Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Typography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Typography (Rated NA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 

Handwritten signatures[edit]

Talk:Signature points here, so, I hope someone here knows what to do...

I saw this addition of a signature file to Rudyard Kipling and the signature appears to have been "cleaned up". Compare commons:File:Rudyard Kipling signature.svg to commons:File:Kipling signature.jpg

See also this vs this.

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.
Anyway the creation of the SVG does not preclude continued use of, or reference to, the JPG. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 22:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
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! Azx2 18:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Advanced wiki typesetting[edit]

People interested in making good typography in wiki please join the discussion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

"Typing character" sections[edit]

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.

Thoughts?

me_and 16:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Most of the marks in {{Diacritical marks}} and {{Punctuation marks}} include details about how they are created, or may appear, with unicode and HTML. Many of them include the information in the lede section. Related, are the columns in tables such as List of logic symbols and Whitespace character.
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_and 11:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Not sure, and not much time to devote to it. I've left requests for feedback at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Computing#Encoding and display of typographic marks and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Writing_systems#Encoding and display of typographic marks, which seem to be the most relevant other projects. HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 05:54, 11 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)
Oppose WP: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_and 14:54, 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)
  • Oppose - The examples cited (§ and ) definitely need improvement but I think it is possible to include this information in an encyclopedic manner. See Apostrophe#Entering_apostrophes for instance. ~KvnG 15:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


Section sign
§ U+00A7
167dec = A7hex
CP 1252 167
CP 437 21
(La)TeX \S
HTML /
SGML /
MathML
§ §
§
Alt code Alt++00A7 Unicode
Alt+0167 ANSI
Alt+21 OEM
Windows
AltGr+ Shift+S US international
AltGr+ Shift+S UK international
Mac OS
Opt+6 US
Opt+5 US extended
§ UK
X / Unix /
Linux
Ctrl+ Shift+UA7
compose+SO
Compose+!+S GTK+
Vim Ctrl+K+S+E Ctrl+V167
Emacs C-x+8+S
iOS 123 & §
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. — Christoph Päper 09:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Typing §
Windows Alt code Alt+0145
Macintosh key combinations § (UK)
Opt+6 (US)
Opt+5 (US extended)
X11 Compose+SO
HTML entity §
Unicode code point U+00A7
I like the infobox idea, since it keeps the information while breaking it out of the main flow of the text. I'd prefer something a little simpler than your suggestion though; something of the ilk of this cut-down version (I based the list of things to include partly off Quotation mark#Typing quotation marks on a computer keyboard). —me_and 09:27, 17 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. — Christoph Päper 17:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Dave Nalle[edit]

Draft:Dave Nalle is a draft space page related to this WikiProject. If you have any independent reliable sources to add to this article, we may be able to get it moved into article space.

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)[edit]

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)

Draft:Wide Latin[edit]

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? bd2412 T 04:25, 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)
Is there a source for that? Is this article-worthy? bd2412 T 20:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Probably not worth a whole article. Maybe redirect Wide Latin to the S-B article & put details. Source: [1] & here: [2]Blythwood (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Done that now, actually.Blythwood (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I have deleted the draft accordingly. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

'Hash' or 'number sign'?[edit]

Template:Punctuation_marks: No_more ( )[edit]

See Template:Punctuation_marks: No_more ( ). -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Bracket[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Uncial alphabet.png

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 → ‎fiɲimi 19:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)