Talk:Everson Mono

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Typography (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 

Suggestion to delete because "Wikipedia is not a font catalogue"[edit]

(To Nagle) please cite the exact source reference (sentence, paragraph) which is used to post/reach a opinion/suggestion/decision like ... Wikipedia is not a font catalog ?? How can less than 25 fonts out of hundreds of unicode fonts, makes wikipedia a font catalog ??!??!?? Please explain. Thanks. ~Tarikash 06:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

This article is only showing very basic info on this unicode font. Doesn't even include a picture. Please see few other unicode fonts ... Arial, Arial Unicode MS, Bitstream Cyberbit, Cardo (font), Caslon, Code2000, Charis SIL, Chrysanthi Unicode (Chryſanþi), ClearlyU, DejaVu fonts, Doulos SIL, Everson Mono Unicode, Gentium, GNU Unifont, Junicode, Lucida Sans Unicode, New Gulim, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Y.OzFontN. Some of them are showing more, and some of them are showing less information. If this article is to be deleted then same logic applies with all the other unicode fonts or other fonts, as well. In my opinion, all these font article needs to be here, so that, more & other wikipedians can contribute to improve it with more info, on their own free time. Time limitation you(Nagle) have mentioned for deletion, is absolutely absurd, because, no one knows or can predict or can force someone, when someone will have enough free time to improve these article. Without a consensus, or, without finding a real violation/fault, etc, deletion of any font related article will be absolutely not a wise thing to do. ~ Tarikash 06:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

I'm pleased to see that someone decided to put an article up about this; I had some discussion with Nagle at the Village Pump where I suggested that there were a number of other font articles so the addition of this article is hardly a new sin. He indicated that if we improve the article it and if I put up some pictures he won't object, so let's do that. Evertype 08:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. ~ Tarikash 08:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

Improving the article[edit]

I suggest that the list of blocks covered be made into some sort of table. I won't start with that; I'll look at other aspects of the article. Evertype 08:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Tried as much possible in free time, in this article Unicode fonts. ~ Tarikash 08:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC).
Blocks which does not include any characters, can be deleted from the table, if a smaller table is expected. ~ Tarikash 09:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC).
Created REDIRECT from Everson Mono to this article Everson Mono Unicode. ~ Tarikash 09:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC).
I think the redirect should have been from this article to Everson Mono actually. But there is no hurry. Evertype 09:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, it's better to do it now. Evertype 09:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to do what you think, is right, justified. Thanks. ~ Tarikash 09:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

Shareware[edit]

The text "Everson describes Everson Mono ostensibly as shareware and demands a payment of €25 for a licence to use it on up to three other computers. However, there is technically no barrier to a user downloading and using the font without payment (which must be paid via PayPal or by check) or license." is pretty POV. "Ostensibly"? "Demands"? And then a nice explanation about how to use the software without paying for it. I didn't write this article, and I don't hope that it generates me income, but as I am Everson, it seems to me that I should not edit this paragraph. However, it seems to me that it should be deleted. -- Evertype· 09:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

My opinion about this remains unchanged. At the very least "ostensibly" and "demands" are POV. -- Evertype· 08:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that myself and had the same thought... so it's fixed now. When the copyright holder says it's shareware, it is shareware, regardless of whether it's crippled or not. -- Perey (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Evertype· 15:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

What's with the category deletions? No rationale? -- Evertype· 15:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you were referring to the edit with edit summary "rm from parent cats"? It's cryptic, but it is a rationale. In normal English, it says "remove from parent categories", by which it means "remove this article from categories that are parents of other, more specific categories that it's also in". As the article is in the "Humanist sans-serif typefaces" category, it doesn't also need to be in the "Sans-serif typefaces" category. As such I've re-removed this category just now. The other redundant categories have already been removed by other users. -- Perey (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Italic[edit]

There's an italic now. -- Evertype· 20:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I remember. It resembles this arguing:
Вот где есть ВСЯ кириллица.
Она вроде и в Эверсоне ВСЯ. 213.151.5.102 (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Version 6[edit]

Version 6 has many new characters. -- Evertype· 12:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Tengwar[edit]

I removed Everson Mono from the list in the Tengwar article of fonts that include the tengwar characters, because the Everson Mono website doesn't list them in the list of supported Unicode blocks. If the font creator can verify this, that would be helpful. If I'm wrong, I invite him to revert my edits. — Eru·tuon 08:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It's in the Private Use Area which is why it's not listed in supported Unicode blocks. -- Evertype· 13:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)