Talk:List of typefaces
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated List-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Typography||(Rated List-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Notable?
- 2 List alphabetically?
- 3 Default Fonts
- 4 Excel
- 5 Dewikify
- 6 New classification of fonts
- 7 Illustrations
- 8 Agree
- 9 What about putting the font on the font name?
- 10 Licensing information
- 11 Why not use Category:Typefaces instead?
- 12 Semiserif, or Semi-serif or even Semi serif?
- 13 German-language version
- 14 merge into list of typefaces
- 15 Proposed deletion
- 16 Move discussion in progress
I'm not quite sure what 'notable' means here. Is this article the start of a definitive list of all typefaces or if not what criteria are we using for inclusion. I propose some more subcat headings:
text faces (serif) text faces (sans) decorative headline (traditionally woodcut) specialist (where they are designed with a very specific purpose in mind e.g. Johnston London Underground typeface, Bell telephone directory etc.)
Should we split this page in two, with one page containing A-M, and another containing N-Z? I think it would be a good idea... --KelisFan2K5 22:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What fonts come with standard installation of Windows? Linux? Sockpuppy 21:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Tip, look this up on Google. Arbo 20:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I notice that in Excel, if you zoom out far enough, monospace fonts (e.g. Lucida Console) appear to be no longer monospace. Captain Zyrain 19:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- That's because the furhter out you zoom the less pixels are used to display the letters, and the mediocre screen resolution---the number of dots (pixels) per inch---forces the app to render innacurately, and you lose the appearance of monospaced even width characters. What's this got to do with the list of typefaces article anyway? Arbo 20:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea. Feel free to do it yourself. Arbo 20:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- No. 126.96.36.199 08:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
New classification of fonts
I don't think anyone has brought this up before, but can anyone classify these fonts by whether the 3 in the font is a banker's 3 (see the bottom of Ezh for what a banker's 3 is.) Georgia guy 00:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- That is not a useful basis for classifying fonts. You'd end up classifiying all fonts in one of two categories: fonts with banker's 3, and fonts with other 3's. Does that sound useful to you?
- No offense dude, but really.
- Font several useful classification schemes already exist. Visit Typophile.com and search for threads on "classification", then look for clues in the TypoWiki. Arbo 20:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether we really want to have thorough graphic examples of all these typefaces here. The page is called *List* of Typefaces, not Examples of Typefaces, and this could get way out of hand in a hurry. For anyone without a broadband connection, it has already become a nightmare to load the page. Let me be clear: I appreciate Diego's painstaking work in creating the samples and uploading them, but I'm just not sure this page is the best venue for such a project. What about putting these graphics on the page for each individual typeface? I'm certainly willing to help create new pages. Rivertorch 04:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Rivertorch, this is basically how this is currently being done. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The former comments were made 3 and 6 years ago. Broadband is far less of an issue now in places that do have access to the Internet, whether in the 1st or 3rd world. Is it compatible with Wiki guidelines to display each typeface name in the relevant typeface (with obvious exceptions such as webdings) ? I believe that is would be better service (and honestly think there must be some wiki rules against it). JanvonBismarck (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Replacing the illustrations with embedded font examples (as demonstrated with Courier New in the #What about putting the font on the font name? section below) has a few problems:
- With the default/current software, we could only embed fonts that the user already had installed on their computer. Adding some new embedding code (according to Web typography#Web fonts, we'd probably be looking at Web Open Font Format), and hosting (buying?) copies of all the other fonts would be necessary for 100% coverage.
- Sizewise, if I understand embedded fonts correctly, then the entire typeface would be downloaded for the user. Typefaces are usually around 1MB, which is a LOT larger than a plain image (or 3). Multiply that by dozens of examples, and illustrations are still our best choice.
- Relatedly, See also this recent AfD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samples of sans serif typefaces, which covers all the "Samples of ..." lists. —Quiddity (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I am intrigued how this page potentially might accommodate a couple of hundred thousand examples of listed typefaces. But then I have always struggled with the purpose of this page. How does this page 'List of typefaces' turn into a discussion on typeface classification, with examples? To me, that's where it appears to be headed. Lz Li 08:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, and each classification could be subdivided further, and we could have grand arguments over whether one of the twenty available versions of Caslon is more of a Garalde or a Transitional. The possibilities are frightening. I suggest taking one of the following two courses of action:
- 1. each sample gets moved to the page of the typeface it depicts and this page gets reverted to what it used to be (and what it is still called)—a list
- 2. a new page called Samples of typefaces is created, the current content of this page is moved there, and this page gets reverted
- I have no preference for either of the above options, although the second one would seem to be easier. At any rate, I would like to see a little more discussion (including from the most recent editors to the page) before mustering some of that rumored Wikipedian boldness and acting unilaterally. Rivertorch 07:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have a really fast internet conection, so, I never thought that this page could become very heavy to load. In fact, I think that the graphical list we are creating is useful to have a global overview of the typefaces. What I suggest is to remove all the contents of the "List of Typefaces" page and create two new pages. The contents of the "List of Typefaces" page should be changed then to something like:
- There are two versions of this page,
- - A light version (link to List_of_Typefaces_light_version), where only the names of the fonts are listed.
- - A graphical version (link to List_of_Typefaces_graphical_version), where examples are also shown.
- If you want to update one page, please do the corresponding in the other page.
- Diego Torquemada 10:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
So everyone is agreed. This is no longer a list of typefaces. It should not persist in this form. Is there anything worth saving? The editor who, with the best of intentions, made these delicious tables should deep-six them, hey? I ain't gonna do it. There's a lot of love in there.
- PS Slowly, slowly: Once this entry reverts to a list, ("A light version ...") some interested person might link items to their individual pages, (a lot of them already were, weren't they?). That will serve as "A graphical version..." Then, before there are 'grand arguments over whether one of the twenty available versions of Caslon is more of a Garalde or a Transitional', arbitration should be given to the rashly conceived 'Contents' masquerading as a workable classification. Alternatively, the list is a single alphabetical list -- a revert to 2005? Lz Li 14:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Diego, it takes a long time to load. I envy you your fast connection! Is there precedent on Wikipedia for having two versions of a page, as you've suggested? It seems vaguely unencyclopedic, it could create some confusion re linking, and it would (as you said) require updating two pages instead of one (which we're never going to be able to persuade all editors to do). It seems that Suggestion 2 (see above) would allow us to avoid the pitfalls of two different versions and is almost exactly like your suggestion, Diego, the only difference being for the one page name being different. If no objections, I will implement this in the next day or so.
Btw, I do think that typeface samples are a useful thing, as long as the size of the new page is kept within reason—i.e., maybe a dozen or so representative samples of a given classification, not a sample for each and every typeface on the planet (even limiting it to the products of the largest commercial foundries would run it into the thousands). Rivertorch 18:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I reverted the page. Now the tables have separate pages. Diego Torquemada 20:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Beautiful! Thank you. Rivertorch 22:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
What about putting the font on the font name?
For example instead of
we could wrirte:
- Sorry to need to say no. It displays fine only if the computer with the browser have this font installed. It would otherwise be of no instructional value. Instead it would be instructive to create images (raster or SVG) containing a carefully selected list of characters, f.ex. "abcde" or "aâbcć" etc.. Said: Rursus ☻ 06:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Why not use Category:Typefaces instead?
Instead of a list, why not simply use Category:Typefaces - with appropriate sub-categories underneath - instead? Sub-categories could include Typefaces by style, Typefaces by script, Typefaces by licence etc. and would be automatically sorted. Chris Fynn (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- A category does not tell the reader what is learned from an article like the current one. I like the current arrangement of information about typefaces, and I have been adding details. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Semiserif, or Semi-serif or even Semi serif?
- Yes, semi-serifs do exist, but they are not common. I also don't know if semi-serif is the official name, but it is used. Sometimes semi-serifs only have serifs on the top sides of letters, or only on the bottom. They are usually slab-serifs, so semi-slab serifs actually. Take a look at Thesis TheMix by Lucas de Groot, which is such a typeface. Typehigh (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- I see the serifs in the lower case Thesis TheMix letters like p and q, but there are none on the upper case letters. Please consider making an article on at least one of these typefaces, whether the one you mention, or one of the four above. They may be uncommon, but an example would be good to have as a matter of educating users in the overall subject. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, because there are serifs on some letters and not on others is where the moniker semi-serif comes from. TheMix is part of Thesis, which does have an article (albeit a lousy one). I don't have much time at the moment to write or rewrite articles, but I could rewrite the Thesis article sometime and expand the part on TheMix. Typehigh (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- See myfonts category. My (non-expert) take on these is that they could be viewed either as a serif faces done with an idiosyncratic "incompleteness", or as sans-serif faces with a kind of flair or micro-swash at the end of strokes. Hence "semi serif": partially serif, between serif and sans. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
merge into list of typefaces
- oppose, free open source typefaces are conceptually different enough from proprietary ones for a separate article.--Darrelljon (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I've noted your prod. I agree that we cannot include every typeface on earth, but as an alternative to deletion, WP:ATD, I think this article might be fixed by other means. For instance, we could specify that the inclusion criteria as only typefaces with articles be included. Then this article would become a standalone list, per WP:SAL, and still be a useful annotated alternative to the categories, per WP:CLN. Comments? --Mark viking (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Mark viking: - Hi Mark. That's OK if you want think the article is good to be kept, just remove the prod. Blythwood (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Samples of monospaced typefaces which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)