|WikiProject Typography||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|Text and/or other creative content 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)
Symbols not displayed
Many symbols in the tables in this article are not correctly displayed in my browser (Firefox on Vista). As I expect this must be the case for very many users, please would someone knowledgeable add info to the article telling us all how to add the necessary fonts to our computers ? Many thanks ! Darkman101 (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Same thing for me, but as your message had no reply, I guess they don't care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:9F7:ED1:3427:35BE (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Origin of the Term
It would be a good idea to include a section on the origin of the word "dingbats" as the name for printer's ornaments. It might require some research in older paper books as I cannot find anything definitive in my google searches. Cshay (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- From OED 1933 supplement, it seems to have originated as an indefinite word like doohickey or thingumabob, and its first prominent use in the 19th century was to refer to Fractional currency (United States)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Ornemental Dingbats shows nothing
Could you add a warning message explaining how to display them? -- 2a01:e35:8a8d:fe80:9f7:ed1:3427:35be 23:44, 24 November 2016
- It's dependent on which fonts you have installed on your computer -- and also, some older software and browser versions won't display Unicode characters outside the basic multilingual plane (BMP) no matter what fonts you have installed... AnonMoos (talk) 08:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Typographic ornament =/= Dingbat
I disagree with the fact that the page for "typographic ornament" redirects directly to the page for "dingbat". "Dingbat" is a term used in American slang and only used in the field of typography since the 1930s, while typographic ornaments have a richer and longer history, and are not limited to tiny symbols with the same size as other characters (think of the metal-cast fleurons, wreaths and frames that used to adorn the pages of old books). Also, see the Commons page Typographic ornaments to see a great number of specimens that escape the narrow frame of the dingbats of today. I intend to write a history section about typographic ornaments (including the dingbats of digital fonts), but I don't think it would be appropriate to include it in a page called "Dingbat". I will probably create a page for "Typographic ornament", which would include a link to the detailed "Dingbat" page. On the confusion around the term "dingbat" (and what constitues a dingbat and what doesn't), there's this document (Els dingbats : orígens històrics i evolució) which explores the question further.Teknad (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- If it's not a "character" in any meaningful or useful sense, then it probably doesn't belong on the Dingbat article... AnonMoos (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- In that case, the page for "Typographic ornament" could be created. See for instance, the article about the topic on the French Wikipedia (fr::Ornement (typographie)), which includes many elements, like strokes, that can't not be considered as characters. Best regards, -Teknad (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)