Talk:Literaturnaya

Confusion
Who on earth would confuse this with Times New Roman? They look nothing alike. &mdash;Chowbok 00:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're right, but here, in Bulgaria many people make mistakes and they claim that Literaturnaya is Times New Roman. However, I deleted the Literaturnaya vs. Times New Roman section. Stanton BG 16:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Stanton_BG

Comparison with Times New Roman
I would like to have a section with the comparison of Times New Roman and Literaturnaya. They aren't that similar, but it's interesting since both are serif typefaces that are commonly used for books and newspapers, but the use is split geographically. Other articles also compare fonts with each other, for instance Arial is compared with Helvetica. // Liftarn
 * I deleted it. The comparison was unsourced (a Wikipedia policy violation) and pointless, and poorly written. Arial might be compared with Helvetica, but that's because the two fonts are similar, one is used as a stand-in for the other, and there is an actual controversy regarding the fact that Arial is regarded as a bit of a Helvetica-clone. There's not really much more reason to compare Literaturnaya to Times New Roman than to compare it to Comic Sans or Chancery Gothic.--Aim Here 23:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I restored it. Improve the writing if you want, but don't blank it. I find it very annoying when some editors blank an entire section because a spelling error or something. // Liftarn
 * It's not a spelling error. The entire paragraph is pointless crud. It's unsourced. It's original research. It's one person's opinion, and it's a trivial opinion. EVERY typeface has different letter shapes from every other typeface. There is no reason for the paragraph to be in the encyclopedia. If you want this idiotic paragraph kept in, you must, as a matter of Wikipedia policy, have this paragraph sourced with multiple independent secondary sources showing that whatever controversy you're writing about actually matters to someone on this planet. As far as I know, nobody writes books, journal articles or films documentaries that devote any serious thought as to whether Literaturnaya happens to have different letter shapes from Times New Roman (unlike the Arial/Helvetica thing you cite, or the 'Ban Comic Sans' affair). You had better justify this crud in terms of Wikipedia policies, or I will certainly take it out again. --Aim Here 17:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

SimSun
The latin characters in the SimSun typeface (distributed by Microsoft with its Windows operating system) looks a bit similar to Literaturnaya. There are also some obvious differences like the capital A. Is there a relation there? // Liftarn


 * FounderType, a successful Chinese company specialized in producing fonts and DTP software, decided in 1990s to align its Cyrillic font with some version of Literaturnaya clone; Russian textbooks and exam papers, used in Chinese schools that offer the course, are still printed in this Literaturnaya clone even today. Then Zhongyi (the author of SimSun) imitated FounderType to produce its font for PC without much opposition from the latter, because their designs are different enough to distinguish, while they occupy different niches (one for fine printing and DTP, the other for user interface). Thus, the Latin letters in Simsun slightly resembles Century Old Style, while Cyrillic ones slightly resembles Literaturnaya, both of which are influenced by choices made by FounderType. // Lanlan466, 10 December 2023 — Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Infobox font template problem, shown incorrectly, and correctly
Here is the template parameter for the first image, in the incorrect use: | image =

Here is the template parameter for the first image, in the correct use: | image = Literaturnaya.svg|275px|Literaturnaya

The problem, at least for me, is in the parameter for the second image, the sample: | sample =

This parameter (for sample=) displays correctly, even though it looks just like the incorrect parameter (for image=). Why is this the situation? --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Because the person who wrote the template was too lazy to do the sample parameter properly. The correct use should be |image=Literaturnaya.svg . If non-default sizes are required, there is a separate parameter for that. OrangeDog  (τ • ε) 23:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox font template used incorrectly
The infobox as of 23:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox font template used correctly
The infobox as of 23:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)