Talk:List of Unicode characters/Archive 1

AfD # 1

 * 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 . 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 ☎ &spades;  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 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)

--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 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 NAVFRAME), 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 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   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)


 * 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 . – 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 (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 1st message because I was still editing the page so it RE-ADD my previous change to the page when I made the 2nd 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 3rd 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
 * (M o r p h | C  | 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 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. VanIsaacWScont 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: 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: 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)
 * 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.
 * 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

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 . 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" . 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)