Talk:Dingbat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Typography (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Comments[edit]

"ding"ing? "bat"ing? Can't figure out that sounds. Thanks, --Abdull 09:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

also it would be nice if we could see the dingbats, perhaps replace them or add a picture of them, all i see is ?

Didn't Archie Bunker call Edith dingbat in the TV series "All in the Family"? Notfound 00:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. For some reason, someone decided to move such information to the Dingbat disambiguation page. -- Infrogmation 02:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why see also simlish? How is that relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.107.30 (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

THIS DEFINITION IS TOTALLY WRONG!!!!

'Dingbat' is an Australian word meaning a person of low intelligence eg an idiot, a bonehead, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.48.59.60 (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"Invented by Eddie Dolon"[edit]

This part of the text is not a complete sentence. What was invented by Eddie Dolon?! Wegesrand (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Picture[edit]

I don't get the point of the picture. It shows a poem printed on a highly decorated page, but the decorations have nothing to do with dingbats, surely? They are typical late-19th-century book decoration. Unless the claim is that all decoration is dingbat, which would require completely different definitions, I think this picture does not belong here. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The decorations have everything to do with dingbats, surely. There are examples of dingbats. Read the article for an explanation. Hope this helps! -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
No, these are not dingbats. The article also confuses printer's flowers (ornamental) with bullets, arrows, and other "special sorts" (a "sort" is an old name for a piece of type, probably because they had to be sorted into individual compartments in the type case, or tray, after use). The decorative cuts, or engravings, on the poem piece would have been on wooden blocks (likely faced with cooper or steel to hold the actual engraving) and not pieces of type. Dingbats are pieces of type. But I'm not sure where the usage came from, and maybe in some parts of the world "dingbat" was indeed used for any sort of decoration; I don't know. Terminology in the "desktop publishing" world was looser, too, because so many new people started using type. Barefootliam (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hedera[edit]

Ivy has a note at the top that says:

"Hedera" redirects here. For the use of the term in typography, see Dingbat.

But the term "Hedera" is not explained in this article. -- Beland (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems more like a fleuron than a dingbat anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Cross[edit]

The Christian cross should not be confused with the Dagger (typography). Strangely so, in the article's plate the dagger is missing, its place taken up by three or four crosses. Is there an expert here to amend this? --Chrysalifourfour (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "plate". Anyway, ✝ ✞ ✟ are included in the official Unicode Zapf Dingbat character block, while "†" is in another character block... AnonMoos (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
By 'plate' I mean the 'table' where dingbats are presented in the article. Not sure what the correct term is anyway! So, where is the dagger? Is it not part of the Unicode dingbat block? Or is it part of some other character family, in which case why would it be encoded U+2020? Maybe I'm totally wrong here, I just thought that the dagger and the double dagger are standard symbols in most major font families. --Chrysalifourfour (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The crosses are in the Unicode Dingbats block; see official documentation at http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2700.pdf . The dagger is in the Unicode General Punctuation block (see documentation at http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2000.pdf ) and has traditionally been considered more of a typographic accessory than a purely ornamental or symbolic dingbat. AnonMoos (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)