|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Typography article.|
|Archives: Index, 1|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 2 years may be archived by.|
Inconsistent with Current Usage
A Google search of "typography" indicates that today's graphic designers use the term to refer to the design of typefaces. It would be helpful to note this point in the introduction or in a "Typography vs. Typeface Design vs. Typesetting" section, and it would also be helpful to note that in the introduction that the term "typesetting" is used today to refer to the metric applications in typography. Rsamot (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
"Cookies taske super good"!?
The very first word on the page should say 'Typography' in bold letters and yet somehow I am seeing "Cookies taske super good" though when I tried to edit, it does not say it on the edit page for it to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Removal of David Jury quote from lead
I removed the quote from David Jury from the lead paragraph. My issues with the quote being in the lead include:
- Who David Jury is is unknown to the reader. I still don't know why he is relevant to the article and I have been looking into it.
- David Jury is mentioned nowhere else in the article
- David Jury's book is referenced nowhere else in the article
- If David Jury was worth quoting in the lead then the reader should know from the use of material from him within the article that he is someone who's opinion on this subject should be taken with special weight.
- As it was when I first removed the quote from the lead, there was absolutely no information about him, just a name, and the name of a book he wrote. With the only time any material from the book is cited is for that quote.
- Now, the full extent of the information about him in the article is that he is "Head of Graphic Design at Colchester Institute in England". The brief information I am able to find on the Colchester Institute from Wikipedia and their website does not lend him the immediate weight to say that he is important to this topic. It does not appear that along with Hairdressing and Beauty Therapy that the Colchester Institute is a hotbed of research into topography.
- Looking into his book a bit more I find that it is published by Robovision Books – yes, it is a red link, there is no article on them – the Publisher's catalog. Which links to Issuu which appears to be a self publishing house. On Robovision Book's facebook page their first paragraph about themselves states "Our subjects include photography, art, design, fashion, fabrics & needlecrafts." Again, that does not lend anything to implying that David Jury's opinion should carry special weight for readers of this article.
If David Jury was extensively used as a reference elsewhere in the article, then it might be reasonable to have a quote from him in the lead. It is an example of WP:UNDUE to have the only reference to this person be a quote in the lead. Based on the indications that the publishing house which published his book may be engaged in self publishing, I would argue that his book is not even an appropriate reference.
There just isn't any reason, or need, for that quote to be there. It being there does not improve improve the article. In fact having his quote there, without providing the reader with any reason for David Jury's opinion to mater, detracts from the article instead of enhancing it.
- Further, looking on Google Books, I found that the quote is not even on page 63 as cited. It is, however, on page 152.
- — Makyen (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for noting the issue with the reference. I used the wrong Jury book as the source. It was page 63, but I had the wrong title.
- I am unclear why much of what you listed is grounds for removing the passage. Perhaps you could explain what WP policy supports 2–4 in your list, for example.
- I'm not overly concerned that this topic is not covered in the article. WP:LEDE states that the lede should "define the topic, establish context, [and] explain why the topic is notable" as well as summarize the article. The quote establishes context and indicates the importance/notability of the topic. It is true that significant material should not be covered in the lede if not covered in the article. If this is "significant", the manner in which this should be handled is for someone to add material in the article to supplement it, not remove material that contributes to the article.
- The book is a reliable source as per WP:RS. You can find out more about David Jury at http://www.davidjury.com/. It would be possible to add that as an external link to David Jury's name in the lede as opposed to one of his credentials if you'd like since there is as yet no Wikipedia article on him that provides a summary of his works and credentials. On the other hand, if you are overly concerned with the reliability of Jury, as well as his work cited, and the publisher (all three are considered when judging a reliable source at Wikipedia), you can ask for another opinion at the reliable source noticeboard.
- There are also alternatives to consider before simply deleting sourced material on Wikipedia. You can move it to a different section. You could also move it to the talk page with a note to include it later if the appropriate conditions are met (although I disagree that there is an issue regarding the latter here).
- Thanks for your interest. Airborne84 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)