User talk:Tphinney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Killian[edit]

Mr. Phinney - I just noticed your comments at Talk:Killian documents; I am a (relatively new) administrator and have been an active editor of that article for a long, long time, and I think we've accomplished a pretty reasonable NPOV given the contentious nature of the subject. First I wanted to say that I think it's pretty cool that you dropped in there. Second, I wanted to make sure you are aware of Wikipedia policy regarding editing of articles pertaining to one's self - it's really more for bio articles but you should check it out to protect yourself from getting into accidental trouble as it bears a bit of relevance(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the_article). Note that I don't think you have done anything wrong at all, just giving you a heads-up about where the lines usually are. Finally, I noted the comments you made about the typography conference. If your statements there were on record and publicly accessible, I'd like to consider citing them in the article itself or in the "authenticity issues" subarticle. I don't think it's any violation of policy for you to let me know either here or on my talk page if there's some kind of way to cite that. Again, super-cool that you contributed to the article/talk page. Love the internet. Best regards, Kaisershatner 14:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Kaiser - I mostly edit articles that I have real expertise on, so I am particularly aware of the possibility of bias in such editing. In some cases, I have left in material I considered to be very poorly supported by the facts to avoid any possible accusation of bias in my editing (though I may have questioned the same material on the Talk page). My comments at the 2004 St Bride conference were indeed on the record as far as I'm concerned. However, the proceedings were not published, and my talk was not recorded as such, so you might have difficulty getting a citation. (I went over my slide deck when I was writing the comment that got your attention, but unfortunately I am not one of those folks who puts their whole talk on the slide - rather there are suggestive points that spark my discussion.)
Interestingly, David Hailey has done some new research on the Killian memos, and although most of it is not relevant to me (it neither supports nor contradicts my thinking, and I don't regard it as particularly conclusive), it did enable me to identify the exact font used: it's Linotype's Times Roman, also used by Adobe and Apple - and not Monotype/Microsoft's Times New Roman. The two fonts share identical widths, but are subtly different designs. I will try to find an appropriate place to post some commentary (not sure my work blog qualifies), and I'll point to it when it's up. Thomas Phinney 03:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
My first blog entry on the new analysis here: http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/2006/08/bush_guard_memo.html Thomas Phinney 00:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Typography II[edit]

Hello Thomas, I didn't mean to hijack the meaning of the sentence Mr. Arboghast first wrote, or be smug by saying it "made my brain hurt". I just thought it is evident that Descartes did not come up with a "cartesian grid philosophy" and that it should be rectified. I also found that the tone in the sentence suggests that the Didots, Bodoni et al. were influenced rather "directly" by the work of Descartes and Newton. In other words, their deterministic "classical model" had an influence on popular culture, which in turn influenced the fontmakers a century later, if you wish. The linking "culture" part is missing. The sentence as first written was most likely better than it is now, although I still think the reference to cartesian grids makes no sense:

At the end of the 17th century, modernism began to eschew chirographic and organic cultural influences, giving rise to a rationalized, reformed classical model, based on a strict cartesian grid driven by the exacting philosophy of Rene Descartes and the predictable clockwork universe of Isaac Newton.

Do you think the following would strike a compromise?

True modern romans arrived with the types of the Italian Giambattista Bodoni and the French Didots. Completing trends begun by the Fell , Fleischman, Fournier and Baskerville types, the so-called "classical" modern romans eschewed chirographic and organic influences found earlier. Their synthetic symmetric geometry gave rise to a rationalized and reformed classical model, inspired by the exacting philosophy of René Descartes and the predictable clockwork universe of Isaac Newton.

I'll let you be the judge and post the new paragraph. Perhaps the "cartesian grid" refers to the fact that the font components are all lined-up: in this case it would certainly be considered a "grid", but not "cartesian". In any case, I should make it clear that it is not right its present form. FelisSchrödingeris (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we were in conflict mostly because the edit summary text doesn't give enough space to really explain what one is up to. While the cited people did not necessarily themselves use a cartesian grid for type design, they were in fact following in the footsteps of people who did; this was not some highly indirect influence through popular culture, there were people literally using Cartesian grids in letterform design (e.g. Tory), who in turn influenced type designers. Thomas Phinney (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I should have cited Moxon as a better example. Tory used geometry, but not a grid. See p. 63 of the Encyclopedia of Library & Information Science by Allen Kent, 2003. http://books.google.com/books?id=6SuMGPi80f8C&pg=PT72&lpg=PT72&dq=tory+moxon++grid&source=web&ots=F1fvfZBu7s&sig=zQpNXgPwdTk9SLK30Bf2d5E4yCg&hl=en Thomas Phinney (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Typography[edit]

Hi Thomas. Thanks very much for tweaking those description in Typography. It's much clearer and more conservative (good for NPOV).

Is there anything I can do for you?

I notice too an infobox has been added to typography, apparently by User:Puddhe. I was about to ask another user to make an infobox for typography—two column format and typography-based. The recently added box is single column and concentrates on characters. :-/ Surprisingly the same infobox has not been added to Font.

I'll see if I can get a better one made.

Arbo talk 12:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Glad you appreciated those changes. I have done a round of mostly minor changes on type/typography related entries on Wikipedia this past weekend. I agree with you about the new box - interesting stuff, but possibly tangential to that particular article. It would be nice to find a good home for it, though - not sure if Font is the best place, either.
I have been on a bit of a tear trying to correct a few key typographic definitions across pages, such as "em" and "body." I don't suppose you'd like to chase down the creator of this lovely graphic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vertical_typographic_terms.png) and see about fixing the fact that what's shown as the typeface's "body" isn't?  :) (The "body" being the height of the metal that the type is cast on, or the imaginary equivalent in digital type, it is larger than the ascent + descent from the picture.)
Cheers,
T Thomas Phinney 20:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the sample should illustrate the total metric height of the typo body. I'll leave a message with the creator and request a corrected diagram.
I left a request on the user's talk page but it looks like he isn't here often, so we may be waiting a long time for the pic to be updated. I'll update it myself and overwite the existing image so that the updated image appears wherever it is used. No problem with updating images this way because the old versions are retained in the image page's edit history and can be revived at any time.
Arbo talk 19:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I will be on wikileave for November getting some fonts ready for the end of the year, and I have to finish text on Fleischman, Baskerville and Bodoni to round out the History of (western) type. User:DGG and I have decided a separate history article is required for 19th to 21st centuries. So my wikitime is very limited at the moment. Thanks for correcting the caption of the si lig pic.
Best regards, Arbo talk 21:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Griffo italic not so compact afterall[edit]

Hi Thomas. Thanks for correcting that passage in the type history. The myth must be pervasive, and WP is a good opportunity to banish it.
Arbo talk 19:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a rather widespread myth, about the Aldine italic being more compact than the roman. I believed it myself until somebody pointed out to me that Carter had debunked it years ago. (Confession: not sure if that was Harry Carter or Matthew Carter.)
Thomas Phinney 05:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be good to find out which Carter and track down a reliable source. The source could then be quoted as an inline citation supporting a statement debunking the myth, which should be placed in the type history and Aldus Manutius: "However, he did not use his italic typeface for emphasis as we do today, but rather for its narrow and compact letterforms, which allowed the printing of pocket-sized books."
Arbo talk 19:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

History of typography[edit]

I've completed the text up to the end of the 18th century. If you see anything erroneous or askew, dive right in and edit.

Over the next week I'll be uploading samples of Arrighi's italic, Griffo's italic, de Colines, Estienne, Augereau, final Garamond, Granjon's italic, Elzevir, Jannon, the Fells, a proper Caslon sample, Fleischman, Baskerville, Didot and William Martin's modern roman—Wikipedia samples of these types are either non-existent or have quality problems.

The article was getting too big (32 KB is the max recommended size) so the early sections on origins of the letterpunch, moveable type, Gutenberg's hand mould, and the end sections on 19th --- 21st centuries, have all been removed and will be made into separate articles over the next 48 hours.
Arbo talk 19:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking after History of Western Typography[edit]

Hey Thomas, thanks so much for the recent repair job you did on the history article : ^ ) Previous edit was reductive and lacking in literary merit --- Arbo talk 08:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Serif[edit]

You're right, they are basically the same, although there was more difference between the original offerings. But to my knowledge in 1932 there was only Times New Roman, Linotype's came later, so I think it's clearer to call it TNR unless specifically meaning the Linotype variety. Wnjr (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your revert in International Typeface Corporation[edit]

Hello Tphinney, you undid my edit, which resolved a wikilink to a disambiguation page. I am sorry because my edit comment is cryptic. Could you please verify, that you did not not mistake the reader-visible part of the wikilink for the "target"-part, ITC Bookman. Thank you, --Make (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right, my error. I have undone my undo. Sorry about that! Thomas Phinney (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Empire Boardgame[edit]

Thanks for your interest. I don't have much information on the early development of the game. I was introduced to in 1982. I would recommend that you contact Andrew Nesbit in Portland and some of the other early players that are still in the area. Though, they began playing in the late 60s, and I believe that the game was already a few years old then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AusJeb (talkcontribs) 14:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Arial's relationship to Helvetica[edit]

Just wanted to make sure you saw that I partially reverted your edit to the Arial article. You had inserted, without citing a reliable source, a claim that the widths of Monotype Grotesque were changed during the creation of Arial/Sonoran Sans in order to make Arial more like Helvetica.

As I'm sure you're aware, there's quite a bit of hysteria among type enthusiasts about Arial's relationship to Helvetica. This naturally affected the Arial article until we started holding statements on that subject to a higher standard of verifiability.

It's not that what you wrote is implausible or certainly false; it's just that since it has to do with Arial's relationship to Helvetica, it has a higher chance of being folklore, and therefore must be attributed to a reliable source, unlike the more benign statements that aren't (yet) sourced. I hope you can find a source for it, actually, because it's surprising for how hot of an issue it is, how little of substance has actually been written about it. —mjb (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching & fixing my erroneous undo of that fix to the Arial Condensed listing! —mjb (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Update for "find-your-font adventure"?[edit]

I cited your article in Web typography under "practical considerations". Are you aware of anything newer (not necessarily by yourself) that's worth mentioning/citing in there? Thanks. JMP EAX (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Intellectual property protection of typefaces[edit]

HI, I apologize for not getting back to you on the copyright issue. It's been a crazy month for me and I don't anticipate having any time for Wikipedia editing of any significance until mid-October.

Short answer on that is that, since the 1976 Copyright Act took effect in January 1978, there no longer is any such thing in US law as "copyrighting" something. There was, under the prior 1909 act, where one copyrighted a work by either publishing it with a copyright notice or, for certain unpublished works, formally registering a copyright with the US Copyright Office. I'll give more detail on that, with some cites for you, when I'm available again, I'm just mentioning it now in case you want to look at it in the meantime.

The Copyright Office's usage you found is not to the contrary: they use "copyrighted" as an adjective (or past participle, if you prefer to think of it as a verb), not as am actual activity as erroneously used in the typeface article. The policy and regulatory statements, and the regulations themselves, generally use the more correct "subject to copyright" or a variant of that.

In the meantime, I don't plan on touching the article until I can give you a more complete and convincing reply. TJRC (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)