Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Typography

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Typography (Rated Project-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis page 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.
Project This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 

Version of M. Vox's diagram + what is the current VoxAtypl classification?Edit

Hello. I have two questions
1) I have found a reproduction of Vox's diagram of his original 1962 classification, here (from here). The diagram is from the book Dossier Vox, 1975. You can see a clearer, typographical version from the book La Chose imprimée here or here (from here). I found an English version using each font in the diagram here.
Does anyone think that it would be a good idea to ask at c:Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop to make a version of Vox's original classification? By the way, I think his classification often gets confused with the one wich was later adopted as the Vox-ATypI classification.
2) does anyone have a list of the current font families and fonts of the Vox-ATypI classification? I cannot find it on the official website. Veverve (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Since I have no anwers, I ping @Odysseus1479:, @John Maynard Friedman:, @JamesMLane:, @J.T.W.A.Cornelisse: and @Blythwood: in an attempt to get some. Veverve (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Since the digital era has started, many new fonts were designed and will be designed... Even before the internet was active, many fonts were made, that might never been listed in this classification by name at all.
And than... lots of fonts have more than one name. This was in the old type founder age when type founders copied popular faces from competitor type foundries (for instance: Garamond & Garamont).
How would you imagine to keep track off all this? Any designer of a new font should be able to figure out what kind of fond he has made, and what the purpose of it.
How can anybody be complete in this ? J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@J.T.W.A.Cornelisse: I understand it is difficult, but it is not the point. I am asking if there is a list of the currect Vox-ATypI classification somewhere. Currently there is e.g. the Classicals family with the Humanist font, the Calligraphics family with the Blackletter font, etc. on the WP article, and I would like to check if the article is up to date.
Also, what do you think of my first point concerning the diagram? Veverve (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The Vox diagram is rather schematic, certainly the first diagrams... and that might stay in this way, What is the need to be very precise ? J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Veverve: if people think it would be useful, I’d be happy to create a version of the diagram. I am somewhat concerned that WP:OR might be required to select representative specimens, as implied by JTWAC above. Of course it could all be done in a generic font, just naming the examples as in the Guide pratique … linked above, but with some loss of illustrative value. At any rate the actual execution would be pretty easy, and I do have a fairly large collection of ‘classic’ fonts from major foundries to draw upon.—Odysseus1479 23:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479: It is not OR, because Vox's diagram is official; please note, Vox's diagram is not the Vox-Atypl classification, but Vox's classification. The Vox-Atypl adopted in 1962 contains the Blackletters family, and added the Gaelic family in 2010. I found a fan made diagram of the latest Vox-Atypl classification here. I did ask the question of whether reproducing those two diagrams would infringe copyright on WCommons, and it is likely that it does. Veverve (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479: I re-read your message: yes, choosing representatives would be OR, but I do not think it would be a problem. The biggest problem is that reproducing those diagrams would likely infringe copyright. Veverve (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@Veverve: I disagree that it would necessarily do so. AIUI the classification system itself is an idea or concept, therefore not subject to copyright; as long as the “creative expression” in a representation thereof is not derived from an existing work, it shouldn’t be a problem. I see from the Commons VPC discussion that my take on this may be controversial, but I’d be prepared to defend it in a DR.—Odysseus1479 21:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479: From what I understand, the organisation into a circle the way it is done in those two images may be copyrighted, thus the content of those diagrams (in this case, the names of the fonts and font families) is what would be copyrighted. Feel free to have a more thourought discussion on WCommons about this if you want; if I am sure that reproducing those diagrams in SVG by doing either a 1:1 copy or an almost 1:1 copy is not plagiarism or derivative, then I will gladly ask for the making of those SVGs and supervise said making. Veverve (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Cylinder PressEdit

Currently the topic "cylinder press" redirects to "rotary press". Whilst a rotary press is a cylinder press, a cylinder press need not be a rotary press. There is a whole history of flat bed cylinder presses starting with Koenig's press for the Times that is omitted by this redirect.

Typographical error articleEdit

Hi, I recently noticed how the article typographical error may need some improvement, specifically because redirects suggest a wider subject, than what the article is currently about. The misprint and printing error redirects suggest the article should also deal with subjects more relevant to this project (at least the printing part), not sure if in this case it would be better to use a different existing or new article and fix links or to improve this one. Anyway I brought this up in different places (teahouse, typoteam), so eventual comments should probably go to Talk:typographical error to avoid dispersion. Personuser (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Milo. I should be grateful of any comments. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!Edit

Hello,
Please note that Letter (alphabet), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Major grammar error in a related articleEdit

Hello. I am making this topic to talk about a major grammar error in this article, where I found this quoteː "It using the letter of the modoltsov, Komi De with an topbar." This seems to have absolutely zero context and it makes no sense why this is in. I am also making this because I don't know what to do with it and the talk page for the article does not exist. JanKeso (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi JanKeso, welcome to Wikipedia! Wiktionary claims this corresponds to the Unicode "LATIN CAPITAL LETTER D WITH TOPBAR" in the Latin Extended-B set and the categorization here is consistent with that. Perhaps the editor wanted to get across it also looks like a Komi De with an topbar. But I could not find any evidence that it had a Komi De origin. When there is zero evidence found of a controversial assertion, it is fine to delete the assertion, then see if any other editors disagree. If they do, then discuss. I will go ahead and delete the sentence. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 16:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Dagger templateEdit

I just came across Template:dagger at Larry Monroe Forever Bridge. I was surprised to find that this template, unlike say Template:ndash or Template:asterisk for example, does not actually insert a dagger (†). Instead it inserts a picture of a dagger. This seems so wrong to me. The resulting text is not searchable or pastable, among other things. This has been discussed on the template talk page but nothing has been resolved. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Printer (computing)#Requested move 17 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)