Talk:Times New Roman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Typography (Rated C-class, High-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

I used to work at the The times and my memory is that it was called Times Roman until quite late, sometime in the early 1970's. There was then a briefish period with a variant called Times Europa before Times New Roman came in. I think the problem with Times Roman was that some of the letters had very fine strokes which broke down under the stress of high speed printing as the paper increased circulation. Quintillian (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Times New versus Times[edit]

The header says "Times Roman" but the article starts with the phrase "Times New Roman" - there's no explanation as to why. I'd like to shed to light on the differences between Times Roman and Times New Roman, adding an image pointing out the differences would be ideal.

Sample images[edit]

Sample images of Linotype (Times Roman), Monotype (Times New Roman), and URW (Nimbus Roman) versions would be very helpful. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Caslon's metal type[edit]

On Caslon's website they still advertise their metal founts (fonts, if you will) for Times New Roman--- see main site here and one of the 3 accompanying images Times New Roman, 24pt down to 6pt. Perhaps somehow these images should be linked to at the end. ButterStick (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Times Old Roman[edit]

What did Times Old Roman look like?

See here:; what is referred to as "Times Old Roman" is, probably, Monotype Modern. (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


Is this font subject to copyright etc.? If so, how is the holder? (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad section: "Characters"[edit]

The section is written to let the browser take care of displaying the Times New Roman font. That's no good, since the computer used for browsing, might lack the Times New Roman font, or the user might have shut off the browsers capability to choose font. It would be better if someone having Times New Roman made an image in some way, f.ex.:

  1. entering the letters in Wordpad (or some such, whatever), and making an image snapshot, saving it in GIF or PNG, but preferrably not JPEG;
  2. entering the letters in Inkscape, marking the letters and converting them to curves (so that the SVG code doesn't rely on WikiPedia's converters).

Said: Rursus () 09:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Times New Roman Cyrillic[edit]

I know that the standard Times New Roman shows the Cyrillic letters "Л" with a flat top (like the one I wrote). However, I remember seing a version of Times New Roman that had the "Л" letter with a "roof" top like in "A". Any info?

I take it that you are talking about the MS Windows TNR. The pointy Л is probably the same image as the Greek Lamda---that's all I can say without looking at an image. (talk) 08:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)



The article states: "Times New Roman is still widely used for book typography." It is certainly very common in internal reports, partly because it is commonly the 'default' typeface. But how common is it in professionally-published books? —DIV ( (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Depends on what you mean by "Times New Roman". I can say that many undergraduate university textbooks (incl. but not restricted to Cambridge UP) use the TNR PS/Times Roman. For actual academic texts, Springer's mathematics series and many journals use various incarnations of TNR, including the Monotype "classic" version, with all the bells and whistles like the special fonts for 7pt/5pt text. IIRC the "Graduate Texts in Mathematics" series of Springer is entirely set in TNR. At least in academic publishing it is very much alive. (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I would guestimate that about 50% of paperbacks that I see are in Times, but hardly any trade paperbacks or hardcovers. No idea where you'd get a verifiable source on this though!
And glancing at some eight technical books on my bedside table, seven of them are in Times and one is in Computer Modern. (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Times 4-line Mathematics Series 569[edit]

I had a look at the linked PDF and it indeed asserts that "Math & Technical" is a repackaged version of TNR. I had a look at the M&T fonts---not all of them are variants of TNR. Some seem to be taken from the maths version of Monotype Modern and some seem to be from other faces (see the Greek capital xi for a very clear example; also the small beta, omega). The very same source includes a table from Monotype with all the characters from the math version of TNR. I've commented out that statement for the mean time. (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, consider this![edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mak13 (talkcontribs) 23:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's wrong for an article on Times Roman not to even mention the Starling Burgess theory. I've added a short section on it. Puffinry (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Name[edit]

From reading the article it seems that "Times New Roman" was the original font, and "Times Roman" came after. If this is true, we should move the page to the original name right? mislih 18:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


I'm a typographical layman, and Georgia looks very dissimilar even to me. I'm tagging that bit for a cite. If a reliable source says they're similar by the standards of the industry then I'll believe it, but not before. (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Times in Mac OS[edit]

Linotype's Times font is used in Mac OS for years as default font and I think it is worth to put this information to this article. -- (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Cameron Latham? What about Victor Lardent?[edit]

Couldn't help but notice Cameron Latham's name included in the opening paragraph, but yet, no mention of Victor Lardent. Lardent was instrumental to the creation of Times New Roman, with many of the glyphs having actually been drawn by his hand. He worked under the direction of Stanley Morison at Monotype and should be credited for his work. Aside from the mentioning of his name in this article, I don't see the link between Cameron Latham and the Times New Roman typeface. I've done my research, and I see Victor Larden and Stanley Morison mentioned everywhere, but never Latham in this regard.

What were his contributions? Were the significant enough for us to say that he created Times New Roman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't know ANYTHING about Times New Roman, or any other serif type face for that matter. Who are YOU to judge what Cameron's contributions are to the creation of one of the most widely used typefaces in print, media, and institutions. You should be simply ashamed. Victory Lardent has a LOT to learn from Latham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatpaxguy (talkcontribs) 03:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sir, how have you never hear of the fantastic contributions to typography by Mr. Latham? Your text would not look nearly as neat as it does if it wasn't for his valiant efforts that took years to accomplish. I doubt you've heard of Sir Paxson Helgesen and his amazing contributions to Arial as well. I feel lesser talking to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

more ink?[edit]

It uses less ink probably. BLAH BLAH BLAH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Confusing introduction[edit]

The introduction to this article is extremely confusing and rambling. Heck, it even starts with a sentence fragment! The first paragraph reads like it's been excerpted from a student paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(X) times old, Roman[edit]

The introduction states, "Times Old Roman is in fact derived from commonly used Roman phrase, "I am (X) times old, Roman". This indicated a person's age." This was added by an anon in April, and cited with a link to a documentary called "Rome: Power and Glory" on Netflix. Now, such a video does exist, and it is OK to use documentary videos as sources (though linking to them on Netflix isn't the best way to do it; it's better to use {{cite video}}). But since I'm not a Netflix subscriber, I can't verify that this slightly dubious-sounding tidbit is related in this particular documentary. Can anyone else? It seems quite unlikely to me, not least because any "commonly used Roman phrase" would have been in Latin. Can anyone confirm this source, or find another source supporting this claim? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 02:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's been over a week and nobody has verified this supposed citation. For the record, this is what was in the article:
Times Old Roman is in fact derived from commonly used Roman phrase, "I am (X) times old, Roman". This indicated a person's age.[1]
  1. ^ Coyote, Peter. "Rome: Power and Glory". Netflix. Retrieved 5 April 2011. 
If anybody can verify that this claim is indeed made in this documentary, the sentence can be restored to the article (preferably using {{cite video}} instead of {{cite web}}). —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 16:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Times Roman sample[edit]

In 2009, user Rbpolsen added to the article a sample of "Times Roman", but the sample is written using "Times New Roman". These two typefaces are slightly different in some details and it is misleading to add "Times Roman" title to "Times New Roman" sample. User Rbpolsen also added this image to Times Roman article. I will replace the image with the previous PNG image that was correct. -- (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Date incorrect[edit]

The original link ( erroneously states that on "Oct. 3, 1943, Times New Roman debuted on the bright white broadsheets of the London daily [i.e., The Times]". Unfortunately, the English Wikipedia article uncritically quotes this wrong date. The debut was on October 3, 1932, which may be verified in hundreds of locations, e.g., in the French and Swedish versions of the Wikipedia article. Typoviking (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Currently, the article states both dates in different locations (1932 in the introduction, 1943 under "Variants"). This direct contradiction needs to be fixed. (I'm not making the edit since I can't vouch for the correctness of either date.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

What did the Times use before Times New Roman?[edit]

It would be interesting to see a link to an article on the prior typeface or a side by side comparison. Thanks! (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

According to The_Times#Typeface, it was Monotype Modern. Rwessel (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

What did The Times use before Monotype Modern? I can't find any information on the subject before 1908, and the newspaper was in print for 113 years before that.

contradictory dates[edit]

The introduction says, "Times New Roman ... made its debut in the 3 October 1932 issue of The Times newspaper." A sentence in the "Times Roman and Times New Roman" section states, "[Times New Roman] made its debut in the Oct. 3, 1943 issue of The Times of London." One of these must be incorrect. (This inconsistency was pointed out on this talk page on 5 August 2012, but it was in a follow-up comment and may have been overlooked.) (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)