How we approach content
Our aim is practical: an article should answer the question that brought you here, using information that can be checked, laid out plainly and without padding.
Our process
- Establish real demand. We look at what people actually search for before deciding to publish, rather than guessing.
- Gather and cross-check. Where a fact is verifiable, such as a Unicode code point, a platform rule or a sequence of steps in an app, we check it against the primary source before it goes into an article.
- Check the output. Every symbol table and generator result is rendered on the live page and the underlying code points are checked, so what you copy is exactly what the article describes. Where a platform limit cannot be confirmed from an official source, the article says so instead of guessing.
- Edit. We review spelling, structure and terminology, and cut anything that repeats what the page already said.
- Review over time. Articles that depend on platform rules or app versions are revisited when something meaningful changes.
How we verify styles and platform rules
Verification means checking a claim against its primary source and writing down when we did it:
- Unicode styles — letter mappings, code points and block names are checked against the Unicode code charts and the Unicode Character Database.
- Instagram, WhatsApp and Discord — what a name, bio or username field accepts is taken from the platform’s own help centre or official announcement, and the date of that check is printed on the page.
- Free Fire and BGMI — Garena and Krafton publish no character list for name fields, so we present player-reported limits as things to test on the rename screen, never as guaranteed facts.
- Numbers — we do not invent usage statistics, ratings or user counts. If a number cannot be sourced, it is left out.
Corrections
When a report or a re-check shows a page is wrong, we correct the page, change its updated date, and record the change in the changelog. We do not change dates on pages whose content has not changed.
What we avoid
- Republishing another site content verbatim.
- Publishing a page purely to fill a gap when it adds nothing for the reader.
- Making promises the tools or the information on this site cannot support.
Use of assistive tools
We use software assistance during drafting and proofreading. Every article is reviewed by a FontFancy editor before it is approved, and nothing is published on the strength of an automated draft alone. Assistive tools do not replace the verification step.
Reporting a problem
If you find something inaccurate or out of date, contact us with the page link. We check every report that comes with specifics and correct the page when the report holds up.
Updated 30 September 2026.