Talk:Fleuron (typography)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fleuron (typography). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131029191558/http://thewordict.com/2013/05/10/punctuation-graveyard-the-hedera/ to http://thewordict.com/2013/05/10/punctuation-graveyard-the-hedera/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only one kind of fleuron?

Bringhurst himself says that all the ornamental characters are called fleurons, with the one being given focus by the page being the one he names the "hedera". 201.13.41.26 (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fleuron is defined not by form, but by function; however, the ornaments of a certain function have historically taken a certain form, that being a botanical theme. It is true that the ivy-leaf-shaped hedera is among the most famous and common fleurons, but as you note there are many other forms, a large portion of which have a floral nature (hence the name 'fleuron').

The specific function of a fleuron compared to other ornaments is to separate logical sections of a text (or by shifts in scene or tone in fiction, a job also performed by the asterism). This contrasts with ornamental borders, which separate text from margins, headings/footers, or the page edge on a page; from illuminated initials, which often reflect the topic matter of a proceeding section; or from miniature illustrations in the margins, which visually accompany the subject of text they are near.

Hope this helps, Arlo James Barnes 01:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fleuron database from Cambridge University Library

I think there ought to be coverage about this online resource. I will research and add it at some point, but thanks to anyone who can get to it sooner. Arlo James Barnes 01:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears on novels

What right now! AdwenKnowItAll (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to specific aldus leaf, create general fleuron (typography)

An aldus leaf is just one example of a fleuron. However, the infobox and the links to the article – especially its use on Template:Navbox punctuation – only show the aldus leaf ❦, which creates the erroneous impression that the aldus leaf ❦ is called “fleuron”, which it is not.

My intention is to move the article to aldus leaf, then remove the fleuron parts, then create a new fleuron (typography) page that includes the fleuron information. And also change Template:Navbox punctuation and the interwiki links, which was what originally brought this all to my attention, because this page links to de:Fleuronné instead of de:Aldusblatt.

I intend to do so in a couple of days. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 12:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it is to be done, then you should use the formal wp:split process.

I'm not really convinced by your justification. The U+2766 ❦ FLORAL HEART is the most commonly encountered fleuron and is a reasonable choice of place-holder to go in the punctuation navbox, IMO. (Same issue apples to List of typographical symbols and punctuation marks, btw.) We have to put something there.

Google Ngram viewer suggests that 'Aldus' was a long way behind 'Fleuron' (and 'Hedera', despite the gardeners) until about ten years ago when Aldus Corporation appeared on the scene. Indeed I strongly suspect that the primary use before the Corp was Aldus (typeface). So I question whether your proposed article would pass wp:GNG.

You might find it useful to review the talk pages for Asterism (typography) and Dinkus, where a very similar consideration arose.

It is interesting that Unicode calls the symbol currently display a "floral heart" (which I guess describes its appearance, perhaps there was a name dispute there too?

Your need to map out what you see in which article.

As of now, I oppose because the proposal is as yet unclear. I am open to persuasion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skimming the article’s sources, it would indeed seem that “hedera” is a more common name for the ❦ symbol than “aldus leaf”. According to Bringhurst, the hedera only is “a type of fleuron”. But I guess I have been rash. An article about the fleurons as a class of “horticultural” dingbats makes perfect sense. What we are lacking is an article about the hedera. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 21:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We already have one! Hedera! :-D

Seriously though, I can't see that we will ever have enough material for a Hedera (typography) article and the obvious solution is to create it as a redirect to this one. The same goes for Aldus leaf and Floral heart.

So the punctuation navbox needs changing to say floral heart rather than just fleuron. Ditto the list article. I will aim to do both today or tomorrow. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, you have not yet seen the excellent article I am going to write about the hedera. ☺ Just kidding, I think it is fine as it is.

I would prefer “hedera” over “floral heart”. I think Bringhurst is a better sign than Unicode for this specific question. Anyway, I have put both names into the relevant templates {{Punctuation marks}} and {{Navbox punctuation}}. The List of typographical symbols and punctuation marks is a bit weird, since it suggests that the upright floral heart or aldus leaf is different from the slanted hedera. I seriously doubt that there are any sources for such a difference. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 14:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can ignore the Unicode name ('floral heart') given that they use subject experts: it is not a name somebody dreamed up at random. So it should have "equal billing" with the others. This is not to question Bringhurst's credentials (his book is excellent) so if you want to change the order of presentation, I won't object.

The 'List of typographical symbols and punctuation marks' is more a directory to relevant articles than an authoritative article in its own right. In every case (Aldus, Hedera, Heart), the link is to this article where the detail is provided. In movable type, I doubt that there was ever any real distinction, that there was only one 'sort' which the printer just put into the frame in whatever orientation took his fancy. I chose to follow the Unicode alternative naming when I added them to the list, I really don't think it is a significant issue. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, we must not ignore Unicode. That is why I have used both names on the templates, Bringhurst’s “hedera” and Unicode’s “floral heart”.

I have put “hedera” first because I trust Bringhurst slightly more. I could well imagine that Unicode has taken over the name from some previously existing list of characters where some 1980s IT guy picked the names without much historical research. Or I could equally imagine that they have carefully discussed the name. The Unicode mailing list archives or meeting minutes might shed further light on the issue. But I do not feel strongly about the order of the two names, as long as we keep them both. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 20:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of above, I have revised the list article so that both the vertical and the horizontal forms are shown for each of aldus, hedera and floral heart. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]