This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Low‑importance 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Typography Low‑importance 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.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Hello, all. I'd like to modify this page to be a distinct article. The Angzarr symbol has become a modest celebrity in the font world. Please search Google for "Angzarr" to see a list of articles and videos.

The most authoritative investigation is from U+237C Jonathan Chan at:

-- 2022: U+237C ⍼ RIGHT ANGLE WITH DOWNWARDS ZIGZAG ARROW · Jonathan Chan (ionathan.ch)and

-- 2023: UPDATE: U+237C ⍼ ⍼ · Jonathan Chan (ionathan.ch)

I would use Mr. Chan's findings for the article.

The existing redirect can be integrated as a link.

The page would also link to the Monotype Corp's page and the multiple computer projects listed in Mr. Chan's articles.

What does the community think? Thanks! Wshallwshall (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Redirects Discussion page says,

• If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!

So, I'm going to be bold! Wshallwshall (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks. Regards, a person who saw that video on "most mysterious sign" several years ago. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://xkcd.com/2606/

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2606:_Weird_Unicode_Math_Symbols

--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, nice one. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The data given for reference 2 is "H. Berthold AG (c. 1941). Berthold-Zeichenprobe, Probe Nr. 360 F. p. 7." implying a dating of the document to the year 1941, I presume.

This can't be right. Looking through all the pages (downloaded from the link given), I note on page 22 (image 24 in the download) the symbol number 627, depicting an aeroplane with swept wings. Swept wings were actually invented in Germany in 1935, but I doubt they were common enough even in 1941 to have been used as a pictogram for printing. At that time they would still have been mostly for experimental use.

5.186.55.135 (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I now found some metadata on the museum-digital.de and it does say "1941 [About]". So that's obviously where the year comes from. But it is still incorrect. I guess I should contact the museum to have this error fixed.

(later) I contacted the museum. They sent a nice reply to me, and have now changed the date estimate in the metadata (it is really a pity that the booklet itself does not have a date) to "After 1960 [About]". I will now correct the dating of the reference in the article, and revise the text accordingly. I suppose this goes to show that dating of museal objects should not always be taken as gospel for reference purposes. But that discussion is probably for another time and place.

As this has evolved to something a bit bigger than I anticipated, I have even bothered to login for this edit: --Lasse Hillerøe Petersen (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it, it looks just like it. 114.75.37.229 (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]