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

Award in 2005?[edit]

If this typeface was not created until 2006 (as indicated) how did it win an award in 2005? 03:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC) If not "exist" before 31 Jan 2017 Than how it possible won award in 2005 coated by wikipedia "Calibri won the TDC2 2005 award from the Type Directors Club under the Type System category."

@Blythwood: you have anything to say regarding this? --Saqib (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Saqib: - sure, here's my understanding. De Groot finished the design of Calibri in 2004 as part of the development of what became Office 2007, and you could download it as a beta soon after that. It didn't get "publicly released" with Office until 2007 because the rest of Office was a bit late ;) He's joking about it on Twitter at the moment. Blythwood (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Blythwood: The public beta release was 6 June 2006, according to Newsweek. —CrazyDreamer (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Wait. @CrazyDreamer: the Newsweek story qoutes Dawn story and Dawn story quotes Wikipedia.. it says "The first public beta version, according to a Wikipedia entry, was released on June 6, 2006 ". --Saqib (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Good catch, @Saqib: Going into that article and following the references further eventually yields a trail of broken links that left me digging through the Wayback Machine. The key here is that it was first publicly released with the first public beta of Windows Vista, whose date can be found here with various other outlets picking up the news over the following 24–48 hours (but not repeating the date). It would have been available to a more limited beta pool for some time before that, but I cannot verify exactly when it actually made it into the Longhorn/Vista private test versions. —CrazyDreamer (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

One Page?[edit]

Should we make one page for all six "Vista C" fonts? That makes more sense to me than having six typography stubs floating around. ModusOperandi 04:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Lowercase g?[edit]

Whats up in the two example images the lower case "g" characters being different? One is regular and one is italicized...but I can't think of a font that changes its g's so much between regular and italic. --Hergio 17:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not uncommon; it's simply got proper italic forms, rather than the oblique forms you migh be expecting. Look at the "e" and "f" and so on as well as the "a" and "g". Compare serif fonts like ITC Bookman. — Haeleth Talk 14:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Perpetua, designed by Eric Gill, has a particularly striking difference between the roman and the italic "g". —— Shakescene (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Lowercase g?[edit]

It also changes the "a". Gill Sans changes the "a" when italicized as well.

First iconic use[edit]

My Project:Shark might be the first group to use calibri as its own font, like johnston is to lul.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Shark/Userbox5

Forced compatibility?[edit]

Should we mention the worries over Microsoft essentially making their default documents incomptible with all other word processors since the default font is now a proprietary one? -Fuzzy 20:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  1. yes! -- (talk) 06:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. no, no reason to promote absurd things. Microsoft has always used proprietary fonts. Some people made open source fonts that were metrics (widths) compatible with the previous generation of Microsoft fonts. People have since made open source fonts that are width-compatible with Calibri and other newer-generation Microsoft fonts. It's a non-issue. Thomas Phinney (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


The article suggests that Arial has been the default font for Excel, but at least on the Mac version, the default font is Verdana. Theshibboleth 05:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Why is this a humanist type face? Should we remove that phrase? --Walter Görlitz 23:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Humanist" is an adjective describing typefaces that resemble Humanist. This could be confusing to people who aren't familiar with the jargon and think it has something to do with humanism, though. 12:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is an opportunity to learn anohter meaning through contextual use. I vote to keep it as it is extremely common typographic term. CApitol3 13:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but as mr. Görlitz has shown, it's quite possible to miss the contextual meaning. If you didn't know Humanist, how are you supposed to know that a "humanist typeface" isn't a typeface designed by humanists? I'm not sure this can really be solved, though. Maybe an article on Humanist that we could link to would help (presently humanist is a disambig page that does explain the typesetting jargon, but only as an item on a list). 14:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
A link to the dab page is better than leaving the term completely unexplained. I'm adding it. —Angr 11:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, I also thought it had to do with humanism. And the use in a typeface context isn't explained in the link in the article. (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I know a little bit about type and lettering, picked up here and there including a couple of summer classes at RISD, but the term "humanist" was completely misleading/bewildering to me, because (naturally enough for me), humanist suggests Humanist bookhand [1] [2], which is something very different, although Eric Gill was obviously paying it tribute when naming this font. The words here have to be less gnomic and more explicit. There's certainly space. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I use it without buying Vista?[edit]

Can I legally download and use Calibri on my Win2k or WinXP from somewhere, or do I have to actually purchase Vista or Office Vista to legally use the new fonts?--Sonjaaa 15:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)--Sonjaaa 15:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The latter. The fonts are copyrighted, so they can only be copied with permission from Microsoft. Unlike the core fonts for the Web, the new Vista fonts are not freely redistributable.
That said, the fonts are available for download if you know where to look, but it's almost certainly not legal. As long as you don't redistribute them yourself, though, I doubt Microsoft's lawyers will be banging down your door. 13:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I've just installed the MS Office Compatibility Pack for office 2003 (allows opening 2007 docs) and the Font seems to be included there as well. At least I have the font installed now, and I don't think it was installed before (Win XP) --20:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
The Calibri font is copyrighted by Microsoft and they only allow use on Microsoft Windows. I'm not sure about OSX or Linux. (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
There is the OpenXMLConverter software by Microsoft for Mac. Its license says:

2. FONT COMPONENTS. While the Office for Mac software is running, you may use its fonts to display and print content. You may only

• embed fonts in content as permitted by the embedding restrictions in the fonts; and

• temporarily download them to a printer or other output device to help print content.

— Microsoft Software License Terms. Microsoft Open XML file format converter for Mac, Open XML file format converter 1.1.4 for Mac
Sergioller (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Adding, when someone sends me a mail using Calibri (the MS default now... sigh) my mail reader asks if I want to download it. Clicking yes, the mail appears in Calibri but the font is not installed on the system. Using Mail in Snow Leopard. -- (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


So what font does WP use? I think it's Times New Roman. When's WP gonna switch to Calibri? If we aren't going to, why not? Gatherton 02:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate place to ask this question. Try the Village Pump.
Basically, I think WP will not switch to Calibri for two reasons:
  • Times New Roman is a solid baseline font that ensures WP looks professional and consistent across a wide range of systems (all of them have something resembling Times). Calibri is Vista-specific and harder to get consistent (since appropriate replacements will have to be used for non-Vista platforms).
  • Calibri is sans serif. 'Nuff said. WP uses a serif font for its main text and sans serif for headers, which is a common approach. Using a sans serif font like Calibri for the main text would be a big change in style. 14:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Realy? I'm FAIRLY certain that the default skin for wikipedia uses sans-serif fonts for everything... Kmenzel 14:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, you're right. I'm an idiot. 08:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


I can only read about 2 seconds worth of Calibri before my eyes hurt. I have also read that people reading this font get headaches. From what I can see the font is too bold for screen reading and the words and sentences tend to blend together.-ps -- (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Find references to back these claims up, and they can be included in the article. TalkIslander 01:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I've mentioned it here because I think there should be research done on it. As for references I refer to blog comments, and I also think the spaces between the words are too small (for example compare Calibri 11pt with Verdana 10pt in Outlook) for me I can see words but it takes a lot longer to comprehend when has been written. I was surprised to find that this font was intended to improve screen readability. I can post screen shots if needed -ps -- (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That link to the blog comment on was very useful, but it works just fine if you access it directly instead of needlessly going through I fixed it. Bostoner (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Blog comments are not acceptable as sources on Wikipedia. -/- Warren 02:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
in reply to "keep fanboy opinion out" & "At some point it will dawn on OpenOffice fans that the popularity of the Vista fonts will be a problem for them." This is hilarious... you should look up the term "Projection" in the subject of Psychology. -- (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed "most popular" claim[edit]

I removed the following:

In a survey conducted by researchers at Wichita State University, Calibri was the most popular font for e-mail, instant messaging, and PowerPoint presentations. It also ranked highly for use in website text.[1]

because upon reading the source, such did not seem to be the case. For example, Times New Roman was rated 2% higher than Calibri for willingness to be used on the Web. "Popular" was also the wrong word choice, as it implies it is used more than any alternative; rather, the study's participants were remarking on appropriateness for use in certain contexts, and the font list was small and finite. --AlanH (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


Distributed with Windows XP[edit]

This article states that Calibri is distributed with Windows XP, however I have never experienced this. In fact I've never seen it on a Pre-Vista system with anything lower than Office 2007 installed. -- Nik Rolls (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"Calibri was designed by Lucas de Groot for Microsoft to take advantage of Microsoft's ClearType rendering technology."[edit]

(I'm new at this so plese put me right if I go about things wrongly. - Thanks)

The above sentence is not clear to me. Does it mean that Calibri works well on a computer where ClearType is available but not well where simpler rendering is done? In that case Calibri might be best avoided where maximum compatibility is important. Rjarvi1 (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at this link there is explained how works exactly the cleartype rendering.--Jesus.coronas (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"Unique features, which are common nowadays"?[edit]

Do you find the cognitive dissonance jarring too, or is it just me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Calibri"[edit]

I'm trying to find the correct pronunciation of this font's name. The word itself is Italian, and means "gauges," but I do not speak Italian, so I am unsure of the pronunciation. I've found three different pronunciations so far:

  • ka-LEE-bree : This is what my instincts say the pronunciation would be in Italian, and Google Translate's speaking bot pronounces it this way.
  • KAL-ih-bree : This is how the voiceover actor on Microstoft's e-learning course for Office Excel 2010 (course # 10296, ) pronounces it, but I'm not convinced he's pronouncing it correctly. (Calibri is the new default font for Excel.)
  • ka-LIHB-ree : This is how the bot at pronounces it.

Neither the English or Italian Wiktionaries are any help here. Can any Italian speakers help? kevyn (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Lucas de Groot, the designer of Calibri, pronounces it ka-LEE-bree in his native language of Dutch (Netherlands). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That would be an excellent authoritive source to base our information on. Can you link to where you found that info? —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 16:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Smaller than normal fonts[edit]

The Cleartype family of fonts are smaller than normal fonts, which means they often break webpages or documents if a font subsitute is applied (eg: Arial, etc...). This complaint can be found on numerous blogs and such, but I've not found a formal article on the subject. If anyone finds one, can you link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Swaped capital and small "phi[edit]

Hello, during work with Excel 2010 I've found the problem with Greek alphabet. I described the problem on the Calibri wiki page (this page) and someone responsible for correctness of this page refuse my change with "source needed" explanation. What source could I provide if this is a bug and as bug it is not documented. As I'm the first one encountered this problem there is other source I can use as "source". What is the correct way to add this information to the Wikipedia?

My original change:

In version present in Windows 7 (posible others) is position of letter phi and small letter phi swaped. Both Normal and Bold type is affected, Italic and Bold Italic type is not affected. This behavior was confirmed on czech version of Windows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slwat (talkcontribs) 11:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the phi letter in Calibri font on Windows 7 I'd say that the issue is currently well explained in Phi#Computing which says:
In ordinary Greek text, the character U+03C6 φ is used exclusively, although this character has considerable glyphic variation, sometimes represented with a glyph more like the representative glyph shown for U+03C6 (φ, the “loopy” form) and less often with a glyph more like the representative glyph shown for U+03D5 (ϕ, the “straight“ form).
Because Unicode represents a character in an abstract way, the choice between glyphs is purely a matter of font design. While some Greek typefaces, most notably "Porson" typefaces (used widely in editions of classical Greek texts), have a "stroked" glyph in this position (Greek phi Porson.svg), most other typefaces have "loopy" glyphs. This goes for the "Didot" (or "apla") typefaces employed in most Greek book printing (Greek phi Didot.svg), as well as for the "Neohellenic" typeface often used for ancient texts (Greek phi Neohellenic.svg).
It is necessary to have the stroked glyph available for some mathematical uses, and U+03D5 GREEK PHI SYMBOL is designed for this function. Prior to Unicode version 3.0 (1998), the glyph assignments in the Unicode code charts were the reverse, and thus older fonts may still show a loopy form at U+03D5.
I'd say that creators of Calibri used Unicode tables prior to Unicode v. 3.0 and so swapped glyphs for GREEK SMALL LETTER PHI and GREEK PHI SYMBOL: they put ϕ glyph (the “straight“ form) at U+03C6 (GREEK SMALL LETTER PHI) and φ glyph (the “loopy” form) at U+03D5 (GREEK PHI SYMBOL). On the other hand, glyph Φ is used for U+03A6 (GREEK CAPITAL LETTER PHI), which is OK. --Rprpr (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


I strongly disagree that 'I' and 'l' are homoglyphs in Calibri. They are very different in height (1300 vs. 1393 units on 2048/em) and visibly different in stem thickness (172 vs. 165 units) and glyph width (516 vs. 470 units). Older sans serifs often have identical ascender and cap heights, for instance Gill Sans, Helvetica (and its impostor Arial) and Univers (the latter also have identical glyph widths for 'I' and 'l'). In these cases 'l' and 'I' could be considered homoglyphs (though the stem widths are not identical, of course), but not in Calibri, because of the height difference. Paragraph removed. (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Homoglyph "is one of two or more characters, or glyphs, with shapes that either appear identical or cannot be differentiated by quick visual inspection." You can quickly distinguish l from I in Calibri only if you can compare it to a nearby uppercase letter in the same row of text - see this example where the first row reads abclmino (all lowercase letters) and the second row reads abclMINO (4 lowercase and 4 uppercase letters). This homoglyph can be easily exploited in phishing e-mails when writing URLs, e.g., --Rprpr (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

As who was designed Calibri?[edit] (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Now in article states that Calibri was designed by Rupert Westrup, and in infobox that by Lucas de Groot. As who was designed Calibri actually?

Bug: Combining half-rings ("more/less rounded" IPA diacritics)[edit]

I have noticed that Calibri -- not Calibri Light, just Calibri -- contains a duplicate glyph for the combining half-rings (a̜ a̹). The "Combining Left Half Ring Below" (U+031C) seems to replace its "Combining Right" (U+0339) counterpart, meaning they are encoded as two different glyphs but they display as one and the same: the left half-ring.

I don't know if this is worth adding to the article, but it might give someone a heads-up if they're about to use the typeface to write in the International Phonetic Alphabet: those diacritics are used to express respectively "more" and "less" lip-rounding on vowels.

-- (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 July 2017[edit]

Please restore the original content of this article. It has been recently badly vandalized.

Thank you -a Ali.muslim (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. (Guessing ths is already fixed, and that the previous responder forgot to remove this request tempate) (tJosve05a (c) 02:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Editing Dispute[edit]

@Chrosby and Saqib: I do not understand what is the dispute tbh. I learned that this typeface is a part of a judicial case currently in Pakistan, but what are the reasons for including or not including it, from both of you? Emphrase - 💬 | 📝 11:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Emphrase: The investigation team that was probing the corruption case found that the docs submitted to them by guilty party are fake, on the grounds that if they were signed in 2006, how can the Calibri fonts ( released for usage in 2007) be used on them in 2006. Hope you get it? Honestly , we still need to find out when actually the fonts were released for commercial usage. The sources that are currently being used were published today and could be unauthentic. --Saqib (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The Dispute:

Claim A: Calibri was never available for general public before January 2007. Therefore any image scan of Original Document with date January 2006 but with Calibri font is forgery.

Claim B: Calibri was distributed as part of Office 2007 Beta since late 2005. Thus it's not impossible to have a document scanned with font Calibri and with date before January 2007.

Objective: Win Wikipedia credibility by pushing one's favored claim to be available on Wikipedia.

Solution to Dispute: If there exists any URL reference of Calibri being included in Pffoce 2007 Beta back in 2005, let it be mentioned otherwise avoid page from being edited. Binmahmood (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Content that needs correction with consensus

  1. Change "In 2017, the font was used as evidence in a Pakistani government corruption case Panama Papers case (Pakistan)." to "In 2017, JIT report raises doubts about the use of 'Calibri' font in evidence papers submitted to them in Panama Papers case (Pakistan)."
  2. Remove "Date released 2007" info. This is not correct. It was released before 2007 but yes had been made a default font of Microsoft Office 2007
  3. Add under header Availability "This font has been set as a default in Microsoft Office 2007. However, it was already available in Microsoft Windows Vista before Microsoft Office 2007
  4. Microsoft Windows Vista was released in 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

[1] [2]

Ali.muslim (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


Protected edit request on 11 July 2017[edit]

Change "In 2017, the font was used as evidence in a Pakistani government corruption case Panama Papers case (Pakistan)." to "In 2017, JIT report raises doubts about the use of 'Calibri' font in evidence papers submitted to them in Panama Papers case (Pakistan)."

Remove "Date released 2007" info. This is not correct. Add under availability "This font has been set as a default in Microsoft Office 2007. However. it was available in windows vista before Microsoft Office 2007. [1] [2]

I would welcome to further discuss if required. And would request you to please run a research on your end as well.

Thank you -ali Ali.muslim (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


Not done: the first because this is the first time JIT is mentioned so some background or at least a link is required for the reader.  Done the second, as no one has opposed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
@MSGJ: you removed release date which I oppose. please see Talk:Calibri#Consensus_version. --Saqib (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
You did not comment for 3 days so I assumed this was uncontroversial. Is there consensus that the release date should remain? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't responded here because the page was locked and so i thought it didn't make sense to respond to requests being made until we reach a consensus. The version below by @Fvasconcellos: says "released to the general public on January 30, 2007" so I think we should go with it and should state in the infobox as well that the font was released in 2007. I am open to hear what Fvasconcellos suggest. --Saqib (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay I have reverted for now. But I don't understand why you felt that it didn't make sense to respond. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Pakistan Muslim League Social Media Cell Vandalism[edit]

The edits on the Calibri Wikipedia page came within hours of the JIT Report being released. I've done some digging around and all the IP addresses seem to point towards the Pakistan Muslim League (N) social media team trying to manipulate facts by making unfounded edits.

The first edit was made on 06:24 GMT on 11 July 2017 by IP address where several mentions of the font being released in 2007 were wrongfully edited to 2004. The IP address has been tracked down to Karachi, Pakistan at 24°54′20″N 67°04′56″E / 24.9056°N 67.0822°E / 24.9056; 67.0822.[1] Wikipedia editors stepped in and made the proper corrections. The font was created in 2004 but released in 2007.

The second edit was made on 08:11 GMT on 11 July 2017 by IP address where several mentions of the font being released in 2007 were wrongfully edited to 2004 again. The IP address has been tracked down to Islamabad, Pakistan at 33°41′45″N 73°00′41″E / 33.6957°N 73.0113°E / 33.6957; 73.0113, which narrows it down to Street 54 in Sector F10 of Islamabad.[2]

The second edit was made on 08:14 GMT on 11 July 2017 by IP address where the creation date of the font was edited to 2002, release date to 2004 and the creator of the font replaced from Lucas de Groot to Qasim Saeed. The IP address has been again tracked down to Islamabad, Pakistan at 33°41′45″N 73°00′41″E / 33.6957°N 73.0113°E / 33.6957; 73.0113, which narrows it down the same address as above (Street 54, F10, Islamabad).[3] This same IP address made edits to Westminster School and College where an additional name was added to the article under "director" heading - Yashkun Sherdil Ismail.

The latter two locations are quite interesting since PML social media team is suspected of being based in Sector F10. I'm going to dig around some more and try and update everyone as soon as I get more information. If this is true, Maryam Nawaz is directly tampering with Wikipedia articles and it should be exposed to the media.

GO NAWAZ GO — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

--PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


Protected edit request on 11 July 2017[edit]

Please do not let people edit this font as people are trying to save a corrupt political party on corruption charges by changing this entry. (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Already done Already protected until July 18. (tJosve05a (c) 02:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 July 2017[edit] (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

it was awailable in 2004 in microsoft so edit the release date

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (tJosve05a (c) 02:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


Hi, I try to look after a lot of the font articles. This exact topic has come up before - people have forged documents with modern software and backdated them. Here is the best of my knowledge on this topic.

The 2007 "general release" date is correct. You can read expert testimony on this from Thomas Phinney, one of the world's leading experts on font digitisation, who has testified in court on the topic in a similar case, and commentary from its designer who was commissioned in 2002 and finished work in 2004.[1][2] (I added these references but they were reverted, perhaps they can be added back in.)

Now Vista and Office 2007 were in development for a long time and betas were issued. Microsoft had publicised how it commissioned new fonts to take advantage of its new ClearType technology, so this Wikipedia article was actually created in 2005, and so too did other articles on other websites reviewing Calibri appear in 2005. But this forgery case is not our concern until we have reliable sources on the topic. (I will say, though, that it's very unlikely that a professional document would be set using beta software.) Blythwood (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ Phinney, Thomas. "Calibri reached the general public on January 30, 2007, with the release of Microsoft Office 2007 and Windows Vista on that date.". Quora. Retrieved 11 July 2017. 
  2. ^ Berry, John D.; De Groot, Lucas. "Case Study: Microsoft ClearType". Lucasfonts. Retrieved 11 July 2017. 
I have been on an extended vacation from Wikipedia, because edit wars are tiresome, and because I sometimes do original research, which is (understandably) not welcome from Wikipedia authors.
My main concern with the current locked version of the article is that the "design date" is certainly not the single year of 2004, and in fact goes back to late 2002 (and perhaps later than 2004 for final tweaks, I would want to check that with Luc de Groot). See “Now Read This: The Microsoft ClearType Font Collection” p. 48, where he discusses creating the typeface.
Secondarily, I am not entirely comfortable with the label of “humanist” for this typeface in the opening sentence of the article. Although de Groot does make passing reference to humanism in the body of the piece I reference above, it is comparatively with Arial, not as an absolute. The opening sentence of the Calibri section of that official Microsoft publication calls Calibri a “modern” sans serif, which seems a much more apt label. The cap proportions are modern, not old style, so despite the open apertures of some shapes such as Ccea, I classify it as grotesque rather than humanist. Thomas Phinney (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Thomas, thank you so much for taking the time to comment. I don't watch this Talk page and had not come back to the article since protecting it.
Given your concerns and Blythwood's note above, I believe it would be a good idea to revert the article to this version. It doesn't address the humanist vs. modern problem (which I think can be tackled once the dispute has blown over), but as the protecting administrator, I'd rather not become involved in content issues.
Also: I believe Calibri first became available for use in word processing (not "to the general public" per se) in late May 2006 with the release of Office 2007 beta. Is that correct? Might find a reference for that from Microsoft... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Tphinney and Fvasconcellos: DAWN has published a decent piece on the availability of the font. We can use it to fix this page perhaps. --Saqib (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure, that looks solid, and is (unsurprisingly) consistent with my research. — Thomas Phinney (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Great. so who is going to update the page? perhaps @Hoary:? --Saqib (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Reading Thomas Phinney I guess I remember correct in #Freeware? Grabware?. As I remember there was a note about the font and how it used the ClearType technology, and I had to run some additional program to make it work. Jeblad (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The font doesn't "use" ClearType, but rather its design and hinting are optimized for ClearType. Nobody has to install or run anything special to make Calibri work on older computers, as long as their computer can handle data-fork TrueType fonts (TTF), which is just about anything issued in the past 17 years or more, and all Windows computers since Windows 3.1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tphinney (talkcontribs) 22:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

A Proud Moment for Wikipedia! Thank You Admins & Editors[edit]

It's rare that a Wiki article gets directly embroiled in an international level political scandal. The speed and efficiency with which this article was protected and its integrity preserved by the Admins is an example and proof that the Wiki model works. One of the Admin's protected summary even made the news: "[protected] from editing until July 18, 2017, or until editing disputes have been resolved"" Thank you all! Cheerz Code16 (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this one received a lot of press coverage. Kudos to @Fvasconcellos:. --Saqib (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Saqib are you a part of PMLN social media team. If true you should reveal your conflict of interest. Egopearl (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Revert Calibri Article to July 4, 2017 Edit[edit]

I here ask you to please revert Calibri back to July 4, 2017 edit. It is from July 10 and onward that people, majorly from Pakistan, have tried to edit that article and tried to add false information to accredit findings of JIT report. Before that this article has no mention of "release date" and many have tried to change its creation date. This JIT report was submitted before Supreme Court on July 10, 2017 and people have tried to accredit claims in that JIT report by changing Wiki article. The current version has locked false information and has no citations for "release date". So this article should be reversed back to where it is not controversial. --Awaisraad (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 July 2017[edit]

Please dont allow to edit this article. (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Already done. This article is already protected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 July 2017[edit]

}} (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 July 2017[edit]

Hallo For this (Calibri) page correction in needed for the following sentence: In 2017, the font was used as evidence in a Pakistani government corruption case Panama Papers case (Pakistan).[3]

It should be corrected by inserting the following Sentence: In 2017, the font was used as evidence in (at the time Prime Minister of Pakistan) Nawaz Shareef and Family corruption case Panama Papers case (Pakistan).[3]

Reason: It would be helpful for the Reader in the future and our next Generations, in case the Reader access this page after several years, and it also makes it more clear that who exactly did this corruption in Panama Papers Case (Pakistan). Thank you Very Much! Khan A Pakistani Citizen (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • not needed. It's clear enough. Code16 (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Not needed. The link provides any detail wanted. However, the wording that you thought needed improvement ("a Pakistani government corruption case Panama Papers case (Pakistan)") struck me too as needing (stylistic) improvement, and therefore I have just now done this (to "the Pakistani government–related "Panama Papers" case"). -- Hoary (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 July 2017[edit]

Mention it completely that it was used by Mariam Nawaz Sharif Daughter of Prime Minister of Pakistan to justify her property bought in 2006. Even before the release date. The document were yeared 2006. And was presented in Supreme Court of Pakistan. (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • That doesn't directly relate to this article. You can add stuff like that to the Panama Case page. Code16 (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • No. This is an article about a typeface, and not about a legal case. -- Hoary (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

this font was started in 2004[edit]

this font was started in 2004 (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • No. If you say precisely what change you want made, then your suggestion will be judged on its merits. Vague nudges in this or that direction will be ignored. -- Hoary (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 July 2017 - GO NAWAZ GO[edit] (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


  • No. You seem to make no suggestion for the article. -- Hoary (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Unavailability as "a freeware"[edit]

We're told

For use in other operating systems, such as GNU/Linux, cross-platform use and web use, it is not available as a freeware.

And we're told exactly the same thing about Candara and Cambria (typeface). (I didn't look at the others.)

I hadn't known that "freeware" was countable. I'd start by removing the "a", resulting in "not available as freeware".

But that's still bizarre. There seems to be an implication here that, aside from "cross-platform use" (whatever that might be) and for "web use", and for Windows and OS X, it is available as freeware. Thus, using a Windows computer to write the CSS for a web page, I mustn't use

.pushingmyluck {font-family:candara, sans-serif;}

because if I did, then Microsoft could/would demand money (from me? from viewers of the web page?). Uhhh....

I'm not even sure that this is about freeware; is it instead about free software?

The following is a wild guess:

The typeface is neither free software nor freeware, and is not legally available for other operating systems (such as GNU/Linux and Android). It is therefore unsuitable for web pages and for documents that should be accessed via these operating systems.

Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi, I would just delete this section completely as a statement of the bleedin' obvious. It's a copyrighted Microsoft product, and they don't give it away except as part of their software products. (You actually can buy a license to it to use on a computer system that doesn't have it - I guess in particular for if you wanted to create an iPhone app using it or something - but I can't imagine many people doing this.) Also, I think it might be a good idea to put back in those references I mentioned above and change createddate to 2002-4. 07:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

On further reflection, Blythwood, I think there is something to this, and that it is indeed about freeware: the writer wants to describe each of these typefaces as unlikeMicrosoft's earlier "Core fonts for the Web". How about:

The typeface is neither legally available for tinkering nor freeware; and unlike Microsoft's earlier Core fonts for the Web, its use for other operating systems (such as GNU/Linux and Android) requires additional payment. It is therefore unsuitable for web pages and for documents that should display via these operating systems with this typeface.

However, this may be a bit lumpy.

I'm purposely avoiding the matter of when the typeface was first issued. That's a separate matter. These references that you mention: are they directly relevant to this particular matter? -- Hoary (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC) typo fixed Hoary (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 July 2017[edit] (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
(Non-admin response) Not done, as no change has been requested. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 July 2017[edit]

The paragraph about the Panama Papers case could mention that the case hinged on a purported 2006 document using the font, when the first public release of the font was in 2007. That should be sufficient to explain why the font itself was important in the case. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 14:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please supply the exact wording you are proposing, and please obtain consensus for the addition. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Freeware? Grabware?[edit]

I am pretty sure I downloaded this for use on Ubuntu before 2007, probably in 2005 or early winter 2006. (I had an office in downtown Oslo at the time, thats why I remember when I downloaded the files.) Not so sure whether I run a conversion program on it to be able to use it. I am definitely not sure whether it was officially freeware or simply openware, or even "grabware". A copy on an external disk reset the dates, so it can't be used as any kind of proof on when the file was grabbed. Jeblad (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Consensus version[edit]

With Tphinney's contributions here and on Quora and now that several articles with comments from Luc de Groot himself have been published in reliable sources, I think we can move forward on this. If there is no reasonable objection, I would be happy to update the article lead to read as follows (adapted from [3]):

Calibri (/kəˈliːbri/) is a sans-serif typeface family designed by Lucas de Groot in 2002–2004 and released to the general public on January 30, 2007, with Microsoft Office 2007 and Windows Vista.[1][2] In Office 2007, it replaced Times New Roman as the default typeface in Word[3] and replaced Arial as the default in PowerPoint, Excel, Outlook, and WordPad. It has remained the default font in Microsoft Office 2010, 2013 and 2016, and is now the default font in Office for Mac 2016. Creator de Groot described its subtly rounded design as having "a warm and soft character".

Calibri is part of the ClearType Font Collection, a suite of fonts from various designers released with Windows Vista. All start with the letter C to reflect that they were designed to work well with Microsoft's ClearType text rendering system, a text rendering engine designed to make text clearer to read on LCD monitors. The other fonts in the same group are Cambria, Candara, Consolas, Constantia and Corbel.[4]

In 2017, the font was used as evidence in the Pakistani government–related "Panama Papers" case.[5][6]

Lest we forget, this article is supposed to be primarily about the type family, not the court case and attending "Fontgate" scandal. —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • @Fvasconcellos: - sounds good but delete the penultimate sentence in the first paragraph as obvious - it became the default in 2007 in all versions of Office and it's kept that role ever since. The Panama Papers thing, while funny, is ephemera and likely to not matter in a few years, so I wouldn't keep it in the intro - and it's worth noting that it's not the first case of this. With a few more sources added in now, I would just put in the "availability" section something like:
Several cases have been reported in which documents could be shown to be forged because they claimed to date from before Calibri was included in Office.[1][2] In 2017, the font came to public attention as evidence in the Pakistani government–related "Panama Papers" case, in which a document supposedly signed in 2006 was typed up using it.[3][4] De Groot said that there was "absolutely zero chance" that the document was not a forgery.[5]


  1. ^ Phinney, Thomas. "Calibri reached the general public on January 30, 2007, with the release of Microsoft Office 2007 and Windows Vista on that date.". Quora. Retrieved 11 July 2017. 
  2. ^ Berry, John D.; De Groot, Lucas. "Case Study: Microsoft ClearType". Lucasfonts. Retrieved 11 July 2017. 
  3. ^ McKurdy, Euan; Saifi, Sophia. "At the center of a corruption case involving the Pakistani Prime Minister is a font". CNN. Retrieved 14 July 2017. 
  4. ^ Siddiqi, Zain. "We asked the creator of Calibri to weigh in on the JIT debate". Dawn. Retrieved 14 July 2017. 
  5. ^ van de Klundert, Mitchell. "Het Nederlandse Calibri brengt mogelijk de Pakistaanse premier ten val". Nederlandse Omroep Stichting. Retrieved 14 July 2017. 
Also add (from that Dutch reference) somewhere that de Groot is currently working on a Hebrew version. Otherwise sounds all OK. Blythwood (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
@Fvasconcellos:. I am fine with the changes but I suggest we shouldn't add primary sources such as and --Saqib (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Per policy, primary sources are fine for providing descriptive/factual/historical information without subsequent analysis or interpretation—which is the case here. A good secondary source to support the 2007 release date is Typography, Referenced by Jason Tselentis. But there is also valuable, uncontroversial information in Now Read This, for instance, which is also a primary source; I don't think citing it would be a problem.
@MSGJ and Hoary: would you care to weigh in? I would like to see support/objection from more users and admins before rolling this out. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
By the way, there are also plenty of secondary sources supporting the May 2006 release date of Office 2007 Beta 2 as its first "public" (i.e., not general/retail) release, which we can mention in "Availability". Blythwood had noted the beta in Talk:Calibri#Comments above; if we can mention it with reliable sources, so much the better. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
@Fvasconcellos: this Dawn story dated 12 July qouted Wikipedia in-fact.. it says "The first public beta version, according to a Wikipedia entry, was released on June 6, 2006 ". and instead of citing, i suggest you to cite this interview of Thomas Phinney in Pakistan Today perhaps.. --Saqib (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I would not cite Dawn to support the beta claim, specifically because its source was Wikipedia itself. There are better secondary sources from the time. Thomas's interview is a great alternative to Quora. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Similarly, this Newsweek story reads "The first public beta version was released on June 6, 2006" but it was qouting Dawn story and you know Dawn story was qouting whom. --Saqib (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Responding to the ping, I am uninvolved with this article and strictly neutral. So please don't ask me for an opinion :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

MSGJ, I'm almost totally uninvolved with this article myself, and assume that this was one reason why I was invited to give an opinion. Looking at the suggested rewrite that I think comes from User:Blythwood, its first sentence, quote Several cases have been reported in which documents could be shown to be forged because they claimed to date from before Calibri was included in Office. unquote, sounds a bit awkward to me, and hard to understand. How about quote Several allegations of forgery have been made about documents using Calibri but dated from before Calibri was included in Office. unquote? (Not having read the details, I'm not sure if the claim that Calibri was used is itself uncontroversial in most/all of these cases. Imaginably, some of the people accused of having produced spurious Calibri-printed documents have claimed that no, they used some lesser-known but very similar font. NB I'm not saying that this has happened; just wondering if it has happened.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
It is quite safe to say "many" rather than "several." Just the cases I have been asked about hit the upper end of "several." Perhaps a more-clear sentence would be "Many cases have been reported in which documents were shown to be forged, thanks to a purported creation date before Calibri was available." As for Hoary's other concern, of course I can't speak for cases I don't know about, but none of the cases I have been involved in or aware of had any dispute on whether it was Calibri. Nobody has tried to claim they used something else. Thomas Phinney (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Many cases have been reported in which documents were shown to be forged, thanks to a purported creation date before Calibri was available.: I like almost all of this by Thomas Phinney (preferring it to my own), except for qualms about the last word, "available". It's my (mis?)understanding that the typeface was kind-of-available during the period when a lot of these documents are dated, but [and it's a huge but] was unavailable to most people and very little known or used. -- Hoary (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
How about before Calibri had been made available to the public? We have established definitively that Calibri was not available to anyone in the "general public" before Office 2007 Beta 2 and the corresponding Vista beta came out in May/June 2006. (That is borne out by contemporary sources.) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's good. -- Hoary (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. @ change requested by Fvasconcellos. After the creator of the font has weighed in himself, and media has covered it, this merits the change. Code16 (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. as proposed by @Fvasconcellos:. Tomorrow the page is being unlocked, therefore I suggest changes be made as soon as possible as per consensus. --Saqib (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

 Implemented: I have rolled out a version which I believe includes all of the edits supported by consensus. The article itself needs plenty of work, content-wise. The lock will be lifted automatically in a few hours. If disruptive editing recurs, please let me know and I will reinstate semi or full protection. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 06:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.. since the page views has decreased significantly, I am not expecting much vandalism. --Saqib (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 July 2017[edit]

dear sir,

there are some crooks and corrupt politicians from pakistan, who are trying to edit this page to cover their lies and half truths to camouflage the crimes they committed against their own nation. I would like to appeal that this article on Calibri must be kept protected against any alterations for definite period and the contents must be verified with the font creator before any public editing. (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It's already been taken care of by Wiki editors. Pakistan Muslim League's Social Media Cell will not be allowed to make un-sourced edits to this page. This is Wikipedia, not Twitter. They can get away with making fake profiles and harassing people on Twitter, they won't get far doing that on Wikipedia, that's for sure. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)