Talk:Didone (typography)

Pronunciation

Dee-doan or dih-doh-nee? —Michael Z. 2010-10-30 17:06 z

Merge with Vox-ATypI classification

This article was nominated for merging with Vox-ATypI_classification#Didone on March 2012. The result of the discussion was No discussion ensued, nomination deleted.

Etymology

What is it? This needs to be included.68.151.25.115 (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current explanation (amalgamation of surnames) appears to be false, since the spelling of "Bodoni" with an i is not in dispute. If there isn't documented evidence, then just say there isn't documented evidence. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Didone (typography). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150623202619/http://typographyforlawyers.com/miller.html to http://typographyforlawyers.com/miller.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No prospect of consensus to move. Andrewa (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didone (typography) → Didone – WP:TWODABS ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, which would be undoing an undiscussed move from 2013. I don't think Didone (opera) is as prominent. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, marginally. (I've edited and expanded the article heavily, getting it from 1,233 to 40,428 bytes.) The new name seems uglier to me–Didone is an adjective so it seems awkward to name a page with an adjective without clarifying what it's an adjective of. It's not normal in typography to use the word 'Didone' on its own-people talk about "Didone fonts" or "Didone typefaces", but the word is not generally used as a standalone term. Blythwood (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per reality check; Didone on its own means Didone, not the font named after her. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and that's the other thing, it's not "named after her". A lot of people when they think of "Didone" are probably thinking of Dido, Queen of Carthage, which is "Didone" or "Didon" in various languages (e.g. Italian and French, respectively), which is why we have a disambig page at the moment. Now that use has existed far, far longer than "Didone" in typography, which is a 50s coinage mashing together the names of two typefounders in the nineteenth century, the Didot family and Bodoni. Blythwood (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments: I note also that the target has now been expanded past the TWODABS situation, so that part of the rationale collapses. The 2013 bold move was perhaps a bit too bold in that the edit summary disambiguation (yes that's all of it) provides no rationale, but we're now in a wp:SNOW situation IMO. Andrewa (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.