Talk:Typeface/Archive 2

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.ascendercorp.com/support/type-glossary/
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Lots more pictures
I've just added a lot more images. My goal (basically) is that everything important in the article has a big picture representing it with a good caption, where possible in the same style (black letters, white background) and same width of picture. And if typefaces are works of art, this article should feel like a gallery... I've tended to make the images I've put in myself since I found that quicker than hunting in Wikimedia for images that fit the text. Let me know if you have any objections, or think you can find better images from anywhere. Blythwood (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Please clarify jargon; Font/Typeface/Font Family
I have a good familiarity with the concepts for a layman, but the definitions are difficult to figure out:

If I want to discuss Helvetica, including all point sizes, bold, italic, etc., what am I discussing? It does not seem to fit any of the terms:


 * Typeface: "... a visual appearance or style not immediately reducible to any one foundry's production or proprietary control."


 * Font: "... 8-point Caslon is one font, and 10-point Caslon is another."


 * Font Family: "Times is a font family, whereas Times Roman, Times Italic and Times Bold are individual fonts making up the Times family." (That doesn't match the definition of font, above).

66.92.53.49 21:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Helvetica is a typeface. There are numerous fonts of Helvetica, such as 18-pt Helvetica 55, 36-pt Helvetica 95, etc. When referring to a number of different fonts, or the body of variations within the face, this is the font family. Typeface and family are similar concepts, however the face refers to the overall general style, while the family usually is referring to the multiple variations within the face (italics, bold, semibold, etc). It is a little confusing. In common parlance, 'font' means the same thing as typeface, or refers to a specific digital file on your computer (which may or may not include italics/bold variations, and usually contains multiple pt sizes). Hope this helps.-Andrew c 21:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Andrew. A few points:
 * What I forgot to say was, if I don't understand it -- and I know a good amount about the subject for a layperson -- then it seems unlikely that novice readers will understand it, so some revision might help.
 * When you say "Helvetica is a typeface", doesn't that contradict the article which defines it as, "a visual appearance or style not immediately reducible to any one foundry's production or proprietary control." AFAIK, Helvetica (and if not Helvetica, then many other typefaces) is subject to one foundry's control. Perhaps the article needs revision?
 * To clarify: Font family is a superset of typeface, which is a superset of fonts?
 * Proposed for the article (but someone with expertise needs to vet it):
 * For example, when someone says they are using Helvetica 14 point, and Helvetica Italic 14 point, then,
 * The font family is Helvetica.
 * The typefaces are Helvetica and Helvetica Italic.
 * The fonts are Helvetica 14 point, and Helvetica Italic 14 point.
 * 66.92.53.49 03:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to User 66.92.53.49's statement of "typefaces", yes, a typeface is Helvetica. However, Helvetica Italic is a typestyle.
 * 204.38.59.249 21:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 204.38.59.249 21:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I follow most, but not all, of CApitol3's statement below. However, if CApitol3 could write some text for the article, I think it would solve the problem. 66.92.53.49 18:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

To me, the comments in http://jontangerine.com/log/2008/08/typeface--font by SirPavlova seem like the ones that were verified by other comments later on the page. He defines them by example:


 * Typeface family: Georgia
 * Typeface: Georgia Italic
 * Font: georgiai.ttf

HTH TimNelson (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The above definitions are neither correct nor common usage. Nobody uses the term "typeface family"; "type family" would be correct. "Typeface" is roughly a synonym for "type family." In current usage, "font" does not include point size. I actually did a survey on this subject a year ago, including both expert and non-expert users  Thomas Phinney (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The opening of this article has at some point become a mess. The second and third sentences of the opening paragraph are simply incorrect, as they are definitions of "font" rather than "typeface." They are in direct contradiction of the section of the article under "terminology" as well. I am committing some appropriate major revision of these two sentences. Thomas Phinney (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

–

The opening of this page still seems problematic to me -- coming from the perspective of book arts & letterpress printing, a font (historically and still today) is a box/bundle/container of type - i.e. " 8-point Caslon Italic [is not] one font" rather,  a printer or print shop purchases a font of 8-point Caslon Italic from a foundry (still true today - although fewer and fewer people think of a printer as a person). It's worth noting also that the word "font" does not occur much (if at all) in books on typography that pre-date digital typesetting I am not arguing for historical revisionism regarding the semantic drift of the word 'font', but the article could use a short section on the change of nomenclature that references the main article about the  traditional meaning of "font" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Font illovich (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * illovich, Thomas Phinney, TimNelson, 66.92.53.49, and 204.38.59.249, I have proposed that Font be merged into Typeface, and that clear disambiguation between the terms be introduced at the latter. That would, I hope, reduce the risk that the two articles independently grow in ambiguity and duplication. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Typeface. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Font be merged into Typeface. Per the Font article's lede:

"In metal typesetting, a font is a particular size, weight and style of a typeface. ... In modern usage, with the advent of digital typography, 'font' is frequently synonymous with 'typeface'..."

Clearly, within typography, "font" is usually used either to denote a sub-concept of "typeface", or else as a synonym for it. It therefore makes sense to subsume the explanation of what a font is, in each of the relevant contexts, into the Typeface article.

Moreover, there is a great deal of duplication of effort between the two articles, and some material exists in the Font article that seems as though it more properly ought to be in the Typeface article. For example, Font#Metrics contains numerous claims and references that would more properly have been placed into Typeface#Font_metrics, such as claims about metric compatibility - a concept that generally applies to typefaces (i.e. at all point sizes), not just to fonts (i.e. at a single size). zazpot (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm going to tentatively support although these are big articles and I'd want to think about how they can be merged without deduplication. Would you be OK with me working on a draft over the weekend given the amount of overlapping content? I think we could reduce the Font article down to a small amount of technical content e.g. on metal type sizes, font files and technologies such as variable and multiple master fonts, so I'm not sure I would want to completely lose it. Blythwood (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * sounds great, please do so! Thanks for the tentative support! And sorry for my delayed reply. zazpot (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - as stated in the font article, typeface and font are not the same thing (although font family is). RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  14:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, puzzling though it is. No-one here is suggesting that "font" and "typeface" always mean the same thing, so your objection to the merger proposal on this basis seems spurious. Please could you address the actual merger proposal? Thanks. zazpot (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you kind of are, considering that you want to merge it. Since they are two separate things, it follows that they should have two separate articles. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  19:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply! I see where you are coming from, but it is a misconception. Per item 2 at Merging:
 * "There are several good reasons to merge pages: [...] 2. Overlap: There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. For example, 'flammable' and 'non-flammable' can both be explained in an article on flammability."
 * I hope you agree that this matches the rationale for the proposed merger. If you would reconsider your objection, I would be grateful. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Fonts and typefaces are distinct things. The basis for the merger proposal seems to be that material about typeface has found its way into the articles on fonts. That's better addressed by editing the articles than by merging. There's a lot of stuff about fonts, especially the various technologies, that has no business being in an article on typeface; merger makes no sense here. TJRC (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, puzzling though it is. No-one here is suggesting that "font" and "typeface" always mean the same thing, so your objection to the merger proposal on this basis seems spurious. If you feel that separate concepts need separate articles in Wikipedia, that is understandable, but it is a misconception, and I have now addressed it above.
 * You noted a concern about "the various technologies [that have] no business being in an article on [typefaces]", but I could not find any content in the Font article that seems to match that description. Please could you point me to the section containing the content you are concerned about on this front? Thanks! zazpot (talk)
 * Let me try it again. A font an a typeface are not the same thing. They are related, but they are not only different, they are very different. A typeface is a design for letters. An article on typeface should focus on this design aspect. It's about art, aesthetics and design. A font is an article or computer program that causes typeface to be replicated. An article on fonts should focus on the technology and and craft of fonts. It's about how something works; less about art and aesthetics except (in the case of a computer font) the same as applied to any computer program.
 * Your basis for a merger is "the amount of overlapping content". That's a matter for editing, not for merger. Fix the issue with overlapping content, do not merge two articles that deal with different subjects.
 * You might as well propose merging paint with painting. TJRC (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Font as used by lead-era typesetters should be dealt with exclusively in the typeface article. Typeface as a synonym to font-family should be dealt with in the font article. That means, typeface covers aspects of physical printing, font only deals with electronic display jargon. — Christoph Päper 20:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose I also think the desired goal can be achieved by editing. The only reason to merge the articles would be if the plan was to eventually spin off a smallre, more focused Font article.Furicorn (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - on balance I switch to the position of a straight oppose. There is room for discussion on whether content can be moved or swapped between articles, but that is a content question not a merger question. Blythwood (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Font
What font does Wikipedia use for the article titles? 108.30.110.252 (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Linux Libertine168.150.114.237 (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)