Talk:Roman square capitals

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Typography Mid‑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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Translation from German articles[edit]

The German-language pages de:Capitalis, de:Capitalis Monumentalis, de:Capitalis Quadrata, de:Capitalis Rustica are more comprehensive than this article, which doesn't seem to make an important distinction between Capitalis Monumentalis and Capitalis Quadrata. Since Capitalis Quadrata redirects here, it's a little misleading, as from what I can tell from the Google translation, the example given is more appropriately Capitalis Monumentalis (although I'm not completely sure) Unfortunately, I've never learned any german, and I don't know enough about this subject to fill out the article, but I'd love to see a more complete article! - Gid 11:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman imperial capitals[edit]

Malcolm, I am sorry if you are offended that I reverted your move, but I do not know the term "imperial capitals". Both the manuscript and inscription forms are "square capitals" as far as I understand. I don't know what terms are current in calligraphy though; I am thinking from the point of view of palaeography. If they are different that's fine, but what you did was rewrite the page for calligraphy when there are many more palaeographry-related articles that point here. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Square caps" refers to a manuscript style that looks like this: [1]. You can see in the caption that the style is called "square capitals, fourth century". The date of the style is later than imperial capitals. If you want the article to be about square caps you need to change most of the examples mentioned, and the image used. But there are, in either case, mistakes in the article.

I did include sourcing in my re-write....I don't make this stuff up.

I am not "offended". I am just tired of having to argue over virtually edit I make on WP. On the other hand, I suppose I have offended you while clomping all over your article with my steel toe work boots. Sorry. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about having two articles instead of one? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the image that should be used, if about imperial caps [2], because the lettering on the Trajan column is considered the the finest example, and the inscription was the subject of an important book on the subject called Origin of the Serif by Edward Catich.

Jossi, thanks for trying to help; but I do not anticipate doing more on this article now. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes[edit]

Footnotes of the University of Michigan Papyrus Collection are incorrect Assianir (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]