Talk:List of typefaces included with Microsoft Windows

Font family

I think it should also be listed which family each font belongs to. I.e., serif, sans-serif, monospace etc. SharkD (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good idea; adding such a column (Font family (HTML)) would make this table even more useful. Although I am not sure whether these categories apply for non-latin target scripts... The font families could be taken from the list of typefaces.

Just made the table sortable, for a start. --Tobias (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel "Display" was the best categorisation for Symbol, Wingdings and Wingdings2. "Display" is typically used to describe fonts suitable for titles on posters, front-covers, and so on (like Algerian). Normally I would class those three fonts as "Symbol", but I've categorised them as "Symbolic" in this table to use something distinct from the existing font name. —DIV (1.145.112.83 (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC))

Inappropriate image encoding

Several of these samples use JPEG, and are "fuzzed" as a result of how it encodes images. Redoing them as PNGs would be more appropriate.—86.9.3.250 (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This list of fonts contains every font ever shipped with Windows.[1][2] Fonts shipped with...

This enumeration is an obvious "original research" article, isnt?188.25.109.70 (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really... Original research needs a degree of synthesis to reach some conclusion. This list is merely an accumulation of data that does not require any synthesis. — Edokter (talk) — 20:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It would (technically) be original research if the information were obtained by editors 'manually' checking through fonts on a computer where Windows had been newly installed (without any other applications). Doesn't necessarily require reaching a 'conclusion'. While WP's policy technically proscribes this, if the information/knowledge is sufficiently widespread and there's consensus among editors, you might find that people turn a blind eye to the technicality (cf. WP:CALC).

On the other hand, if the information comes from citing reputable references, then it's generally not original research — even if this requires some synthesis to combine information from several such references!

Synthesis is entirely normal and acceptable on Wikipedia, provided that the purported synthesis does not combine material from multiple sources (or parts of a single source) to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated in the original source(s).

—DIV (1.145.112.83 (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC))

Target language

Shouldn't we display the font with the language it's supposed to support? For example, as Aharoni is a Hebrew font, displaying its uninteresting Latin letters isn't interesting at all for me. --166.111.68.162 (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternatives

This page should also list alternatives like the free Liberation fonts.--92.228.131.56 (talk) 09:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Agency FB

It seems this font is part of Office 2007 and not included in Windows. So it should be removed from the list here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.208.83.89 (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Page name

Would someone kindly normalize the page name with it's partner, List of fonts in Mac OS X — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.83.147.174 (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

•  No action List of Mac OS X fonts already exists. No action needed. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that the word typeface is preferred for articles that list both typefaces and fonts. This article is one of two exceptions, the other being List of CJK fonts, which does deal predominantly with fonts, not typefaces. For sake of consistency, I propose to rename this article into List of typefaces included with Microsoft Windows.

• List of typefaces
• Samples of serif typefaces
• Samples of sans serif typefaces
• Samples of monospaced typefaces
• Samples of script typefaces
• Samples of display typefaces
• Samples of simulation typefaces
• List of Apple typefaces
• List of public signage typefaces
• List of typefaces designed by Frederic Goudy
• List of typefaces included with OS X

--Totie (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. This is more like a color of the bike shed issue. So long as there is a redirect, I say no need. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. There has been a discussion about both terms here and I think we should follow their approach when titling articles. I do think that correct terminology and consistency are important. As I said, this one article seems to be an exception for no apparent reason and it is rather trivial to change it. In fact, I looked up which pages link to this one and I found that nearly all links originate from this template, making a change straightforward. There are a couple of redirects and a couple of articles that have to be changed manually, but I think the necessary changes are minimal. So considering all this, I don’t see Parkinson’s law as an obstacle here and proceed with the change.—Totie (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You are right. Good change. —DIV (1.145.112.83 (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of typefaces included with Microsoft Windows. 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/20100308204215/http://www.awayback.com/revised-font-stack/ to http://www.awayback.com/revised-font-stack/

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) 05:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

monospace/fixed-pitch fonts column?

Microsoft provides a reference for fonts supplied with versions of Windows from 7 through 10 which does specify whether the font is fixed-pitch or not. However, the information is not in a table like this, making it non-trivial to sort to see just a list of fixed-pitch fonts. I'm going to extract this information anyway, does anyone object to me adding this information to this page?

71.173.149.116 (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

"Included with" table column

Is the "included with" table column meant to contain the versions of Windows that have the specific font already included? If so, the data in the table needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camshaft64 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it's the first version to come with those fonts/the versions that introduced them--ΟυώρντΑρτ (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

"Included with": would be useful to cover fonts that were ONLY shipped with older versions of Windows (e.g. only shipped with Windows 7 and Windows 8; not shipped with Windows 10 or 11).

"Included from": actually describes the current tabulated data, so I have amended the column heading accordingly.

—DIV (1.145.112.83 (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC))

Audi Type / Possible Vandalism?

What is Audi Type and why is it listed here? This looks like vandalism. Blackplate (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

At the very least it’s unsourced and should be sourced or removed. Ditto for Frutiger and some others. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

"Can be installed on"

What does this column refers to? What was the way for say Vista users to install Windows 7 fonts like Aparajita, like this seems to imply?.

Font image examples incorrect

Segoe UI font does not look like that. The capital letter "I" does not have crossbars/serifs in Segoe UI fonts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.220.232.10 (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The current version of Segoe UI does have serifs on the capital I, but the new Segoe UI that is being introduced with Windows 11 doesn’t. 2A01:4C8:50:2343:24B8:64A0:F1BA:602F (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Make up your mind

The link said Microsoft typefaces, then redirected to an article about Windows typefaces, which claims not to contain a list of other Microsoft typefaces, except that in a footnote it does. If you're going to be like this, rename it to ‘List of Microsoft typefaces’ and divide the article in multiple sections, for Windows and other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no Microsoft fonts article, but people looking for that information might still find something useful in this article. The redirection doesn't necessarily imply that the topics indicated with those names are identical.

There is not a separate Windows fonts article either; again, a "Windows font" could be interpreted as any font designed for Windows or installable on Windows, which is broader than the scope of this article. Nevertheless, readers may still find some relevant information here, in lieu of that.

—DIV (1.145.112.83 (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC))

In Office, not Windows

Several fonts in the table are stated by Microsoft to shipped with Office, but implicitly not with Windows. See e.g. [1].

For now I tag them with the "Dubious" template, but if there's no rebuttal they should be removed/moved. —DIV (1.145.112.83 (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC))

Correction: using Template:Dubious_span, whose documentation was so deficient that I spent a lot of time addressing that, and so I only got around to tagging one entry in the table. There are more entries to be tagged. —DIV (1.145.112.83 (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC))

Segoe SD

I cannot find any evidence that Segoe SD actually exists. —DIV (1.145.112.83 (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC))