[hackuser]

> It is typical in written English

Let's not blow this out of proportion, but to address this narrow point:

Again, it may seem that way if you read a lot written by Christians, but I believe it's the religion of the author not the language that determines the usage.

Consider the nation with the largest English-speaking population in the world, India; do they use crucifixes? English also is widespread in Israel and other countries that aren't predominantly Christian. My guess is that books written by Israelis don't use them either. I agree that the usage is widespread in predominantly Christian countries.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm talking about using the symbol to indicated death.

[pvg]

I'll stop here but I honestly don't understand how the actual, real, referenced fact that this is an existing typographical convention is 'blowing things out of proportion'. It either is or isn't and in this case, it is.

A lot of language conventions, including typographical ones have implicit and explicit cultural biases. That's just how language works. You seem to be arguing this should not be a typographical convention because you're unfamiliar with it and some other general principles. Sure, maybe, but that's also very much not how language works. You're welcome to advocate for change but this does not instantly turn this into not-an-English-typographical-convention.

[hackuser]

> I honestly don't understand how the actual, real, referenced fact that this is an existing typographical convention is 'blowing things out of proportion'.

I only meant, let's not make too big a deal over this tiny issue.

I understand your claims, but do you have evidence that in non-Christian, English-speaking cultures, the cross[0] is used to indicate death? Wikipedia isn't the best source, and I'd expect it to represent the views of people in mostly Christian societies. I admit I'm not doing the research myself, so I'm not complaining if you don't.

EDIT: Also, from the Wikipedia page you cited: While daggers are freely used in English-language texts,[citation needed] they are often avoided in other languages because of their similarity to the Christian cross.[citation needed] Certainly that could apply to non-Christian English-speaking societies. An uncited Wikipedia statement is even less reliable than a cited one, but so far nobody has pulled in any solid evidence.

[0] I don't agree that the icon on the map is a typographical dagger. Of course, any cross could be a dagger and vice versa, but otherwise nothing about it indicates a dagger. Also, as the Wikipedia page you cited says, "The dagger should not be confused with the Unicode characters "Latin cross" (, U+271D),"

[pvg]

" but do you have evidence that in non-Christian, English-speaking cultures"

Who cares? This is an existing convention in written English. It doesn't matter whether you or I like it. Your original argument was that it shouldn't have been used on this map because the dead weren't Christians. That's not how typographical conventions work. Now you want me to prove to you something that really exists exists. It does. Sorry you find it irksome and didn't know it before or that sometimes dagger and cross get mixed up. None of this changes the fact this is an existing typographical convention. Let's call it a day.†

[hackuser]

> Your original argument was that it shouldn't have been used on this map because the dead weren't Christians.

It was not and is not. Regarding the rest of your message, it's sad that I can't discuss typography with you without enduring insults.