Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Typeface list task force

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infobox font template

[edit]
Abaddon
CategoryDisplay font
ClassificationCalligraphic
Designer(s)Dave Nalle
FoundryScriptorium Fonts
Trademarkblah

Here is an example of an {{Infobox font}} template used for Abaddon Font incorrectly. I have fixed this article and a number of other font articles beginning with the letter A. Since the error appears repeatedly, I am providing this example as a clue for anyone who knows how to correct template code. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is how you fix it. Infoboxes should just contain the file name, and not the wiki code. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 17:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the size should also not be overridden. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OrangeDog, the other problem with the template is that there are, or maybe were, many instances where the template was specified with the mistakes I showed here. You corrected the instance of the template, but somehow we need to correct the other places where it was called incorrectly. I have corrected those I stumbled upon, but there are probably more. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AWB should be able to find them. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems with the template is that some strings are not displayed, at least one, for example: | trademark =. Can somebody check this? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 23:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very easy: do it like this. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn´t get it, also, it´s still not working and the | based_on = string is not working either. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 03:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made a small typo. See Template:Infobox for how to add more parameters to {{infobox font}}. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 03:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the 'classification' part, I don't know what classification system is used elsewhere on Wikipedia, but I think the VOX-ATypI classification should be used allround. And personally I'm not sure the 'name' parameter is really necessary, as the name will be in both the article and preferably in the image. The name on top also bumps the infobox out of alignment with the top line of the article (if you want a title on top of the infobox, make it look like the one used on the Dutch wikipedia, with a little header, i.e. like this [Dutch article about Lexicon]). And the style parameter, I think 'font' should be omitted, so in the example here it should just be 'Display'. As it wouldn't be 'Serif font' either but just 'Serif'. Typehigh (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All infoboxes should have titles. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 15:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needed font images

[edit]

Is there a way to get a list of fonts that don't yet have all three required images? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 17:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do that, unless the template says that an infobox or an image is needed. What I can do is post a list of font names that I have encountered that need either an infobox, or one or more sample images, right here, but not right away. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, make a list of fonts that already have images, and people can add the ones they have that aren't there. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Viewing the sample list articles is a clear way to spot the missing ones. These lists are not all complete, but while upgrading them placing the corresponding font (taken from the list of fonts) you can progesively complete also the images. I often do check, wikify (for existing ones), creation and image uploading (when missing) one by one in alphabetical order for each class. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 23:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a list of font images needed:
Please look at List of Microsoft Windows fonts and see the examples of other fonts there. Then look at the typeface article and see what is there, and what is needed for the three sample ideal for this collaboration. It seems to me that the frequently used MS Windows fonts for English should be covered well before efforts to improve coverage for historical fonts or fonts mainly used in printing. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the writer of the article should also try to make an image for the fontbox. I think this is part of article writing on Wikipedia, to be as complete as possible. I would prefer to keep the images in the style of Jim Wood, like this one I made: [LexiconSpecimen.png], so that all the typeface articles have a certain consistency to them. I've noticed that more people make the images similar to it, so that is a good idea. Typehigh (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't know if SVG should be mandatory. I've seen problems with rendering SVG in certain browsers, and sometimes wikipedia does not show them at all. If you want a lot of freedom with scalability, I can see why you'd want SVG, but for the purpose of the infobox, I don't see the problem with PNG. Or am I missing something? Typehigh (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The wiki software handles the SVG rendering, what your browser actually gets is a normal raster image. There are many reasons why font samples should always be in SVG format, as given on Commons policy pages. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 15:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us lack the knowledge and software to create a SVG rendering, so I would agree with Typehigh that PNG sample images should be accepted.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The software is free and the knowledge is very easily acquired. It would save everybody's time if everyone made SVGs. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 16:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do have the software to make SVG's, but I had some troubles with showing them on Wikipedia. But that was quite a while ago, so any new type samples I make I'll save as SVG, and see if I can make it work. However, how exactly does SVG save everybody's time? :) Typehigh (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well any raster font images will be tagged for conversion to SVG, so it saves the time of those people who do conversions. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough. Since I still have the source-files, I'll re-export the images I've uploaded lately and replace them. That is, when I have time to do so. I'll go through that list of needed conversions sometimes and convert some of them to SVG. Or, well, not convert them, but remake them. Only converting doesn't make sense. Typehigh (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most important is to bring the images (to commons) to complete the lists and articles. Whoever creates a new article can create also the images (all three of them), it doesn´t take too long, and while the SVG is the most preferred format, you should only avoid making them in JPEG (which shows heavy artifacting). As I see, even PNG looks fine for this images (I mean: we won´t make them featured pictures or anything that requires a lot of quality, but enough). - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 07:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with with you, Damërung, that PNG images can be allowed for use in typeface articles and lists. If I have to learn Inkscape and create SVG images, I am not going to go that far in completing the existing typeface articles and list, nor in creating new typeface articles. There is still the problem that creating a set of three new typeface article samples, the font file is needed, but there are still some instances that I could do, and of course there are instances where the font can be downloaded for free. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you start uploading more PNGs, then you're just creating more work for people like me, who actually follow Wikipedia and Commons' guidelines and policies. Please don't. Have you actually tried using Inkscape Dthomsen? It's much quicker than the Word/Paint copy-pasting method. Use SVG over PNG. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 14:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The very few typeface samples I have made were done with Paint Shop Pro 6.0, which does not create SVG images, but will make PNG. No, I have never tried Inkscape, nor have I done the Paint Shop procedure, either. I did try to convert PNG images to SVG with software called SVGFactory, but it did not work out. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can say that I have observed typeface examples in particular articles done in GIF, JPG, PNG and SVG formats. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, they should be converted, and making more creates more work. Using an PNG->SVG converter is never going to give good results. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 17:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly ever you can not make the images when you do not have the font installed in your computer or you can´t download it (actually, it has never happened... to me). This is because the references listed in this collaboration page (two of them) include a graphic viewer for preview of a selected font, in which even the background can be altered. This can help in creating the image specimens no matter if you have the font or not... I´ll include further information in the page. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 17:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please provide further information. Meanwhile, I can find plenty of opportunities to improve the typography articles without ever creating a typeface example. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sample list articles

[edit]

The first column images are generally too large. I'll also make a template to make these pages much easier to create and maintain. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samples of Serif typefaces has been converted. Any style or template issues should be addressed now. Bear in mind that a number of the images need replacing anyway. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on the conversion to the templates. Why is there a horizontal line after some entries, and none after other entries? Also, why does the first entry in the table have a file name displayed, instead of the file?--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that I don't know. It's not because it's first, it's just that image. I don't see any missing lines though. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 16:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Samples of Serif typefaces shows just fine on Internet Explorer 8.06, Opera 9.64, and Safari 3.2.2 on Windows XP Pro, but some horizontal lines are missing in Mozilla Firefox 3.5.3. It seems likely that this is a bug in Firefox, and nothing can be done to correct it in Wikipedia. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, I'm on 3.5.3. Try clearing your cache. If there's still a problem can you post a screenshot? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 14:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Double odd! Clearing the cache doesn't change it, but I try the same page on another computer, a brand-new Dell with Firefox 3.5.3 newly installed, and that looks just fine. This appears to be a problem with just my own computer, so let's just leave it at that. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my main enquiries are do we want to be able to link multiple designers, and do we want the headers (and Class, etc.) linked to explanatory articles? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 15:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we want to be able to link to multiple designers, and I have seen at least one infobox with two designers named. I am not sure what you mean by the term "headers" in this context. Yes, I would want a standardized list of class= parameters, and to have those parameters link to explanatory articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone else wants to, I'll add |designer2, |designer3 parameters when I have the time. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Not Narkism?

[edit]

Wikipeida Needs The Narkism Text. Can Anybody Typeface That Kind Of Font? GU!TARH3R0CHR!ST0PHER _-= 02:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is it? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 02:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good Text, For This Font, Where You Can Also Make An Article About Narkism. GU!TARH3R0CHR!ST0PHER _-= 03:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you see it? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 02:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I Seen The Font On The Title, Of Coldplay's Debut Album's Album Cover, For Parachutes. GU!TARH3R0CHR!ST0PHER _-= 03:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take A Look At The Top Of This Picture, You Will See The Narkism Font Here: Image:Coldplayparachutesalbumcover.jpg GU!TARH3R0CHR!ST0PHER _-= 03:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's Make An Article About The Font, Narkism! Big Idea. GU!TARH3R0CHR!ST0PHER _-= 03:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As with all articles, reliable sources are required to establish notability. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 03:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of typefaces included with Mac OS X

[edit]

List of typefaces included with Mac OS X has very large images with many fonts as the samples. This is entirely unlike the List of Microsoft Windows fonts, where each font has three samples. What do others think?--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Font or (font) or (typeface)

[edit]

Examples:

Currently we have article names with Font as part of the name, or (font) after the name, or (typeface) after the name. Sometimes both names work because of a redirect, sometimes only (font) works, and sometimes only (typeface) works. The examples above tell the whole story.

Questions for the collaborators:

  1. Can we have a standard way to do these font names, and if so, what would it be?
  2. Do we need to add redirect pages for the instances where the non-standard way does not work?
  3. Should we make an effort to rename the unusual instances, like Abaddon Font above?

Please number your answers. I am willing to work on applying the standard way to existing articles. Someone else should enforce the standard way for new articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Well, technically a font was one instance of a certain typeface. So in the hot metal days; 'Caslon' was the typeface, and 'Caslon Bold 24pts.' was a font (or actually a 'fount'). So every physical version of the typeface (so every point size as well) was a different font. Nowadays it's usually that every weight of a typeface is called a font, since physical point sizes don't exist anymore on the computer. So 'Adobe Garamond' is the typeface, 'Adobe Garamond Bold' is a font. In effect this is to say that every digital font-file should be called a font (that belongs to a typeface or type family.) So to be short; I would prefer to name articles with the addition of 'typeface' on Wikipedia. The articles are usually about the history and design of the typeface itself, not about the font-files. :)
Typehigh (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Yes, in the manner of Abaddon (typeface).
  2. Yes for (font), no for others.
  3. Yes.
OrangeDog (τ • ε) 15:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. OrangeDog and Typehigh are in agreement that new articles should always be somename (typeface) and I would agree with that standard naming convention. Does everyone agree?
  2. OrangeDog is saying that if somename (typeface) exists, there should be a redirect for somename (font) to somename (typeface), but not the other way around. Is that correct, OrangeDog? (That is how I would do it.)
  3. OrangeDog is also saying that the unusual instances, like Abaddon Font should become Abaddon (typeface). Is that correct, OrangeDog? (That is how I would do it.)

These three points (if agreed) are not quite a standard naming convention, but close. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do we do, if anything, with typefaces that don't say (font) or (typeface), such as Bernhard Gothic?--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing, as there is no ambiguity to disambiguate. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 18:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, whenever there's no ambiguity, no (typeface) addition is needed. Typehigh (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following the standard naming convention being discussed, I have added redirects from Abaddon (font) to Abaddon (typeface) and Avenir (font) to Avenir (typeface). The redirect from Corbel (font) to Corbel (typeface) already existed when the list of examples was gathered.

Now my question is what to do, if anything, about the Chandas (font) article, which could be renamed Chandas (typeface), with a redirect added for Chandas (font). The alternative would be to do nothing at all about the existing typeface articles named something (font), not the standard naming convention but it is easy to do nothing at all. Please comment. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, everything should be at Chandas, or if more than one article could have that title, then Chandas (typeface). OrangeDog (τ • ε) 11:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because Chandas (छन्दस्), the study of meter, especially Vedic meter, is one of the six Vedanga disciplines, or "organs of the vedas". and Chandas is a redirect to a section on Vedic meter, perhaps this is not the best example. However, in this example, I would move Chandas (font) to Chandas (typeface), add a redirect for Chandas (font), and change the Chandas redirect to a DAB with the typeface and the Vedic meter as instances.
You say "everything should be at Chandas" as an example, but should be on Wikipedia can mean a lot of work. Perhaps AWB can do it, at least in the less complicated instances than the particular one we are discussing where the base name is a redirect to a section, but is this going to be an objective of this collaboration?--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are less than 152 articles in Category:Typefaces by style that are not suffixed with (typeface). The majority of these will not need to be moved, as they do not have ambiguous names. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about those 152 articles (more or less) in Category:Typefaces by style without the (typeface) suffix. What I am curious about is whether there are still some "somename (font)" articles out there. Probably you know how to look for them. Example: Latha (font) --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serif classifications

[edit]

Does anybody has a good idea of how to identify a sub-classification of the serif-type of typefaces? I don´t know about others, but it´s a little hard for me to note any difference between 'modern', 'transitional' and 'old style'. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 22:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the terms 'modern', 'transitional' and 'old style' are related to when the typeface was first created, or sometimes recreated from an antique example. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to use the VOX-ATypI classification everything that has something to do with classifying type on wikipedia. And yes, most classification systems base their classes on when the style was first created, and/or on how the letters are created (e.g. the tools etc.) The differences can be small. Typehigh (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

[edit]

Should we add the "Category:Typefaces" to all articles about typefaces? (there are actually just few ones, most, recently created stubs), and which categories should be place in the articles? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 20:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the Category:Typography?
If you look at the categories, you will see that there should be no articles in Category:Typefaces, only subcategories. It is itself a subcategory of Category:Typography, so that shouldn't be added to any articles either. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The I suppose the added ones should be removed right? (recent stubs). - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 21:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but make sure they end up in the correct subcategories. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are four examples of articles formerly in Category:Typefaces or in Category:Typography. It was easy enough to use Hotcat to remove them from where they did not belong, but not so easy to say where they do belong. The example teaches! Collaborators, tell me what category or categories these examples go in. Just don't go off and fix them, tell us all here what the correct category is. I am hoping that a few examples will teach us all, but maybe not.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy enough to cite more, but I will wait for answers, and hope that I can carry on with the task with the answers. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following Wikipedia:Categorization, Category:Typefaces is the eponymous category for Typeface and List of Typefaces, and should be treated as such. Both Gaelic type and Thibaudeau classification should go back in Category:Typography. It's the actual typeface articles (which you haven't mentioned) that need moving. These include:
Note also that the Category:Typefaces by script categories are almost empty. All typeface articles should be added to the appropriate categories depending on which scripts they support. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that Sloan letters are available as computer fonts for both the MAC and Windows, so I am concluding that this article should have a WikiProject Typography template. Pelli, Denis (2004-12-20). "Sloan font available". VSlist at NYU. Denis Pelli. Retrieved 2009-10-28. I am unsure what category to use. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FBBentonSans.svg‎

[edit]
CategoryRealist Sans-serif
Designer(s)Tobias Frere-Jones, Cyrus Highsmith
Commissioned byMartha Stewart Living, Worth
FoundryFont Bureau

Talk:Benton Sans says that FBBentonSans.svg‎ is not Benton Sans.

Is this right, or wrong? If it is not Benton Sans, then a new sample is needed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can´t find any information of FBBenton sans, so I suppose it´s just anothe name of the same font (Benton Sans) and should be added to the page as an alternative name (in the infobox). - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 18:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't assume that without a reference and most definitely should not be added. Ignore "FBBenton" and check whether the font in the image is Benton Sans as claimed. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It must be kept as it is until further information is acquired. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 19:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been told by an expert whose opinion I respect that this is actually Benton Sans, and she refers me to the following reference concerning the numeric characters. http://www.fontbureau.com/pdf/BentonSans.pdf
She also says that Benton Graphic is no longer sold, and indeed was never sold to the public when it was in use. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, note that this particular example is one with two designers specified in the Infobox font template.
Ah, but a poor example as only one of them has an article. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of the designers has an article, but there is plenty of information about Cyrus Highsmith. See Talk:Benton Sans for four references. Bio, please! --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sloan letters

[edit]

Sloan letters is in category typefaces. Yes, I know it should not be in that category, but should it be in any category related to Typography at all? Consider also the various eye test articles which do not have any Wikipedia connection with Typography at all.

It seems to me that these articles do have some connection with Typography, but not a very strong connection, nor do I easily see which categories they should be in. Of course, I could just add WikiPedia Typography templates to the talk pages, and let other editors decide what else to use as categories for the articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The eye test articles, as you stated, do not have a very strong relation with typography, in fact, they do not have but a vague and irrelevant connection with typography which does not make them worthy to be in one of the categories. They could be better suited in a category like Category:Charts or oftalmology. Sloan letters seems to be fine in the categories as it is (I don´t see any problem). - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 08:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that Sloan letters are available as computer fonts for both the MAC and Windows. See the article and talk page. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On rereading the article again, I see there are two questions. Should the Typography category be on the article, and should the Typography template be on the talk page. For now, I am leaving both there, but this is a marginal case. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don´t see why not (for both questions). - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 18:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I will leave it as it is now. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Font list item

[edit]

Don't change the template to match the incorrect usage, fix the usage instead. Also, don't set the size of sample 1 by width - they will all be of inconsistent point size. Finally, either use {{title without disambig}} and have the page running slow, or remove it and make the parameters more complicated - don't try a mix of both. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 14:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But ...the point size doesn´t need to be consistant right? Anyway, even setting the first image in height size, there are still fonts of inconsistant size (either bad samples, or samples in two rows). On the other hand, I guess setting the size by width or height doesn´t matter as long as the first image has a fair (and big enough) size (in which case, I think it could be better the width). In other aspects, I don´t see any further problems with the template... yet. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 19:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and sort out the whole page tonight, and then you'll see. Try not to ec if you can help it. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-done all the font name examples that were in desperate need. Just need to wait for File:Cheltenham.svg to be moved out of the way. Compare now the difference between, for example, "American Typewriter" and "Bell". OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria

[edit]

I couldn't find a resource for Alexandria (typeface). All I could find was another font of the same name. Any ideas? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This link works. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoefler Text

[edit]

I can't do the ligature in "Hoefler Text" without having the font installed. Anyone here have it? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 15:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean making it in svg? (because I have some sort of similar problem) - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 07:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetan Machine Uni

[edit]
Tibetan Machine Uni
CategoryNon-latin
Designer(s)Tony Duff ?
Date released2000

Notice that the infobox for Tibetan Machine Uni does not show the designer, Tony Duff. Perhaps the style could be specified?--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This external link may provide more information.

It says that it´s based on a design by Tony Duff, so perhaps he didn´t create this one. The style would be Non-latin because it belongs to the tibetan script. Note that this font is not listed in the list of fonts (and it should). - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 01:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added this article to the List of fonts list. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. in the article Tibetan Machine Uni the Infobox font template only displays the name= parameter, and nothing else. Here on this talk page, having the image, style, and release date given seems to allow the box to appear. Is there a quirk with the template? --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the template is fine, but editors must be careful when placing the parameter's words. For example, in this case, the infobox displays: "Designer: Tony...", but if you put designer = Tony... inside the template's syntax, nothing will appear, you have to put creator = Tony.... The infobox was also empty here, I corrected it when I placed my last comment. All what should be put inside a template correctly is always in the template's documentation page. --Woglinde 02 (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All this talk was carried on without changes to the initial article. Now that I see what User Woglinde 02 said, I tried doing an update on the article. I did not add any dummy image, though.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AWB Alerts, Warnings

[edit]

The typeface sample [File:Skia (typeface).png] has an alert in AWB saying "Starts with heading' but I do not understand what this warning means, or how to fix it, or indeed, whether I should care. There are a fair number of typeface samples with this alert.

Also, I would like to know how to not see some of the alerts that AWB provides, including the Multiple-Wiki links warning. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Starts with heading" only applies to articles, which may not start with a heading. Warnings cannot be turned off. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don`t see any. --Woglinde 02 (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I get "Starts with heading" on a File, I should ignore it, since that warning only applies to articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on List of typefaces

[edit]

Please take a look at List of typefaces, where I have added lists of display and simulation typefaces taken from the samples articles. Also look at this list of semi-serif typefaces:

Is there such a thing as a semi-serif typeface? Are these examples? I have some doubts.

Please comment on the Talk:List of typefaces page. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listing / Images

[edit]

On the project page, it says under Listing that on certain websites "there is a preview pane in which color of both the font and background can be changed, this can help in creating the images when certain typeface is missing in someone´s computer.". However, if this was meant as setting a sample text on foundry websites or myfonts, and making a screenshot or something similar, this does not make free images. As far as I know, you cannot use such images on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, sample images can only be created if you have a license to use a typeface, so you can make the sample and release this as 'artwork' into the public domain/CC. Typehigh (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, syntax changed. - Woglinde 02 (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samples of script typefaces

[edit]

The Samples of script typefaces article is tagged with the no references template. None of the other Samples of ... typefaces are tagged that way. Questions:

  1. Are list articles generally expected to have references?
  1. If references were added to Samples of script typefaces, what kind of references would be added, considering that several of the list entries have articles, and those articles often have references. For example, AMS Euler has five inline references. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think that that list needs references. But if someone really wants it, perhaps you could reference a book that discusses type classification? As that is where the term 'script typeface' comes from. Not sure what book though... from the top of my head, David Jury discusses type classification in his book About Face, Reviving the Rules of Typography. That is the only kind of reference I could imagine for that list, but it seems a bit forced and unnecessary. Typehigh (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we agree that Samples of script typefaces and Samples of sans serif typefaces do not need references, should we remove the needs references templates? --DThomsen8 (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should remove those templates. Lists usually (or maybe not very usually, but sometimes) do not require or cite any references since each article it lists has already its own references as DThomsen8 said above (we cannot list every reference of each article, because the reference list would be even bigger than the font list). For example: List of firearms do not cite any references either; and List of typefaces list only one reference, but not regarding to the content of the article (the list), but just as a 'note' about one of the typefaces that could be in dispute of its place there. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 18:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Particular goals

[edit]

Our purposes are well defined on the project page, but do we have any particular goals? There were vast improvements in the lists and articles in 2009, but recently progress has slowed, and discussion here has almost died out.

So, can we specify any particular goals? Something we could measure? What do you think? --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think at the very least, we work towards getting articles out of stubs, to start pages. There are just too many stubs. -- S Masters (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are 556 stubs and 960 articles, according to the assessment table, or about 58% stubs. Consider the articles with a Typography template on the talk page. Many articles are about typefaces, and type designers, and printers, and punctuation symbols. Often it is difficult to produce a typeface article with details, or information about the designer. Punctuation symbols are also frequently short articles with few references, but a few articles are long and historical. I put a great deal of effort into making sure that Typography templates had a class and importance. Right now, only two articles are unranked, and one of those is a Redirect. Some of those articles have been improved since I did the ranking, and some may have been ranked too low to start out. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Stub-Class Typography articles has 572 entries, because earlier today I added a stub rank to several articles, including some new ones. My suggestion to you is to look at the list, and work on whatever kind of article you prefer. Just a bit of poking around has shown me that the ranking I added back in mid 2009 may need changing from stub to start in some cases. I am going to give it a shot on changing rankings rather than improving articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will go through the list and help with changing rankings if appropriate. If I come across any articles that need work like copy editing and wikifying, I will also do these at the same time. -- S Masters (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Version 1.0 Assessment scheme is a description of the quality and importance of articles. The class=stub has no or only one or two inline citations, class=start has three, and class=C has more, depending on the subject. The assessment scheme is not that specific, but those are my criteria. It can be hard work with search engines getting the proper references, and sometimes it can only be done with paper sources at the library. I am fortunate to be near a very fine public library. When I started as an editor, I did not touch the rankings at all, but now I am keen to make use of them on whatever subject I work on to decide what needs effort, and of what kind. This year, I did some work on Diner and I still have copies of written material to use when I can get back to it. Take a look at the articles you have already worked on, and see whether they are ranked according to the assessment scheme.--DThomsen8 (talk) 11:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I have already started to upgrade the classes of some of the articles. -- S Masters (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've only had time lately to assess some pages that didn't have any yet (i.e. none to start or stub). But going though the stub articles and see what you can do to get some of them out of stub status seems like a good goal, even though it is not a very specific one, as that is an ongoing effort. Don't have much time at the moment to invest into Wikipedia... Typehigh (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping that I could visit the discussion page and find a list of stub sites or priority sites that need references, more information, etc. Can someone with more insight to the work done provide such a list or should I just work from the primary category and randomly pick stub sites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiNC (talk • contribs) 03:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Particular articles needing expansion

[edit]

There may be particular articles that can be expanded and upgraded, if information is available. I am going to list any such articles I find while looking over the class=stub list.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration of the month

[edit]

According to Wikipedia:Collaborations, you have an active Collaboration. If so, you might be interested in the new template {{CotM}}. cheers, Rd232 talk 22:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple of proposals

[edit]

One. Experimental typefaces could be added as a category. There we should put stuff like New Alphabet of Tschichold. Two. Typefaces could also be divided into time periods and philosophic/historic/artistic movements (eg Modernist Typography, Postmodernist Typography). Three. A page about great new typographers should be added. Lineto for example. Four. Self taught typographers like Jos Buivenga and Mário Feliciano should be treated as well, as this seems to be a phenomenon of digital typefaces—typographers with no direct academic training on the issue. —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Typeface_list_task_force&oldid=1144133760"