Talk:Antiqua (typeface class)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Typography (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Com232 Peer review[edit]

There's a lot of information missing on this page. Trying using our text book from class to help with history and definitions. Try and start the article with the origin of this typeface and how it came about. You could also make a small portion dedicated to the original users or creators of this typeface. You need to add in many more facts about this particular typeface. It also lacks organization --Fi89419 (talk) 03:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall take in account of your suggestions and will farther organize this page Chcpal (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced tag on "dispute"?[edit]

I don't really understand why that's tagged as needing a cite, since 'dispute' is linked to the article which describes the dispute. Any objection to removing it? 20:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it and rephrased the link to make it more obvious. 19:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of Antiqua[edit]

I'm wondering about this. Is antiqua really a generally used term for non-blackletter letter forms? (In English, I mean; in German it's clearly used that way.) I would have said that the opposite of blackletter is roman, and that Venetian applies specifically to early romans, whose most salient characteristic is a diagonal, not horizontal, crossbar on the lower-case e. (But I suppose this is original research.) Herbivore 03:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Is antiqua really a generally used term for non-blackletter letter forms?"

Nope. The text only says Blackletter is Antiqua's Germanic opposite, which is not the same thing as saying Antiqua = non-Blackletter.
I've rewritten the text to get rid of the statement that Antiqua has been the most common form of text type from the 16th century to the present. That was an erroneous interpretation of the development sequence given in History of typography. That kind of Wiki authoring highlights the problem of using WP articles as principal sources for new articles. Existing articles can be used to cross-reference facts, but their content (or fragments of content) should be read very carefully and checked against a reliable print source before being incorporated into a new article.
I put an {{Unreferenced}} tag in because the contributors who wrote this article have not specified any print sources.

" German it's clearly used that way."

It is? Where? Is there a WP article that states that?
Thanks for your input. Asking the right questions helps clarify the meaning of the article.
Arbo talk 12:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the edit history I just discovered it was me who put the non-factual information in in the first place—godamn moron me! I'm astonished at how I could have been so sloppy. Unreferenced tag taken out and reliable reference added.
Arbo talk 13:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
In my French book (V. Sabard, V. Geneslay, L. Rébéna, Calligraphie latine, initiation, ed. Fleurus, Paris. 7th edition, 2004, page 8 to 11. ) they say : "In the sixteenth century, the rediscovery of old Carolingian texts encouraged the creation of the Antiqua script(about 1470)".
The name "Antiqua" is then understandable. --Yug (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The joining of specific letters (eg "ct" "ft" "ae")[edit]

Can anyone shed any light on when this is/was done, with which letters and why? I would love to see this in the article (or redirected to where it is mentioned elsewhere)

Matt (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Typographical ligature

Matt (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Research Sources and Summary[edit]

Book The Type Specimen Book 544 different typefaces with over 3000 sizes shown in complete alphabets; Author Van Nostrand Reinhold; ISBN 0-442-27915-9; Print 1974 Publish V & M Typographical, Inc (Page 14 Antiqua No.1 and Antiqua No.1 Italic)

Anatomy of a Typeface; Author Alexander Lawson; ISBN 0-87923-333-8 SC; Print 1990 By David R. Godine, Publisher,INC rePrint 1992 Great Britian (Page 308-323) Talks about different type creators(Foundry) and their typeface.

Meggs' History of Graphic Design Fourth Edition; Author Philip B. Meggs and Alston W. Purvis; ISBN 987-0-471-66902-6; Published by John Wiley & Sons inc., Hoboken, New Jersey (136-137 pictures of Antiqua typeface with description.)

Webpage - some links are buy fonts, using as reference. - type images, different type of antiqua - type images, different type of antiqua - different type of antiqua - different type of antiqua - different type of antiqua - different type of antiqua - different type of antiqua - different type of antiqua - has several type of antiqua - different type of antiqua - book antiqua with a small amount of information - different type of founders of antiqua - descriptions - Information
Chcpal (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Antiqua (typeface class) is such a broad topic, in the beginning of my research; i did not know how to approach this topic. Since this article has no living creators (for the time being), i cannot ask or talk with any person beside a three party. After asking my professor and got his point on how i should approach the article. I came up with an outline on how to approach this topic. The outline is not in any order will be revised later on. In this article, the context will be as follows; what is antiqua and how was it formed? From its original creator up until present day has the typeface become modernized in anyway? Who are some of those antiqua typeface creators? Where is antiqua used most? How and when did antiqua become majorly used? What are the other forms of antiqua? When was the first antiqua type text used? What was the first antiqua type text / book printed on or by it? These are some questions, which I would want to answer but more may come up as I work on the layout of this article.

1.Short Summary of Antiqua
2.People that created Antiqua typeface
3.First use of Antiqua
4.Different Antiqua Font and Creators
5.Different Styles of Antiqua
7.See Also

Chcpal (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Chcpal (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I am glad to see you are making progress on the article. This summary, though late, is the right direction. I look forward to seeing your contributions to the article itself.--Theredproject (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Suggestions for Article

Article seems to be well written. However, a suggested reference and website would be they give you some information on guttenberg as well as the his on Black letter, antiqua and textura print phases. This will give you a little more text to add to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sha22357 (talkcontribs) 01:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion I shall look at the webpage/website.Chcpal (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible suggestions[edit]

Some suggestions I can give are to list more designers that worked with antiqua types. There are probably more than Paul Renner and Hermann Zapf. Aside from that, you can try to write a little more on what exactly these typeface designers did (e.g what works they contributed to or made by using antiqua typefaces). Putting up images of some designs that have antiqua typefaces (if any exist) would be helpful. Check to see if there are also some contemporary/modern works that incorporate antiqua? Another thing you can work on is to write a little more on the origins of the typeface. --Rl081289 (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


What is it? This needs to be included. (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)