Thread:User talk:Kephir/Appendix:Unicode subpage links are gone/broken/reply

Yes, it was indeed intentional. I have done it, in fact, after I noticed you creating entries for Unicode code points, giving the Unicode character name as the definition. I think such entries should not be created, and other editors have agreed with me in a few discussions about the topic: Talk:⦰ and Beer parlour/2015/January; although there was some disagreement about what should be put in their stead.

I am of the opinion that:
 * Wiktionary is a project that documents natural languages, not any particular computer encoding of them. There are already many websites presenting the Unicode character database in human-readable form, and there no real benefit to creating poor competition to them.
 * Unicode code point names do poorly as definitions of glyphs they represent, and should not be remotely treated as such. They are as just as much of technical artefacts as the code point numbers, combining classes, bidirectional classes, etc.
 * Emoji, dingbats and other symbols should be subject to the same attestation criteria as any other lexical item. It is better to be incomplete than unreliable.