Talk:List of Unicode characters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:

Contents

[edit] Proposal for shortening the article

STOP PREPOSING MERGERS INTO THE FUCKING 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] why can't i see all the letters

title.

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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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] [1]
U+02AE and U+02AF = [font] [1]
U+02EA thru U+02FE = [font] [1]
U+037B thru U+037D = [font] [2]
U+03F7 thru U+03FF = [font] [2]
U+04FA thru U+04FF = [font] [2]
U+0510 thru U+0523 = [font] [2]
All of N'ko = [font] [3]
U+2672 thru U+26B2 = [font] [4]
U+2768 thru U+2775 = [font] [4]
All of Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-A = [font] [4]
Supplemental Arrows-A = [font] [4]
and Latin Extended-C = [font] [1]

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)
  1. ^ a b c d Doulos SIL
  2. ^ a b c d Quivira
  3. ^ Code2000 (Shareware)
  4. ^ a b c d Unicode Symbols
Wow thanks! That helped a LOT! 74.129.182.66 02:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Wikibook

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).