Talk:List of CJK fonts
|This page was nominated for deletion on 1 June 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was There seems to be clear consensus to keep and improve CJK; the consensus on Open source unicode is not as clear, but since most of the discussion was about CJK, I'm closing as no consensus on Open source unicode, which can if anyone wishes be renominated separately. .|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of CJK fonts article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I'm removing for the time being the category "Pan-Unicode" from the list. This is because it's an inaccurate and arbitrary classification in the context of this article (and it even violates Wikipedia:No original research). Some problems off the top of my head:
- Not all of the "Pan-Unicode" fonts listed are CJK fonts
- Nor are they really "Pan-Unicode" in the sense that they cover most or all of Unicode
- WenQuanYi Zen Hei and Micro Hei do have good coverage (they list impressive numbers on their site), but are listed simply as "Chinese"
- No font containing Chinese characters can avoid choosing a particular style for han-unified characters, unless it mixes several styles; therefore the classification "Pan-Unicode" doesn't mean anything. Code2000, which was listed as "Pan-Unicode" must be listed as Chinese, Korean or Japanese, according to the style which it uses.
By the way, the same is also true of Gnu Unifont, if it's true that it contains Hanzi characters from WenQuanYi. It should be listed according to its chosen style of characters, if that's how it's done in this list. No font can have a "Pan-Unicode" character style, unless they've invented their own. Rōnin (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I've researched a little and used a little guesswork to try to put the fonts back in the correct categories. However, I can't find out what style of characters Code2000 uses, and I don't know if Bitstream Cyberbit supports Chinese characters at all. Rōnin (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see the "pan-Unicode" is an original research. I can even give you refereces such as this page, Unicode#Fonts also gives some definition of it. But if you put something like GNU Unifont in the "Chinese" category, this does violate WP:No original research. It is definitely not true that GNU Unifont was designed for Chinese. The fonts, which are not targeted to a specific writing system and may want to "keep neutre" among these systems, exist for real, these are pan-Unicode font.
- Pan-Unicode font is not categorically equal to Unicode font. A pan-Unicode font is a font which attempts to support the majority of Unicode's characters. An Unicode font is a font which contains a wide range of glyphs, but it may or may not intend to support the majority of Unicode's characters. You can assume "pan-Unicode font ⊂ Unicode font". Wenquanyi Zen Hei is an Unicode font, but it's not very wise to consider it pan-Unicode. Most of the Pan-Unicode fonts are not very "good looking" such as GNU Unifont. This article (open it then click the "Pan-Unicode Fonts" tab) discusses that the pan-Unicode fonts become less and less useful due to the increasing number of Free and open-source Unicode fonts.
- Most of pan-Unicode fonts are CJK fonts (if that is unclear, let's define "CJK font" as "computer fonts which cover (at least) most of the Chinese/Japanese/Korean characters"), if an Unicode or pan-Unicode font is listed in this article, it is a CJK font for sure.
- Btw, this is not about the style, this is about the characters coverage. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Whoooops, sorry; I looked at the WenQuanYi fonts in FontForge just now, and you're right about them not supporting that many character ranges after all. Sorry for sounding so self-righteous about it without even checking first. To my defence, I did look at the readmes for the fonts, but I got the wrong impression. Anyway, I'm reverting the page back to your latest version, as I can't remember which of the changes I made were justified and which weren't. Rōnin (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
It should be renamed to List of CJK fonts.
These are obviously CJK computer fonts, and they are sorted by their typeface styles.
And why the word "computer" was removed from the title? "CJK" is used in the field of software and communications internationalization; "font" is short for "computer fonts". So, there is no ambiguity for "CJK fonts", "CJK fonts" is equivalent to "CJK computer fonts", and is used more widely. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Why FOSS marked?
- Yes. BabelStone (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Moreover, 'NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it'. So what ? Pldx1 (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- No it has nothing to do with POV, marking FOSS doesn't necessarily mean they are recommended to be used. A lot of time FOSS can be discussed separately from others, see Open-source Unicode typefaces, Template:Free and open source typography, List of game engines#Free and open source. However if you find the color too prominent, you can change it using another mark which you think more proper. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Another Font name change.
Font "中易楷体"'s name in Windows is now changed from "楷体_GB2312" to "楷体".
Confirmed on a PC with Windows 10 updated from Windows 8.1.
22.214.171.124 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
FOSS fonts for Simplified Chinese
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of CJK fonts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hitachi-printingsolutions.co.jp/topix/release/030929.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
DLCMing family source?
In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CJK_fonts#Traditional_Chinese states that DLCMingMedium (華康中明體) and DLCMingBold (華康粗明體) are distributed with Traditional Chinese version of Windows 3.1, but both Retail version and MSDN version of Traditional Chinese version of Windows 3.1 have none of them. Roytam1 (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)