. Someone just needs to boldly do it (someone with the interest and a lot of time on their hands). If the change is challenged, then consensus would be needed to determine if the edit stands. As for numbering, they are not numbered now, except in the table of contents (TOC). The TOC can be changed to go in alphabetical order. It can be customized to include the groupings you suggest as well. See WP:TOC. An example of a customized TOC can be seen here. As for making the page more manageable, if you have ideas, feel free to state them, or try them out. WP:SAL and WP:SPINOUT would be good places to look for guidance. - thewolfchild 21:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I meant the numbers as in List of Unicode characters/1. Gorobay (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Your change might have made it "more manageable", but it's completely useless now. With all boxes collapsed by default, it is impossible to search for characters now. The page was much better on August 20 then it was since then. Of course, this is just my opinion, but I will just save the page and use that instead of visiting Wikipedia from now on. -- Sander (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Just how is it "completely useless" now? You can still search thru the TOC and when you find what you want, just un-collapse that particular list, and then the TOC will take you right there. Now however, you don't have to scroll up and down 50 miles of page, with your browser constantly lagging. Perhaps, instead of being so quick to judge, if you had bothered to read some comments here, you see that I have only suggested this as a temporary measure, until a better solution is found. And maybe, instead of just complaining, you could help work towards a solution?
Oh, and as for your threat to not use Wikipedia anymore, I think I will choose to not believe you. - thewolfchild 19:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Notwithstanding whether the page should exist at all, I agree that the collapsed subsections makes it essentially useless. The primary purpose for viewing a list of character codes is to scan for the one you want visually or with a text search. When all of the content is hidden, it ADDS time to this purpose. In particular, if you aren't sure which sections of the coding document will contain the character you want -- maybe you don't know what it's even called or just want to find a particular sort of shape -- then the collapsed sections requires you to manually "show" each one. If it's possible, I'd recommend a "show all sections" toggle at the top of the page. If it's not possible, expanding the sections by default will make the page much more usable. 50.30.59.34 (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Table of Contents

User:Jrooksjr, I am not really clear on what it is your doing. Twice now I have requested that you discuss your issue here on the talk page as your edit summary doesn't make sense, nor does your edit. As you can see, this is a very, very large page. It is extremely slow to load and reload for each browser action and the contents, both the tables and the TOC are simply way too long. What I have done is simple a stop-gap measure, to make the page a little more manageable until a more fitting and permanent solution can be found. As you can see, I and others here have already commented on these issues.

As for your edits... you have so far twice made slightly different edits, both to the same end... that being for some reason, you seem intent on hiding the TOC. Both your edits, though, simply resulted in it being defaulted into the first collapsed section, in it's long form. I don't see the point to this. If you have noticed, all the collapsed sections have headers that indicate with Unicode tables are contained within, by their number range. This is why the TOC is needed, as it has all the Unicode tables numbered. One can simply find what the need by typing it into their edit search box on their browser. If you're not sure how to do that, just let me know, and I will be happy to help. But, in the meantime, when you keep trying to hide the TOC, then people can't use it as easily... and this page is already difficult enough. - thewolfchild 16:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I never seen your 1^st message because I was still editing the page so it RE-ADD my previous change to the page when I made the 2^nd change -- I missed the message saying the page had been edited by another user when I made my 2nd change -- So NO I was not in an edit war with you.

You made the TOC unsuable when you added the sections into the collapsible table -- if you do not believe me -- click on a link in the TOC and see where you go!!!!

My 3^rd change did not reduce the page load per view but did reduce the page load when editing as sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 are on sub pages, meaning you do not load every section at the same time when you are editing the main page

You seem to be the "BOSS" of this page and do not like changes to "your" page, so I will not make anymore edits to this page

(<span=help title="Morph">M o r p h | <span=help title="See what Morph has Contributed to Wikipedia">^C | <span=help title="Morph's Discussion Page">_T) 17:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• User:Jrooksjr, there is a record of our edits here. You are responsible for keeping up with your own user page notifications, as well as checking edit summaries. There is no one else to blame here.
• The changes you made to the TOC made it no more usable, and if fact hid it, making it useless, so I'm not sure just what your point is with that.
• Coming at me with CAPS, bolding, exclamation marks!!!! and accusations of page ownership by calling me "BOSS", will get you nowhere. Considering you claim to be a bureaucrat and admin of another wiki, that's a pretty poor attitude to have.
• I see that right after you claimed you "will not make anymore edits to this page", you have made another edit. That is your right of course, but it would be nice if your edit made sense. First you complain because I broke the page down into collapsible sections. Now, you go and break the contents of one of those sections down into more collapsible sections? I don't see the purpose. And it still doesn't help with your "TOC issues".
• Lastly, I already advised my changes were temporary. If you don't like what I did, feel free to improve the page, to make it more manageable, instead of just making it worse and coming here to complain. - thewolfchild 22:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Article semi killed: This article has been semi-killed. I follow this article as a reader. Unusable ToC is a huge problem. Not only quick accessing by clicking on ToC links is an issue, another issue if Ctrl F option will not work either. --Tito☸Dutta 18:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Splitting the page

So, it looks like it's time to split this page, checking the HTML source, I see

CPU time usage: 32.634 seconds
Real time usage: 33.845 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count: 71747/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 48528/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 2047999/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 94723/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 13/40
Expensive parser function count: 5/500

notice the "Post‐expand include size" is at the limit, which is why the templates at the bottom of the page don't appear. I was able to slightly improve it by expanding the {{collapse top}}/{{collapse bottom}} templates (which are also forbidden in article space), but we are still hitting the wall. it seems like the only solution is to split the page, or at least split off parts of the page. from the threads above, it seems the way to go would be to create "List of Unicode characters: block" where "block" is the unicode block name. some of these may be redundant to existing articles, but we can deal with that in a variety of ways. any comments or suggestions or alternative suggestions? Frietjes (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is a concatenation of the templates in Category:Unicode charts. It is completely redundant with the articles in Category:Unicode blocks, some of which contain further information too. Redirecting this page to Unicode block would solve the problem and remove a lot of redundancy. Gorobay (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

redirecting it would be fine with me. do we need further discussion or should we "just do it"? Frietjes (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Go for it! :) Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem completely redundant to me. For example, List of Unicode characters#Hebrew has a "description" column for the names of the characters, with links to them, which isn't found at Unicode and HTML for the Hebrew alphabet. – Wbm1058 (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I moved the Hebrew character table to Unicode and HTML for the Hebrew alphabet, so it could be removed from this page without entirely removing it from the encyclopedia. I've done this for some other tables as well, see the {{copied}} templates at the top of this page for details. – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

By removing one template and subst'ing three others, I got it inside the template transclusion limit. I note that some of the blocks are shown in a flat-list format, while others are shown in a table format. Perhaps the tables should be converted to flat lists to be consistent. After all the name of the article is "list", not "tables". – Wbm1058 (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• I made most of the Unicode block articles, so I am a bit prejudiced towards linking to those, but I think that a bit more judicious approach that preserves the list structure might be to start splitting off related groups from the main list - e.g. List of Latin Unicode characters, List of Greek and Cyrillic Unicode characters, List of Indic Unicode characters, List of RtL Unicode characters, List of East Asian Unicode characters, List of technical and mathematical Unicode characters, etc. VanIsaac_WS^cont 22:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Great work creating those Unicode block articles! I've now worked my way down this talk page from top to bottom. And the best suggestion I've seen to date is one that was made in the very first AfD discussion: "Keep but limit to the standardized subsets." By that I mean we should just fully list the characters in the Multilingual European Character Set 2 (MES-2), and rather than list the rest, just link to your articles. This thus becomes a list of the major (MES-2) characters, combined with a "list of lists" of the rest. My take on how we got to this mess is this. I'm old enough to have programmed computers that used sixbit, which only supported 2⁶ (64) characters. This set didn't even have room for lower case. Then, of course ASCII with 2⁷ (128) characters added lower case. So now the Internet runs on UTF-8, that's just 2⁸ (256) characters, so it should still fit on one page, right? Wrong, because the encoding is variable-length and uses 8-bit code units – using one to four 8-bit bytes means that with Unicode we've leaped from supporting 128 to over a million characters. With MES-2 we have 1062 characters, which seems still reasonable for a single page, and hopefully leaves us with enough space for links to lists of the rest. Among those lists of lists linked to will include Arabic script in Unicode, Cyrillic script in Unicode and Latin script in Unicode. If you want to create more along those lines for Indic and Asia, etc., fine. I don't view that as mandatory to shrinking this article, in other words we don't need to find another home for all the content we remove from this, as we already have the pages you created. Also, some of the technical and math characters are in the set of 1062. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Article traffic stats

Just to give an overview of the current structure and how much readers navigate to some key pages:

• Unicode has been viewed 58761 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 6922 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org.
• Universal Character Set has been viewed 9541 times in the last 30 days.
• Universal Character Set characters has been viewed 2480 times in the last 30 days.
• List of Unicode characters has been viewed 35894 times in the last 30 days.
• Unicode block has been viewed 2107 times in the last 30 days.
• Plane (Unicode) has been viewed 4196 times in the last 30 days.
• Script (Unicode) has been viewed 1513 times in the last 30 days.
• Latin script in Unicode has been viewed 1997 times in the last 30 days.
• Basic Latin (Unicode block) has been viewed 1051 times in the last 30 days.
• Unicode and HTML has been viewed 5936 times in the last 30 days.
• List of XML and HTML character entity references has been viewed 37899 times in the last 30 days.

My takeaway is that this article, which has readership numbers similar to List of XML and HTML character entity references, which dwarf the readership numbers for Universal Character Set, Universal Character Set characters, Plane (Unicode) and Unicode block, is sucking traffic away from those articles because:

• Readers don't understand that Universal Character Set (characters) and Unicode characters are more-or-less the same (I don't completely understand the difference between them!)
• Readers don't understand the concepts of "blocks", "planes", and "scripts" – so they don't search for characters using those terms
• The "blocks" and "planes" articles are organized more for the benefit of "Unicode geeks" rather than general users, who don't really care what particular block or plane a character is in

This confirms my theory about the issues with this page, and my conviction that converting it to a list of the 1062 characters in the MES-2 subset, plus links to lists of the other characters, is the solution here. I'll get started with transitioning towards that. – Wbm1058 (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Miscellaneous symbols

There may be some room to include more symbols of this sort on the page, as I think English-language readers are more likely to be looking for them than various Brahmic and ancient language scripts. wbm1058 (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Snowman

The main article should show the snowman unicode token. :D 2A02:8388:1600:A880:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

See Snowman § In Unicode. The symbol for « snow man » is U+2603 (☃). It's in the Miscellaneous Symbols block. wbm1058 (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The table is in this list, but just the symbols, so you can't find it by searching for "snow". Also there is a "snowman without snow" U+26C4 ⛄ SNOWMAN WITHOUT SNOW. wbm1058 (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Tick or Check mark

This article doesn't say why there is no Tick or Check mark in Unicode, I assume there must be some reason for this? but I cannot find any sources, can someone find out and make a suitable edit. ty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.156.218 (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The Unicode set is too large to fit within a single Wikipedia page, given the various software limits on page sizes that allow for efficient loading of a Wikipedia page. This page was an inefficient mess when it was trying to show everything, so I reworked it to just show the MES-2 subset and a limited number of additional characters in blocks that have characters in MES-2.

To find a specific character, it's often better to search for an article about the character itself. The Check mark article has a handy table of all the various available Unicode check marks. wbm1058 (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Redirection to Wikibooks

Should we redirect this page to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetitpig0 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

We don't redirect from Wikipedia to Wikibooks, as far as I know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I added a link to Wikibooks' Unicode character reference, in the external links section. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)