User talk:Pablohoney77

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Hpuppet - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Type infobox
Hi Pablohoney, I see you have been restoring/implimenting the font inforbox over use of captions. I am happy to have the infobox implimented if we can get rid of the cream color at top and the redundant name. Otherwise I favor captions. At present they present areal visual stutter/cacophony. I am tryig to make the type pages graphical quieter so that the TYPE can come to the fore. At present return of the infobox in its present form seems like a leap backwards. Though arguments can be made for more accessible info, all links can be placed in a caption. I've clocked well over 40 hours in researching, referencing and making specimens that appear more like an ecyclopedia of type. I confess I am disappointed to see the visually jangling info box returned. As a graphic designer, and professor of typography I don't believe most information must be placed in table form. The Yale professor of design Edward Tufte says, and I agree, that tables can become "data prisons", locking stuff up in a conservative structure without really making it accessible/readable. I assume you think it better, wonder if we can find a compromise that benefits this very visual subject. Jim CApitol3 13:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi pablohoney. This is going in the right direction. An earlier direction, by me, then by Atanamir, shown here: User:Atanamir/TypeBox is similar.

Yes, of course, we can use the term information design, some prefer information architecture, but when the eye becomes more taken with horizontal and vertical lines than it does with content, the form overtakes content and absorption of the information is made difficult. Visual fatigue, from overwhelming layouts, to many things without clear hierarchy, can all slow things down.

So, thank you, very much, for addressing this. Here is my wish list:


 * 1) can we place the text box to set nbelow the specimen but without making a box around the specimen?This would be ideal, in that the right side of the page would be smoother, quieter, and no discord between the specimen size, and the image immediately below, as now exists on the Bell Centennial article
 * 2) If not, can the spacing between the specimen illustration and the rules (lines) be made at least half as big as they presently are? A visit to the Bell Centennial page shows what I mean, it would be great if the info box spacing were like what wiki does around an illustration
 * 3) Text: could date created be made Design date; and then add a separate Release date (keeping second words of entries lowercase) for faces with both.

Thanks again. CApitol3 18:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Pablohoney, thanks again, the box is looking better! Jim CApitol3 20:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pablohoney. A couple thoughts: could the word "name" in typeface name, be made blue by doing something like: Typeface name? Could caegory become "Classification"? That is a term used by ATypI. Thanks. Jim CApitol3 22:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian Type Designers
Category:Wikipedian Type Designers, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. Your are invited to participate in the discussion, located here. — Black Falcon (Talk) 16:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Infobox typeface
A tag has been placed on Template:Infobox typeface requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Pablohoney77! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Nick Shinn -

Q: How did you create the type speciments?
Hello there. I've seen you and some other users posting standartized type specimens in svg format. I was wondering how did you do it, since it's all made in the same manner. I'd apreciate if you could give me some answers. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creamdonut (talk • contribs) 20:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Three hares, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  22:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought your hypothesis on Three hares was interesting. As the main contributor to that article, I encourage you to follow up. Yes, I know about WP:Own, and I don't claim to own it.  Nevertheless, if you want to add something, you need to find it in a WP:RS.  See WP:OR.  You might try Google books for a starter?  Cheers.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 02:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Society of Typographic Aficionados for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Society of Typographic Aficionados is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Society of Typographic Aficionados until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SL93 (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)