Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Typography: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Typography page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 180 days

Typography Project‑class Top‑importance

This 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.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This page has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Typography page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 180 days

I seen values written in scientific journals, for example, 43.056(4). I'm guessing the number in the parenthesis is a ±4, ±0.0004, or is it rounding the last significant digit? Can someone verify who is in mathematics? Thanks, Marasama (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It denotes a measurement with uncertainty. See Uncertainty#Measurements for an explanation. The bracket article already shows its use in Bracket#Usage_in_other_scientific_fields. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 05:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you. Marasama (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an Infobox typography character? (not movie {{Infobox character}} ;-) ). At the moment there is only {{Infobox punctuation mark}} (ok), abused for other characters like in pound sign. {{Infobox grapheme}}? @Spitzak and John Maynard Friedman:. -DePiep (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DePiep:, I haven't come across it if there is. I know I said elsewhere that we might be misdirecting ourselves by the fact that the sidebar (which should become a navbar) is called 'punctuation' and risk losing valuable material by purging it of non-punctuation. But now I suggest that we (meaning you!) should create a new navbar for each category you clear out, mathematical symbols being the obvious one (there is already a currency symbols navbar). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Material purged is landed well elsewhere (see currency signs). Math symbpols being purged shold be covered in math already. I don't think this rule is valid in general. -DePiep (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in these two cases, that is true (well, almost, template:infobox currency sign is still under development but yes there is a list of mathematical symbols). I'm sure you intended to ensure that landing zones exist for each element you purge so I hope I'm stating the obvious. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For latecomers to this discussion, template:infobox symbol was created as a result of this discussion and is widely used. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a standard or recommended template for typeface specimen images? I understand many of them are created using the tool at http://shell.aiei.ch/typography/; is there some sort of guidance as to the choice of colours? What about international scripts? --Paul_012 (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any style guide for specimen images. That tool is a reasonable approach. In the absence of a style guide, I look to GA or FA articles as good examples to follow. Garamond is a GA with a specimen that has fairly good contrast, while the colors are still easy on the eyes. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul 012, that page is very interesting; I hadn't seen it before and have never used it. Many specimen images in the past were done by a user, GearedBull, who last contributed in 2013, before I really started contributing. I don't have their template but I believe from comments that they used QuarkXPress. I create templates in emulation and use either the same colours or ones from various palettes (often those that come with Microsoft Word, to keep things simple). I try to keep the colours not too gaudy, a bit like the colours of an old book. I do spend a lot of time fine-tuning the image to the specific font-often, especially for fonts that feel "small on the body" (a lot of space above and below the x-height zone) you need the linespacing reduced from the default value or the font won't fill up the space properly. You'll see that in their sample image for FF Meta, the bottom row of the alphabet (n-z) is closer to the top row than normal text could be to fill up the space better. If you replaced the 't' with an 'h' in your mind, you'll see that it would collide with the bottom of the 'g'. Same for the numerals. (I didn't do this in the Berthold Block image and you'll see the keyword "Currywurst" seems to be floating in empty space; it needs to be bigger. I may come back and redo it; I otherwise like that sample a lot.) Sometimes for that line to allow tighter spacing you want to make that line all caps, especially if the font has very long descenders, or you want to use a text with no descenders in the sample. You also want to think about what goes on the second row of the six characters: in a font with only one style it'll be more of the same style or maybe some alternative characters; where the font has an italic that's interestingly expressive I use it (as GearedBull's FF Meta image). Where the italic is simply the upright form sloped, as with Helvetica, I follow their lead and show the bold, especially if it's good like Helvetica's is. For Impact, which doesn't have a bold or italic, I showed the brackets which are rather distinctive. For the Stephenson Blake Grotesques I showed the light weight, then the most popular bold "No. 9" weight, to give a feel of escalation. Do you have a font in mind you want to do a sample for? I may be able to suggest (from bitter experience...) what would look good. Blythwood (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions, Blythwood. I was mostly looking for general ideas. I'm working on an article about Thai typography, and it will need some specimen samples, though I'm thinking horizontal pangram samples like File:Garamond sample.svg might be better suited for this, since the typefaces will only be mentioned in a list. There are articles such as Manoptica, which lacks any kind of specimen, and National fonts needs new images, since the current ones are a Wikipedia self-reference and in jpeg format. So it'd probably be best to build new templates for all of these uses... I'm thinking ahead of myself though. Many of these fonts are non-free, so I'll be limited by what raster samples are already available on the web. May be that's the practical place to start. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 6 § Template:Char. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 06:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

See Talk:Engraving#stone_engraving_/_stonecut. Can anyone stub and/or redirect those terms as appropriate? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is some unnecessary ambiguity on the Category:American_typographers page as many of the included individuals are known primarily as type designers (someone who creates typefaces), not typographers (someone who uses typefaces in typography or graphic design). These are two separate disciplines and each should have its own category. As an analogy, it would be like combining the makers of bricks, or other building materials, with architects. I see other areas of Wikipedia have already made this distinction — the general List_of_type_designers, for example. (Forgive me if this has been discussed elsewhere, but I am fairly new to Wikipedia editing.) Stewf (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Shaw was a typography enthusiast and she has a new article Victuallers (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Orthographic ligature#Requested move 17 March 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]