Talk:Albertus (typeface)

Definition please

The article states: Figures are lining.

"Lining" should be defined.

The previous comment made by Mayor Turner (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Fixed --Se mj (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is plain wierd, someone should fix this

From the article:

The font has Kerning Pairs, so you have to check Kerning in FontCreator.

Huh? has some digital version of the typeface had kerning deactivated as a bug, or what is this about? This goes way back in article-history, so I haven't found why this was added or if the sentence was once part of a more comprehensible context.

The lowercase e and g have large, open bowls.

Maybe it is my poor understanding of English, but wtf does that mean. As far as my English typopographic-jargon knowledge goes, bowls that are open are not bowls. The g is a two-storey (is that the correct spelling?), so it couldn't be that who ever wrote this meant it was a one-storey g. The e is a normal, closed, e, not open. Can it mean that the e and g have large bowls? Someone with a native knowledge of English should make this clearer.--Se mj (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The description about kerning pairs, FontCreator and the bowl of e and g is certainly unimportant or even incorrect. Also the article should be very careful about mentioning bold which was made for HP laser printers only, probably in the late nineties. So there should be no bold version legally available to public at this point. From that standpoint I removed those description. Tosche (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Release date

I thought I should warn people that the release date for the caps isn't clear from the sources available to me (though I'm sure better ones exist). The article used to say 'released 1932' (without a source) but Monotype Recorder 1935 presents them as a new type getting an advanced showing; I've now added a link to this. Maybe they were originally cut for exclusive private use or sold to valued customers first, assuming 1932 is right? And I'm not 100% sure it is; none of the history sections on the MyFonts releases explicitly say they were released in 1932. Blythwood (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a concordance of uses or an index of non-notable trivia

It seems a number of users have been attempting to remove a red link to a long-deleted article, Battle for Dream Island. Blubewwy (talk · contribs) has been reverting these edits. From every indication, those removing the content were doing so in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, which Blubewwy appears to have misunderstood.

Firstly, Battle for Dream Island has been deleted, twice, for lack of evidence of notability. Looking at the deleted article, there is no evidence there of it being a notable series. And there's no reference here at all to support the claims made here. People are edit-warring to restore this content, but how do they know (and how can they prove) those claims are true? WP:VERIFY instructs "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations". This material has clearly been challenged, by several people, yet it is being restored with no citation being given. This must not happen.

In this edit summary Blubewwy presents two reasons for restoring the link. Neither is in line with Wikipedia's policy:

Needed in order to maintain a complete list.

Wikipedia is not, and must never attempt to be, a "complete list". Wikipedia is not an exhaustive list of trivial facts - WP:INDISCRIMINATE says "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia"

The redlink is also needed in order to indicate the notability of the subject, despite it not having an article

No, that does not indicate notability at all. Notability is not derived, in any way, from the number of links, red or not, to an article. Notability is described in WP:GNG as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Moreover, there is no discussion at all on this talk page about this dispute. Wikipedia:Communication is required - particularly when there is a dispute. Edit summaries are not enough: Wikipedia:REVTALK says "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content". It seems there has been a protracted dispute (which I didn't know about when I initially removed the content, not least because there's no discussion here at all), which means there should have been a discussion here. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 18:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I had stopped adding those back. I don't plan on adding them again. Sorry if I caused a disruption! I agree with what you've stated here, they're unneeded. Blubewwy (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]