Hi - one thing that was useful about Bank_Gothic and not about Andalé_Mono that the former article contains the year it was created. Folks who study or practice graphic design and its history would find this really useful, especially if there was an index page of fonts and type by year. Sorry, new to wikipedia editing, if this ain't the right place for this, my apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.198.151 (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
License information and other legal aspects
The typography-related articles could use more information on licensing and other legal aspects of typography. For example the typeface article says "Many western countries extend copyright protection to typeface designs.", but doesn't name a single country which does so, and list of typefaces, unlike many other software-related lists, contains no licensing information. I have proposed the addition of a license parameter to the font infobox template at Template talk:Infobox font. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm new to Wikipedia. For purposes of full disclosure, I work for a law firm that represents a typeface foundry. As such, I know a great deal about the legal protections related to typefaces (at least in the US) and would be willing to help out as suggested above. I could either write an article on legal issues related to typefaces or add/clean up information in already created articles. I would also like to clean up some of the typeface related articles to reflect accurate ownership information. Unfortunately I'm not yet comfortable with the proper formating for articles so I would probably need some help in that regard. Let me know if anyone is interested. --StackLaw (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see an article on legal protections related to typefaces. I have believed for many years that typefaces were not subject to copyright in the United States, so if I am wrong about that I would greatly appreciate being corrected. (I do know that names of typefaces can be trademarked.) Probably the cleanups you suggest would be even more valuable, because they would avoid spreading inaccurate information. I am certainly not an expert on Wiki formatting, but I would be happy to help you and answer your questions. You can e-mail me at John_Sauter@systemeyescomputerstore.com. John Sauter (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Article importance criteria
I think we should establish an importance scale for the article assessment. I suppose it is clear, which articles are of "top" importance, but what is of "high", "mid", and "low" importance? Please make suggestions!
I think that most of the articles on typefaces are of "low", articles on key persons of "high" importance to the project.
Hi all, I'm excited about taking part. One question: I'm going through the stub list Category:Typography_stubs and there are quite a few font entries where I'm not sure that any more detail *can* be added -- Century Gothic, for example. Am I suffering from lack of imagination, or are some of these font pages more or less complete? Should they still be marked as stubs?
Thanks for joining us! It doesn't matter if there can be more info or not: a stub is a stub–even if the article is complete! ;-) Kind regards, — Tirk·fl“…”07:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Uniform names for articles on numbers in different languages
The following articles do not cover any pure numeral system where the symbols and notations are clearly defined, instead they cover how numbers are used in the respective languages. I have proposed all of them be moved. Please discuss HERE.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia: Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
It would be better, if all images in the infoboxes have the same appearance. If you can change the images, which does not fit the comon (?) scheme, please change them! Kind regards, — Tirk·fl“…”08:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I added Gaelic to the template. It was reverted, then I restored it giving some discussion on the talk page. this shouldn't be controversial, but I ought to mention it here. -- Evertype·✆20:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't find the word TeX anywhere on this WikiProject's page. TeX is the typesetting system invented by Donald Knuth. Wikipedia relies very extensively upon a stripped-down version of TeX for such things as this:
At Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics), various typographical style issues are dealt with. For example, should one write f(x) or ƒ(x)? Should TeX be used only when "displayed" or should it also be set "inline"? (That question doesn't arise when TeX is used in the standard way rather than the stripped-down way used by Wikipedia.) When should \scriptstyle be used? Should an editor change this:
to this?:
Why do Wikipedia conventions forbid writing such things as σ², in favor of σ2, or maybe σ 2, while prescribing this: 24 km²? (Rhetorical question; I know the answer to that one.)
I'm not quite sure, how this WikiProject should work on formulas typeset using TeX. As you already mentioned, there are already a lot of rules on how math should be represented on WP. As far as I know, there is no general consensus on typesetting in the science scene. Each journal uses its own style. There are some styles that are more widely used (e. g. IUPAC, WHO, or ACS in chemistry), but there are great regional differences too (mainly regarding the spaces). — Tirk·fl“…”11:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot(Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Debate over hyphens vs en-dashes at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
I have created this article, but I need help with one reference: [1]
The problem is that in that reference, it says that the publisher of the font is Adobe and/or Monotype, and the copyright is for Monotype classic fonts, so I don`t know which to put in the infobox for the owner or holder of the font. Correct me If I made any mistakes in the article --Woglinde 02 (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC) This is an alternate account, so if you`re going to reply in my talk page, please make it in my original one.
Wikipedia layout: heading hierarchies
Are members interested in Wikipedia page layout? There is a discussion at the 'Village Pump' on heading hierarchies (the ordering of headings on a Wikipedia page) and the redesigning of pages by automatic bot scripts, see here. So far, no-one has approached this issue from a designer/typographer's point of view and comments would be welcome. --Kleinzach04:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Articles for Deletion
I have added five entries under Articles for Deletion. I oppose these deletions. Am I formatting these entries correctly? Am I following the correct procedure in placing these entries there? Any other comments? --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I created the draft about a month ago, although I have nearly no knowledge about typography I think it is worthy of an outline. Do with it as you please, if you're interested the rough guidelines are at WP:OUTLINE along with some helpful tips. Feel free to contact me or the WP:OOK with any questions. Minnecologies (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I could not find the book typography/graphic design term "versal": distinguished initial letter of a chapter or section. I don't know that it is important, but I would have thought that it would come up in a discussion of the quaint art of book design. DCDuring (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Is it ok to take a screenshot of a typeface to place it here in wikipedia on an article or list in which such image is absent? - ☩Damërung☩. -- 01:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
A somewhat late reply, but no, as far as I know it is not ok to use screenshots of typefaces on Wikipedia. You will need a license to use a typeface to make a sample image. Typehigh (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Invitation for the Typeface collaboration
Requesting editors' help
There is currently an oppened collaboration which aims in improving articles related to typefaces and font categorization. If you´re interested in this subject, please visit the collaboration page, add your self and see how you can help.
Both Titling figures and Lining figures are redirecting to Text figures. This is not right, since they are opposite things.
There are also old discussions in Talk:Text figures about the naming of the articles (i.e. is it text figures, or should it be called Old-style figures, etc.) Please take a look at that and add your two cents, so we can finally deal with it. I also added a point in there about the titling/lining redirect issue, but that discussion is best held here for convenience's sake.
To summarize, either:
...we make the existing article about all figure styles, and give it a more general name (and let the redirects in place);
...or there need to be separate articles about every style, i.e. old-style, lining/titling figures, etc;
It just needs to be rewritten, this time with references and some external links. It doesn't have these things, that's why it was challenged. Typehigh (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Being tagged as not notable often means that other editors improve the article with inline citations and other information. I hope that happens for Blambot. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at this AfD and see if the product is notable. It seems printing related, but I have no idea on the reliability of trade publications in that area. Pcapping14:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people
List of cleanup articles for your project
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
Watchlisting all unreferenced articles
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
The Stephenson Blake article is actually two articles, one about a now defunct type foundry, and one about a brass welding company which also has a glass gauge manufacturing division. This is very peculiar, but I don't know what to do about it, so I am posting this notice. Please take a look at this situation. I added the Brass welding section to emphasize the two sections. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it the same font on their web sites? If so, it should be fairly easy to determine the typeface from the HTML. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Neither the section nor the article shows an example of underline text (whether composed with u or with ins, its underline appearance would not be universal). The section does say presentational element u is deprecated, by whom and for what purpose? For example, is it deprecated for use in English wikipedia?
Strikethrough includes section "Computer uses". In part:
The HTML special inline element for strikethrough is <strike> or <s>[1]. The BB Code for it is [s].
Using cascading style sheets (css) it would be <span style="text-decoration:line-through;">ABCDEF</span>
(That one lacks a final punctuation mark.) The section does not mention the special inline element del, denoting deleted text, which is often presented as strikethrough text. The article lead shows an example of strikethrough text (composed with del, its strikethrough appearance must not be universal). The section does not mention the inline element del and does not cover the deprecation of strike for use in English wikipedia or elsewhere.
Catull says that "It currently costs upwards of $99.00." I have never seen a font price in a typeface article before. If no one objects, I will remove this message after leaving this notice here for objections. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Dude, there is no such vocation or profession as a "fontographer". I've never heard of a "typologist" either. "Fontographer" is the name of a well-known font editing application. A person who designs typefaces is known as "type designer" or "typeface designer". A person who makes fonts (not the same process as typeface design), is known as a "font maker". Most type designers are also active font makers. Like myself for example. I've been designing typefaces and making numerous fonts of each face since 2003.
Please stop using the term "fontographer" in reference to type designers. It pisses off professional type designers and gives Wikipedians working on typography articles a bad name. Arbotalk09:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Good question. Lithos and Papyrus (typeface) are faux fonts described and referenced in their articles. Skia (typeface) has a stub article. The other samples do not have articles, but they should have. My intention is to provide information, and encourage others to improve the page by adding specimens and creating the red link articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Typeface list collaboration was improving the coverage of typefaces and typeface lists through most of 2009, but recently seems to have slowed its efforts. I was very active in that collaboration, but I have done very little recently. Perhaps the collaboration can do some of the improvements I am mentioning above in my first answer to you. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It can be risky to create lots of articles and leave it to others to source them though, as the Faux Cyrillic AfD suggests. Though sources would be needed for individual fonts, finding some sources covering the simulation typeface topic generally would also help, I think. Шизомби (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Request for comment on Biographies of living people
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:
Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.
The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect
Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.
Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikip (talk • contribs) 03:04, 26 Jan 2010 (UTC)
Jack Yan is not a notable typeface designer. He has never laid a hand on mouse or trackball to operate a font editing application. He tells some graphic designer employees of his what he wants them to draw with software, and has them do all the work of drawing and solving all the design problems involved in creating and designing a typeface and its fonts. As a professional typeface designer myself, Yan's involvement in type design and font production does not qualify him as a typeface designer. Not even close. Arbotalk09:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to recreate an image as a vector graphic for use in WP:USRD. Are there any users in this project who can help me identify the font for the word byway? Any help is appreciated and can be taken to my talk page. Thanks! –Fredddie™00:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
http://new.myfonts.com/WhatTheFont/ sometimes works well. You have to crop the image of all non-letters, and if the letters are touching, separate them slightly.
Cropped and tweaked and examined: http://new.myfonts.com/WhatTheFont/results?ch[0]=B&ch[1]=Y&ch[2]=W&ch[3]=A&ch[4]=Y&wtfserver=node4.ric.mf&id=00000ee64c72da8500066ad500002c99&glyphcount=5&imageid=0
Inconclusive. The top of the A makes it easy to reject most. The middle of the W is the other key.
I'm not convinced that it is a suitable subject for an article. You are unlikely to find anything that can be linked to it as hardly anyone uses the term. pablo09:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Typography articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Typography articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
I thought members might be interested in this article at howtogeek.com (I'm a regular reader). The project gets a mention in the article credits :) EyeSerenetalk16:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
currently i am working on a new arabic font. i used the cursive feature. i tested my font with illustrator cs3 me windows and the test was great but the test with indesign cs3 me / windows was a failure ( windows vista ). and the cursive feature did not work with the illustrator / indesign cs5 me / apple mac os 10.5.8 .
i really appreciate any feedback regarding this matter.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
{{cite journal
|author=John Smith
|year=2000
|title=How to Put Things into Other Things
|journal=Journal of Foobar
|volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4
|arxiv=0123456789
|asin=0123456789
|bibcode=0123456789
|doi=0123456789
|jfm=0123456789
|jstor=0123456789
|lccn=0123456789
|isbn=0123456789
|issn=0123456789
|mr=0123456789
|oclc=0123456789
|ol=0123456789
|osti=0123456789
|rfc=0123456789
|pmc=0123456789
|pmid=0123456789
|ssrn=0123456789
|zbl=0123456789
|id={{para|id|____}}
}}
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}03:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The information wasn't correct. The circled "C" is also a capital letter like the "R" in ® or the "P" in ℗. Found it in the references to copyright.gov on www.ehow.com/how_7581693_word-copyright-statement.html
This is a question relevant mainly to mathematics, but modern mathematicians do not care because such things are made by TeX today.
It is well known that unary operator notation does not require a space, like "·p" with arbitrary symbol instead of the middle dot. But binaryinfix notation usually requires a spacing noticeable at the first look, like "q · p". As demonstrated by <math> PNG output:
There is a Request for Comment at the Writing Systems WikiProject on the home for articles and templates concerning the Unicode Standard / ISO/IEC 10646. As the main article on Unicode is tagged as part of the Typography WikiProject, we request the input of all members of this WikiProject and all other interested parties to participate in the RfC. VanIsaacWScontribs08:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Selectable 'slinky' text for adverse reading (or writing? ) conditions.
Also refer to 'Talk:Speed reading' page for additional info. on this idea. (also boustrophedon). Maybe Wikipedia could implement a simple feature where a block of text could be presented on screen with every second line right-to-left upside down, somewhat operating as word wrap. If Wikipedia doesn't already have such a feature, perhaps approach Apple or Microsoft to have it as a menu selectable feature that train commuters etc. may gradually accept (over decades?). Now may be a good time to trial it as newspapers continue to push the 'newspaper format' over to tablet devices. Idea is to have the selected text dynamically adjust according to page width. Documents , such as, emails would automatically exclude address fields and bulleted lists ( and adjust for word break-up so that complete words are always presented). When this feature is active, you could have the text augmented specifically to assist right-to-left reading ( in shape, shading, colour, serif and so on ). Some university may have some research data and could run trials. SignedJohnsonL623 (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any potential impact, nor relevance to this Wikiproject. But Greg sees a number of things I don't, and many things which aren't actually there. — Arthur Rubin(talk)17:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Please Arthur, please do educate. What exactly am I seeing that "isn't there?" Please, refrain from the snark. I just want to make sure I understand you perfectly clearly. I am seeing things that aren't there, and you don't see how the deletion of a template for logical symbols would be relevant to the Typography project, correct? Greg Bard (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Letterpress printing is included here, right?
Before I make too many mistakes by tagging left and right for this project as part of my general push to improve the coverage of letterpress printing, I take it that letterpress printing is included under the scope of this project, right? I see that "printing" is mentioned in the lead of the main page. Given that letterpress was traditionally (in the pre-digital era) called "typography", and that typography, typesetting, typefounding, etc. are all essential to letterpress, I hope I have made the right move to find them a WikiProject good home. I may even enlist here myself. If I am in error, please let me know. Morgan Riley (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Letterpress printing, continued
I have been writing some small articles about letterpress in the Danish Wikipedia and been editing a few others. The article about printing is called 'bogtryk' and is particularly about letterpress printing the other forms of printing to be found elsewhere ('offset' 'litografi' 'dybtryk' etc.). We even have an article about leaden types ('blytyper') and a mention of the Ludlow types (it appeared to be a first on the Web). Of course we/I are far from finished (never to be expected) but perhaps we could translate a few sections from Danish to English? I am working on the 'point' but has not come that far. I do not have information about the first attempts to define the point.
In the Danish Wikipedia 'printing presses' are part of 'printing' but they should probably be moved to a separate article.
You have probably encountered Fraktur or Schwabacher, the German blackletter typefaces that were once commonplace but became obsolete in the 1950s. Even native German speakers often struggle to read these faces now. (Here's an example from an online book.)
In case you have the knack for Fraktur and want it to be known, I've created a template to add to your userspace: {{User:Alarob/frak}}
I assume this is not a good thing for someone to be doing, as it removes all the nuance from the pen strokes.
I know nothing of this topic, nor am I very familiar with Image policy. Someone else please take over, or advise. Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
It's OK. The SVG ("cleaned up") image was done for the sake of the infobox you reference in the article Rudyard Kipling. The SVG is well suited to this use, as the signature is reduced in size and shows against a light colored background. The more accurate JPG would not scale well for this use. The SVG file is also much smaller in size (number of bytes) and allows the page to load slightly more quickly than a JPG would. So SVGs are preferred in many cases.
I don't agree with substantially altering an image like this. The practice is completely wrong and we need to stop it. We don't trace photographs of famous paintings into SVG cartoons so they'll scale well and appear transparent against a background and be a lower file size. Signatures are immensely subtle and personal; there is an entire field of study dedicated to them. There is no way a random Wikipedia editor is qualified to trace somebody's signature with SVG paths and call it the real signature. We can't accept this practice. We can trace flags or symbols or coats of arms—abstract ideas that have been reproduced by many different authors—but not signatures, which are the sole property of a single author. The entire premise of signatures, their whole cultural purpose, is that they belong entirely to one person. They are not vetted and approximated by a second illustrator unless the owner expressly authorizes it. If we want signatures they need to be photographs of authentic signatures. If a signature looks bad in an infobox it should simply be removed and placed in context within the article. —Designate (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it's fine to trace signatures to make 'em into SVGs for use in infoboxes, and if anyone could do that for Carmen Electra, it would be greatly appreciated! Azx218:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
"Typing character" sections
Several articles (§ and ¶ are the ones I've just looked at) have a "Typing character" section, with instructions on how to type the character. Setting aside the dubious section name ("How to type x" or similar would seem better to me) these appear to add little to the article and to hit WP:NOTHOWTO.
As such, I propose removing such sections in general, and only including them when there is something more notable than simple instructions, such commentary about how one character is easier to enter than an alternative and has thus been more widely adopted for a given purpose, or about how use of a character has influenced keyboard design.
I understand the objection, but I don't think deleting the information is a tenable solution. Moving it out of the lede (in those cases), and into a guideline-endorsed subsection and format, would be my suggestion. –Quiddity (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you have an idea/example/proposal for what such a subsection would look like, or for the guidelines themselves? —me_and11:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the OP. It's useful but not encyclopedic. I see no problem with removing these sections, as we would remove tech tips from any other article. —Designate (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
OpposeWP:NOTHOWTO indicates that an article should not read like a manual, but I don't think that implies that every bit of information that could be useful in performing an user action should be deleted from an article. Comparison of the generation and encoding of these characters in different computer user interfaces is encyclopedic. Digital typography is dominant these days--deleting all the encoding examples would leave a big gap in the coverage of these symbols. And giving just the Unicode code point is obviously inadequate, as it does not cover other encoding systems or the input methods, which are conceptually independent of the code points. Thus I am in favor of keeping these sections. Which is not to say that they could not be trimmed if excessive, but deleting them completely would harm the articles. --Mark viking (talk) 06:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I could cope with this as an outcome, although I think it would be useful to have a guideline on what is and isn't an appropriate level of detail; ideally this would cover only the top few operating systems/keyboard layouts/interfaces, and in as general a fashion as possible (preferring less efficient but more general methods such as alt-codes over options that only work on some keyboard layouts). Does that make sense? —me_and14:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
That seems reasonable to me. KvnG's apostrophe example could serve as a good example. It is compact and gives examples of encodings for just the major OSes and markup languages. --Mark viking (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Partially agree. The info is excessive and never complete. Since keyboard layouts, HTML entity and alt code are worth an entry, the particular information bit of interest may be reduplicated in other articles. DOS/Windows alt codes and *ML numeric character references are formed algorithmically, but named entities, TeX macros and key combinations are not. I tried to make an info box, shown here for the section sign. — ChristophPäper09:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I like and support this general infobox proposal. I'm not sure how we'd decide on what contents to include/exclude though. I definitely prefer the comprehensiveness and added detail of Christoph's proposal, but I wouldn't want it to grow much bigger...
Are there any/many details (programs/OSes/International variants/etc) that are already being excluded from Christoph's proposal? That would give us an idea of its potential slippery-slope largest-size, and what we'd need to write an explanation for in the template docs of why we excluded them. –Quiddity (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, I did not include the French keyboard layouts which are present in § – that means the macCSA and azerty parameters above does nothing – and I also left out Ubuntu, because that are just special cases of *X with a certain key combination used for the compose key. I’m not too sure about onscreen keyboards, as is iOS.
I also don’t like the reduplication of US and UK International keyboard combinations. If that happens frequently, one could include a redundancy check and combine the entries. — ChristophPäper17:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
If you are interested in helping out with more drafts, please see my list of draft space pages, and help me reach my goal of eventually getting them all to article space! BOZ (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Stacked numbers inline: monospaced or keep font? (RfC notice)
About template {{val}}. The template produces scientific notations of complicated numbers, used in-line. One such example number looks like this, in two variants:
0.12345+0.00111 −0.00099 versus 0.12345+0.00111 −0.00099
(Scientifically, the stacked numbers denote a range of measurement, to state that the actual number will be withing these two borders). To choose: do we use monospaces, or keep the running font for this? An RfC is opened at Template_talk:Val#RfC. Typographic eyes could help. -DePiep (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I just had a quick look at Bracket and then i checked the talk page. I was astonished to find it a C class article when it obviously deserves higher. One of you guys should reassess. NickGibson3900 (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Proportional and tabular figures
Hello. I've been interested in creating an article on this topic, and have now completed a draft here. I'd be really keen to hear comments. Blythwood (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Irish typeface image
This image, which appears only on Irish orthography, is a low-quality image. The edges of the letters are not smooth, and the letter "names" use some sort of quasi-phonetic spelling. It looks it was put together in an old version of Microsoft Paint. It would be nice if someone redid it (I don't have the necessary typeface). pʰeːnuːmuː → pʰiːnyːmyː → ɸinimi → fiɲimi19:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I have started draft at Draft:Wide Latin, since it is a ubiquitous font (at least, it is widely represented in lists of fonts that are hated and advised against). I can't seem to find any historical information on it, and don't know where to start looking. Who created this broad, angular mostrosity, and how, and why? bd2412T04:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
It's a font designed by Stephenson Blake. I've not found a credited designer. Many fonts of that era didn't have one since they were very much team projects. The company would set a corporate goal (we want this kind of font for this kind of market) and have people make it. That said, it is interesting: it seems to be rather like hand-painted signs, which couldn't be practically made as fonts until large high-quality decals came in towards the 1970s. Blythwood (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
There are some good illustrations of these around, but they're all of individual glyphs, mostly from modern fonts. Does anyone have a recommendation for a non-copyright scan of an entire printed page of some book with floral borders on Flickr or Wikimedia to give people a sense of how they look on an entire page? I could create one using modern fonts like Hoefler Text and IM Fell but would rather show one laid out by professionals. Blythwood (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The Triumph of Plutus The only printed printed example I was able to find was from the French wikipedia at left. As for modern examples of typeset borders with fleuron glyphs, I don't know of any non-copyrighted images available. There is a public domain image of sample fleuron rules/borders at flicker [4]. --Mark viking (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
On balance, decided that the Flickr image would be better. I've uploaded it and put it on the fleuron page (and the typeface page as well). Blythwood (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
OS X typefaces navbox
Hi! At the moment I'm drafting a navbox template for typefaces included with Mac OS X on my sandbox here. Syntax is not complete yet but I'm hoping this will be a useful resource for gathering fonts together. I don't think it makes sense to put it on literally every article on a typeface bundled with OS X, since there are so many, but it might be useful to join up little articles like Menlo, and as a guide to notable fonts that need their own articles. In addition, it might be useful for users since some fonts are bundled with OS X but hidden unless you enable them (including some really big names like Bank Gothic, Bodoni, Century Gothic, Century Schoolbook, Garamond, several cuts of Lucida and Twentieth Century MT), so it would be really great to tell people that they're there. The Wikipedia article on the topic is totally outdated so I'm basing it on this data sheet, focusing on the current situation as I don't have a list for Yosemite. It's totally incomplete since I'm using the Microsoft one as a model and rewriting it as I go, starting with the Latin fonts-though I may split the Latin fonts up into serifs and sans-serifs and scripts. Help (or justifications of why this is a stupid idea) eagerly sought! Blythwood (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Type color
Hi - I noticed the type color page is fairly informative but has no references to back it up. I'm looking at rewriting it a bit and adding some references as part of a school project. Katieolive.b (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Line Length
Hello!
I am a Master of Library and Information Studies student. As part of my course Information Systems Management I have been tasked to make a substantial edit to a stub article related to IM topics discussed in the course. I am particularly interested in typography and so I have selected the Line Length article. There has been a fair bit of work done on the subject so I will be adding a short section (about 500 words) and references for your review.
Very Small Point : Elsewhere the "AT" sign (@) is referred to as a circled letter "a". . It is NOT -- rather it is a wrapped-tail letter "a" : The "circle" is NOT closed. Allenwoll (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Word Spacing
Hello! I was thinking of adding some information and history about word spacing. A lot has been written on subjects around it (e.g. letter spacing) and I feel this would benefit the Typography Project. Amac19 (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello again! I've added a brief section about readability and word spacing, with references as well. I've adjusted it and I plan to add more information soon as well as mention two views on spacing that I've read in literature. If anyone has any feedback or suggestions, that would be much appreciated! Thanks! Amac19 (talk) 03:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)amac19
-I've added several paragraphs to Word spacing plus the references consulted. I also added Leading to the See Also list because it seemed to be quite relevant for readers of typography. As always, any questions, comments, concerns about the edit is appreciated! Amac19 (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)amac19
Hi Amac19, I like your additions to the word spacing article. Readability is a good topic. If you are looking to expand the article....Word spacing is also affected by the type of font used, e.g., monospace fonts don't have adjustable word spacing, whereas proportional fonts are usually more flexible. You might mention that word spacing can depend on typographical format. For instance, to achieve justified paragraphs, word spacing is altered to adjust lengths, see [5] . But in ragged right set paragraphs, word spacing is typically fixed. --Mark viking (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Mark viking Thanks very much for the feedback. I had read sources that had some discussion on what you suggested, though as my posting was part of a project, and as a first time poster, I was a bit hesitant to write on this without better knowledge on this topic, but a good note for how the Word spacing page can progress! Amac19 (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)amac19
Boxout, Floating Box, Sidebar
While looking for unreferenced articles, I noticed Sidebar (publishing), Boxout and Floating block. They are tagged by this WikiProject and they seem to describe fairly basic concepts, but I can't find works that describe them in detail in the context of layout and print. The Survival Guide To Journalism glossary describes Box out as a synonym for Sidebar for example (p. 143). Two of the articles have been missing references for several years now - it would be great if someone could help out. Also, and that is just my opinion as a layman, Floating block and Boxout seem to describe the same thing. I'm crossposting a link to this section to WikiProject Graphic design. Recdep (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Scripts: Subscripts, Seriscripts, Superscripts
Seriscripts is a term used by some semioticians to identify scripts "within" the base of texts, that are not below or above the typed "X" height.
Furhermore and to be strictly or technically proper, fixes like "st" and "nd" and "rd" as written suffixes attached to root numbers like 1 and 2 and 3 are related to syllables but are called clitics and are not scripts.
70.50.99.49 (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject X is live!
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Watch this page for any rare vandal acts that slip by.
I undid a vandal act from a IP. You can check it out on the history of this page.
Apparently, that IP wanted attention.
And none of you guys noticed it. With the bots and antivandal tools, you still didn't look at that page, didn't you? :)
Don't worry, it happens.
You can thank Mr. Darylgolden for letting me revert that vandal act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyanoTex (talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Merge
Seems like typographic unit has the same scope as the point article and is just a much less common term for the same subject. Merge? or just adjust the content of article until it is talking about something different? — LlywelynII16:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Baskerville Old Face
It's one of the fonts on every computer and I think we need something about it. Does anyone have a good source on its history? My understanding from here etc is that it was a remake of Baskerville by Fry's that became owned by Stephenson Blake, and my impression is that modern digitisations are based on a design created as a titling face, hence the lack of an italic. But I might be wrong. Blythwood (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much - looks really good. James Mosley has some interesting comments in that thread, which I've cited from an Internet Archive backup - which is reasonable as he is a qualified academic. That answers most of my questions, but I'm also interested in the sources and logic behind how it was digitised (and why nobody at URW thought it needed an italic, which makes me think they didn't think it worked for body text). If anyone has more on that I'd be keen to hear about it. Blythwood (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Early sans-serifs?
Another question. I'm wondering about adding some pictures of early sans-serif fonts to the sans-serif article. Anyone know of some good sample images, preferably one showing condensed/expanded versions, or a free/open-source (or very cheap) revival I could download to use for that? The article's sample image for that category is Franklin Gothic, and really it looks almost the same as Helvetica-I'd like something more irregular and eccentric. Could probably put something together from ATF specimens from the 1890s on the Internet Archive, but would be keen to hear if anyone has a better source-I haven't found an example as strange as Monotype Grotesque Bold Extended, say. Blythwood (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I had a question about the page on Body Text.
On the page Body_text the section on web design talks about ⟨head⟩ and ⟨body⟩ tags. It then states that there's no body design. But wouldn't the heading tags –that ⟨p⟩ and ⟨div⟩ tags mentioned in the article and are a subset of ⟨h1⟩- be for that? Hgroup Markup I am not an expert on either typography nor html. --2601:1C2:1001:AEB5:6DD3:EFD8:BB6A:87C6 (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Open Dyslexia page
This is the first time I've used this forum, so I hope I'm doing this properly.
Mention is made of the work of Rello and Baeza-Yates: “Rello and Baeza-Yates (2013) measured eye-tracking recordings of Spanish readers (aged 11-50) with dyslexia and found that OD [OpenDyslexic] did not significantly improve reading time nor shorten eye fixation.”
The presentation of these two authors can be found here:
I would aver the presentation/analysis of Rello and Baeza-Yates (2013) is significantly flawed. At the least, the data presented in their figures 3 and 4 do not present in all cases the data shown in their Table 1, which actually shows both the Arial and OpenDyslexic typefaces to perform better than is alleged by the authors. For example, the median reading time for OpenDys is 23.81 units, which is the lowest of any typeface, followed by that of Arial (24.22 units). It’s almost as if the discussion in the paper was developed using a completely different set of data from that presented in Table 1. (By the way, the standard deviations are so large it's virtually impossible to distinguish, statistically, among the typefaces. It's analogous, today, to having two presidential candidates, one with 16% plus-or-minus 6% of the vote vs. another with 14% plus-or-minus 5% of the vote in the Iowa caucus. Statistically, there is no difference. That's the result you see in the published data of Rello and Baeza-Yates, a result, to a large extent, of the small sample sizes used.)
While the small sample sizes used in the experiment yield large estimates for the standard deviations (determined using Student’s t-test), the flaws in this paper cannot be overlooked and readers should be warned to examine the data carefully before accepting the authors’ conclusions regarding Arial, OpenDys, or any of the other typefaces tested.
It's interesting, by the way, to plot the fixation times (median, mean) against reading times (median, mean), respectively, something Rello and Baeza-Yates did not do, the results are very interesting. When we look at the mean data in particular, Arial demonstrates preferred properties (its numbers can be seen at the top of the author's table), with Courier a strong contender. Above them cluster three typefaces: OpenDys, OpenDys IT (surprisingly), and CMU.
I think it is interesting that this article is considered of low importance. This is probably one of the most recognizable fonts of computing. Why hasn't MS switched away from it yet? Because it is a large part of the percieved identity of Windows. --2003:71:CF36:C782:B966:D05B:EDD0:9AD4 (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Typography expertise desired at an RFC on image and caption layout defaults at Wikipedia.
A discussion is currently on-going to change the "(2014 typeface)" disambiguation to something else. More input and especially expertise is welcome.–Totie (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
I've relisted the discussion for another week. I would appreciate it if you took the time to look over the discussion and !vote. Thank you. JudgeRM(talk to me)02:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
SUGGESTION
I wonder if it would help to have a separate group dealing with web based typography.
To me there seem to be two distinct camps involved in modern typography: the old guard, who are fighting to maintain the status quo in a rapidly shrinking domain of art, and the enormous forces of Microsoft and Google, providing a freely available "writing and publishing system" for the use of the great unwashed of the web.
The different display technologies of print and internet lead to different issues and different systems and processes to address these and while there is of course substantial overlap between them this is far from 100%. For web typography, availability trumps the artistry of print based typography, so personally although I find the art and technology of print fascinating and beautiful it is of only academic interest. The elite technologies, resources, and devices they address are simply out of my reach.
I would be surprised if more than a handful of folk use anything other than the universally available free and web-safe options provided in increasinf variety "in" digital devices. However, while seeming to address what is effectively 100% of modern "typography consumers" as if it were the fringe, typographic articles sound archaic. Web/internet(/digital) typography should surely take precedence in Wiki.
I have a question for any experts, which I've duplicated on the reference desk. Here goes...
On Wikimedia Commons there's a photo of a page from a 1540 book, a French edition of Suetonius's Lives of the Twelve Caesars, and published by Robert Estienne. The typeface is identified as being an italic cut by French engraver Claude Garamond (or Garamont), after whom many modern fonts are named. It is used on many Wikipedia articles on Garamond and his typefaces in various languages-indeed, I put it on the English-language wiki before I got suspicious.
I'm a bit concerned about this image, since I have seen a lot of sources saying it is not clear Garamond cut italic type until the mid-1540s while working as a publisher himself. The French government article on Garamond says he 'perhaps' cut one for Estienne, so it has doubts too, and of course the one supposed to be by him might not even be this. Warde (1926) thinks no italics until after this book was printed. Two modern books on the topic which seem to be relevant are published by Dutch academic publisher Brill, which I know gives e-book licenses to Wikipedia. I don't feel this one query merits me applying for one, so can someone who has one of those licenses look them up? They're 'The palaeotypography of the French Renaissance. Selected papers on sixteenth-century typefaces. 2 vols' (Vervliet) and 'Dutch typography in the sixteenth century: the collected works of Paul Valema Blouw'. I've cited both on the Garamond article, but I've only been able to read the bits on Google Books. The answer may not be hard to find - Vervliet lists notable books which used each font he was able to attribute to a specific designer.
As for the image in question, I'm not convinced any deep scholarship has been done into it recently. It was bought by a collector in 1948 and transferred to Colorado College in 1981. Their website simply prints what the donor told them in 1981. (Claude Garamond is a well-known engraver of type, so my impression is that it was a bit too common in the past to attribute anything that looks nice in 16th century French printing to him without looking too closely at how it matched types he used in his own publications.)
I'm out of my depth here. I'm a sciences person with no formal qualifications or experience in historical research, printing, reading French-language sources or art history. But I feel that the attribution of this book to Garamond is more than doubtful and needs to be cleared up. Blythwood (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, a dear lady named Beatrice Warde, worked a long time at Monotype corporation ltd in London, she was interested in the same subject as mentioned above.
She conclused, that this font was from 17th century by Jean Jannon of Sedan. : ref: Judi Slinn, Sebastian Carter, Richard Southall, History of the Monotype Corporation, Printing historical Society, London, 2014, ISBN978 0 900003-15-8, page 206
It is in a Fleuron published by Stanley Morrison, quite expensive to buy it second hand, but available free as a digital source.
There might be some of her articles to be found in the Monotype recorders of that time. I wonder whether those can be found digitized somewhere...
