|WikiProject Typography||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|Text from this version of List of Unicode characters was copied or moved into Dingbat with this edit on 22:55, 3 February 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:List of Unicode characters.|
"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)
THIS DEFINITION IS TOTALLY WRONG!!!!
"Invented by Eddie Dolon"
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)
|This section or list is incomplete. Please help to improve it, or discuss the issue on the talk page.|
Ivy has a note at the top that says:
- "Hedera" redirects here. For the use of the term in typography, see Dingbat.
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)