Talk:Gill Sans

"Other organisations using Gill Sans"

The "other organisations" section contains a lot of links which appear to be non-notable or ephemeral. (I mean: a brand of radar detector? Thom Yorke's The Eraser? A student union?) Were other users of this calibre included, the list would become unfeasibly long. Perhaps this should be pruned down to the most notable entities that use it?

Copyright expiring

Am I right to observe that this font will enter the public domain by 2010? --grin ✎ 20:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Under United States law:

1) Abstract letter, number, and punctuation glyph shapes of a general text font are considered "utilitarian" and uncopyrightable.

2) The particular computer programming code which is used to generate a font's glyph shape is copyrighted in an ordinary way.

3) Font names can be trademarked (though some, such as "Courier", haven't been). AnonMoos (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. In other parts of the world, however, it is important to know that regardless of the distinction no protection should exist any more. --grin ✎ 08:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a general principle for copyright (in most jurisdictions) that it doesn't protect creativity (that would be patents, if anything), but rather the written work going into expressing this creativity. There is (in vague generality) a stronger protection to the expression of a font as a drawing or .ttf file etc. than there would be to the shape of Gill's original. This distinction can also hinge in court on some very fine details of shape - a font that isn't exactly what Gill drew (non-obvious, but provable) has a strong legal demonstration of its separate and ongoing copyright.

As Gill Sans is clearly a valuable property, as big type foundries have better copyright lawyers than I do, and also as US copyright can often extend based on registration and re-registration, more than a simple death of the author, it would be unwise to make any unsourced blanket statement that "Gill is long dead, Gill Sans is now PD". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

for TT

1) "from" indicates a beginning point so there should be an ending point or some signifier of continuity, such as "onwards". "Since" used as a preposition indicates continuity, and I thought it was the least invasive edit.

2) Monotype is a singular noun.

The Brits like to think of it as plural, but it is singular in American English, and Monotype is an American company. The sentence in question is not referring to the company's shareholders or board members, so the singular form is all the more appropriate (i learnt British English first and picked up Americanisms later, and I still use British punctuation, because I think it's more precise. So, it's not that i'm partial to American English. let me know if you want more reasons for why this particular Americanism is more exact.)

3) i'm not a fan of emphatic pronouns but if you want to replace "themselves" with "itself", that's your stylistic choice. And while you're at it, split up the sentence, if you'd like.

4) "continues to thrive" expresses a present continuous state, so adding "to this day" is redundant.

5) "often being held to bring an artistic or cultural sensibility to an organisation's corporate style" is an unsupported opinion.--67.84.35.181 (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

i'm not a grammarian, so i'm sorry to be stubborn about this. but my strong aversion to bullies outweighs my mild disdain for grammarians.--67.84.35.181 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Monotype Corporation was primarily a UK company when the font was developed (the 1920s). It's certainly seen as an iconically British font, having been developed and particularly used here. So British English usages should be more than acceptable in this article.

Ha, I'm no longer annoyed and am actually amused by your rationale.

1.Yes, you're mistaken - http://www.monotypeimaging.com/aboutus/timeline.aspx http://www.monotypefonts.com/PDFs/Timeline.pdf

2. Either way, the use of the plural form is incorrect, in both AmE and BrE, for reasons I explained earlier.

3. Interestingly, though you argue for the plural, you "yourself" use the singular – "Monotype Corporation was primarily" (emphasis mine).

4. Note the use of the singular form on the official website - http://ir.monotypeimaging.com/faq.cfm

--67.84.35.181 (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As for redundancy, I don't see that as a hanging offence. At least it's consistent; but basically it's just shading in a little more emphasis - an stylistic editorial choice, as you say. Jheald (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I see the use value of repetition in a difficult or polemic text, but encyclopedias are meant to be concise, so redundancy is not a non-issue. --67.84.35.181 (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As for "artistic or cultural sensibility", this might take a bit longer to source, but I think it is correct. But here's one blog suggesting why it may have that effect:

"It has clean lines but lacks the symmetry and geometry of Futura or Univers. This makes it a bit friendlier and more artistic looking." [1]

Jheald (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that sentence is a grammatical muddle, but leaving that aside, there are actually two parts to this claim – 1) that the font brings "artistic or cultural sensibility", and 2) to an "organizations corporate style".

I wish you luck in finding supporting info. btw, what exactly is "cultural sensibility", and how exactly does a font bestow it? --67.84.35.181 (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency of Gill Sans?

The basic glyph shapes do not look consistently across font weights and widths, especially in Extra Bold and Ultra Bold weights, and Extra Condensed width. However, even in lighter weights, some letters do not look consistent. For example, in letters p and q, the top strokes of counters do not touch the top of the stems in Light, Bold, Heavy fonts, but touch the top of the stems in Book, Medium fonts

Does anyone have a reference for this? I have no idea what this is referring to, I've not seen any problems with the font in my own use of it. It appears to have inconsitent weights in earlier versions of MS Word but this is a problem with the rendering, not with the typeface. 203.217.150.68 (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Edward Tufte

An editor, TreasuryTag (talk · contribs), has repeatedly reverted the following addition:

Edward Tufte, the information design theorist, uses Gill Sans on his website and in some of his published works.

Now as Tufte is a notable WP:RS on design and usability issues, I (not the original author) consider this to be a reasonable addition. Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

As the reverted editor, I agree with Andy Dingley that "Tufte is a big enough name in design and usability that his support for Gill Sans is significant"; certainly more significant than the use of Gill Sans by Saab. The Tufte sentence should go back in. MayerG (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Having waited a month to see if any editors dissented, and none having done so, I have reinserted the reference to Tufte.MayerG (talk) 05:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Toronto Subway

The present article states that Toronto Subway is actually based on Johnston. However, in that article (in the sidebar) it says Futura. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.111.138 (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gill Sans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090422194033/http://www.thamesandhudson.com:80/books/Creative_Type/9780500512296.mxs/20/11/ to http://www.thamesandhudson.com/books/Creative_Type/9780500512296.mxs/20/11/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Update

I've been fortunate enough to attend a talk by Dan Rhatigan and James Mosley on the history of Gill Sans, which took place last night in London. There's a lot of material in my notes (& possibly photographs) I'm planning to add to the article over the next few days from this. Particular areas I'm hoping to clear up are about the development in metal (maybe adding the series numbers) and then the transfer to digital. It seems that some of the material in this article (for example on the bdpq of Gill Sans) is oversimplifying things, since in the hot metal period these varied even by size for the same weight. So I plan to just add a statement of that with examples and move on. But there's a lot to add (& need to format references) so will take several days to a week to put everything up, I think. I've also made some of my own changes, in particular adding a comparison image to show how different Gill Sans can look to the digitisation. (It's quite a bad comparison right now since I used a bad scan of the original - may improve on it when I have more time.) Blythwood (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

And I hope everything is up now. Rather than merely citing their speech, I've used it as a springboard to suggest new sources. I'm really happy with where this article is now - it's big but covers the topic well - and am considering submitting for Good Article status when I hear back from two others I've submitted. Blythwood (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Now submitting for GA in the Art & Architecture category. Blythwood (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

In fact...any thoughts on going straight to an FA submission? Blythwood (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gill Sans. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://typophile.com/node/7921

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gill Sans/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Will review. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Fairly well-written, only a few comments:

• In the lead:

• Can paras be merged? It looks choppy.

• Reorganised. Thanks for pointing this out.

• by the 1920s a well-established sculptor and lettering artist I think "a well-established sculptor and lettering artist by the 1920s" sounds better

• Reorganised and introduced Cleverdon a bit better.

• In Characteristics:

• a very different feel What does "feel" mean here?

• I'm thinking about adding an example image. The next sentence does explain it a bit.

• The reword looks good. Let us have no more images, there are such a lot of them already. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 02:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• You should introduce Johnston when you begin with the article, even if s/he is mentioned in the lead.

• Put in a bit about him. I've managed to find the original source for the first quote from him also.

• very similar to Johnston I think "Johnston" here needs italics

• Font names traditionally aren't given in italics so this isn't necessary.

• has a dramatic narrowing I thinking "striking" would read better. Try to avoid strong wording wherever possible. Another instance I noticed: an extremely eccentric design of i and j

• I've taken out the "dramatic" but extremely eccentric is no exaggeration: I can't think of another Latin-alphabet font that uses this style - it must be almost unique, and nobody has decided copying it was a good idea.

• In Development:

• Present Morison and Cleverdon.

• Done in lead, which I hope is enough. He's not that important to main body of the article.

• collaboration with Johnston Gill had intermittently "Johnston, Gill"

• Good spot, thanks.

• Remove the link to "italic", it is a duplicate
• "Perpetua" is linked twice.

• Fixed, those, thanks.

• In the roman Should it not be "R"?

• No, oddly enough. See the roman type article.

• However, Gill did not use the calligraphic italic...standard "double-story" g in italic. Looks like this is unsourced.
• Remaining uncited parts:

1. The long series of extensions, redrawings and conversions...alternative designs and releases
2. Gill was commissioned to develop...Monotype or Linotype machines.

• After thought I have decided to remove the Arabic section (which is from before I started to improve the article) and take it out of the article altogether. It's a separate design and not based on Gill Sans. I'm putting it in the Eric Gill article. "The long series of extensions, redrawings and conversions" etc section is cited now.

• In Alternate characters, there are 3 duplinks: Futura, oblique and Dwiggins'

• Fixed these

• In Digital releases:

• Link Windows 10.
• for example in the book weight "example, in"
• 3 duplinks: text figures, Joanna, swash. Please note that you may choose to keep the duplink if it is appropriate to link it there as well, or the last link was quite a while ago.
• The Pro release of 2005...as stylistic alternates. Apparently unsourced.

• Fixed these

• In Usage:

• 4 duplinks: Monotype Grotesque, Univers, phototypesetting, Futura
• It was also used by London Transport for externally printed output which could not be efficiently set in Johnston. , Wikimedia Foundation uses Gill Sans as its corporate typeface. Apparently unsourced

• Fixed

• In Similar fonts:

• Duplinks:

• In Early competitors: Stephenson Blake, Penguin, phototype
• In Later and digital-only designs: Helvetica, Univers, oblique
• In Font superfamilies: Joanna
• Fixed

• In Legal aspects:

• The first para is apparently unsourced.

• Added citations now.

• Sources: I have not taken a close look, but I wonder if it is proper to use commercial websites like MyFonts and Letterhead.

• I think it's reasonable as a link to show what fonts have been digitised - they aren't really being used as a source on the history so much. I wanted to have online links also that you could click on - if I just cited books I read in libraries while researching this article that would not be so accessible for people like you from a different country to look at.

• There may be some copyvio concerns, check here.

• Don't worry, all of those are aggregation sites copying this article or cited sources.

That should be it. These addressed, I would be happy to promote this beautiful article. Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 10:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Blythwood: You there? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 02:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Blythwood: I see you have been making changes to the article. I would appreciate it if you could inform me on what all you have done there, it will help me keep track of the changes. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Sainsf: - Hi! Sorry, I didn't notice that this page existed for some reason. Thanks very much for your recommendations and review. I will be thinking about all this over the next few days. Blythwood (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Very well, all issues have been sorted out. This is promoted. Cheers! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gill Sans. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110303230134/http://www.fonts.com/FindFonts/RecentReleases/2005/GillSansPro.htm to http://www.fonts.com/FindFonts/RecentReleases/2005/GillSansPro.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hawkes Pocket Scores

So Boosey & Hawkes published a sheet music titled Hawkes Pocket Scores, cover page that features Gill Sans Titling. --Humanist920 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Humanist920, thanks for this suggestion. (My apologies for taking to long to get back to you, I'm afraid I've been a bit busy recently.) All such usages need a citation to a reliable source, explicitly saying that Gill Sans is the font used, and showing that the use is notable enough to mention-this is after all a standard font on desktop computers. Gill Sans is rated as one of Wikipedia's best articles, and I'm keen to maintain it as such as a tribute to the many people who have contributed to, reviewed and improved it in the past. So this needs a high-quality source. Hope that makes sense. Blythwood (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Save the Children wordmark

Does anyone have a question about the Save the Children logo? --Humanist920 (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Hey there Humanist920, not quite sure I understand you. When you say question what do you have in mind? Blythwood (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)