Talk:Typography/archive 1

Total revamp & rewrite, april 2006

I chucked in lots of useful type samples found already in the wiki and wrote original text narrative, compr. scope, history, display typography

• please leave the main text on type history for the time being, as I am still writing and rewriting it. This will take at least 2 to 3 months.
• please add material to sections that need it
• add wikiworthy display typefaces to the Category Display typefaces created by Chowbok, by creating a new article for a font and adding to it ((Category:Typefaces)); ((Category:Display typefaces)) with square brackets instead of parenthesis; and ((typ-stub)) with curly braces instead of parenthesis.

huge thanks Arbo 12:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Update

I have just added a large swathe of text to the history section. If you enjoy Wikifying plain text by all means go for it. Lots of words to wikilink. Many thanks. Arbo 17:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Typography v.s type design

I don't think type design is separate from typography. agree? Clubmarx 20:10, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Technically, typography is composing pages with type, while type design usually means the design of type. However, there's little enough material here now, that these could be merged into Typography until they grow enough to warrant a separate article. —Michael Z. 20:25, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

I agree with Michael - there is a subtle difference. Type design is concerned with the process of designing the font characters and families as a whole, whereas Typography is the entire discipline of working with type to create pages of text, etc. Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 23:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I see now. At the time, they seemed synonymous. Clubmarx 01:31, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thomas, if you want to do that—fine. I have quit working on Wikipedia, in particular this Typography article. Bye.

Arbo 09:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I changed my mind. I am working on this one again. I hope people can appreciate how frustrating working on on WP is at times, and that it makes some of us throw in the towel occassionally.

Thomas, so far most of the article is mainly about typefounding, but that's just the introductory part, vital to a full treatment of the subject. Keep in mind that the article is not finished yet. Please give it time to develop. Some Wikipedia articles are not born fully-formed but assembled gradually, by degrees. Early in 2006 I wrote up as many section headings as I could think of and posted them on this talk page below. When all those sections are written and added the article will answer to its title Typography.

Arbo 10:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC) @

Improvement drive

The article on Johann Gutenberg has been nominated to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. Come and support it with your vote!--Fenice 21:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually typography is something more. This is quite a narrow view to it. Typography can be understod also as printing skill - think about Marshall MacLuhan's Typographical Man. Another point of view is to think about typographical units; the most important unit seems to be a space - space between characters, space between words, lines, columns.. margins... space between the text and pictures. So the whole layout goes into the typography - visual designing where text is part of it might be an appropriate addition to the definition of typography. And nowadays we should say also that material or medium (not only paper) is a remarkable point in the definition. Sorry my bad English :-) titta.inkinen@welho.com

Agreed. This article is too narrow.—Wing 06:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This article needs helps from typographers and type designers

What might be called "an explosion of interested sparked by the internet" demands a huge input on this article from qualified people. I'm a typeface designer, graphic designer, typographer etc, very dedicated to both typography and typeface design; I intend to do all I can but there is a gigantic area to cover here.

I made a start by improving the general text of the article. As a typographer I advocate that all literature on the subject ought to be be well-written (ideally 'literary' or 'artful'), since typography and type design are language and literary tools.

Wikipedians please visit http://www.typophile.com and http://www.typographi.com and appeal (ie: post on typophile.com and write to its custodians and regular visitors; don't post on typographi.com but do lobby its editors (there are more than just Stephen Coles and JLT). To make this article happen you really must bug the typographers who hang there to contribute ;^)

More (better) links needed!

I guess Wikibooks doesn't have a typography article yet, but the article should be able to point the readers to some website that more of an overall guide to the different types and subtypes of typefaces (no pun intended). It can be rather confusing to new people with all the different teminology and names and whatnot...

Origin of word ”typography”

I’m no expert but the origin of the word “typography” as given in this article seems partly bogus. According to my dictionary typus is Latin, from the Greek tupos meaning ‘impression’, which in turn is from tuptein ‘to strike’. Coconino 16:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What dictionary are you using? The definition in the article is in agreement with the definition given by the Oxford English Dictionary and the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.

"tupetin" sounds dubious. That and "tupos" don't appear in the OED. Neither does "Typus". The OED says the ancient Latin or Greek "type" means "to strike". The definition reads: "1. That by which something is symbolized or figured..."

Arbo 08:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Type sample guidelines and SVG format issues

We are discussing two issues over at Talk:Typeface#Type sample guidelines and I would request any interested editor's imput. We are trying to come up with a set format for the type samples for each individual face's article. One issue we have encountered is possible copyright violation by uploading the copyrighted shapes of the type in SVG format. Does anybody know the exact copyright situation when it comes to fonts and SVG? Please direct comments to the linked talk page above. Thanks.--Andrew c 14:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

See also not helpful duplicating Category page

Why is the See also section trying to recreating the Category page? I'll check to see all are in the Typography category, but a full list like this should be removed. --Clubmarx 16:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. - DavidWBrooks 17:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, when I compiled the See also section I was not consciously trying to recreate the Category page. I don't set out to replicate things neddlessly, and I don't think anybody else does either, except vandals and trolls. It just worked out that way. I didn't even know the Category page existed. I should have checked first, but at that time was WP-inexperienced.

Thanks for putting in the link to the Category page. I think that's the best way of handling it.

Arbo 11:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC) @

I removed a dozen or so entries (links to related articles) from the See also section, so now there is less duplication of Category:Typography

Arbo | talk 17:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the section on Inscriptional & architectural lettering

Thanks very much to user 172.146.130.168, whoever you are, for the excellent section on the letter carver's art. Good job. Arbo 10:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC) @