User talk:Atanamir/Archive4

Font infoboxes disappearing

"I've noticed that infoboxes are disappearing from a numbre of font pages. Was this agreed upon somewhere? I thought that the infoboxes gave a nice summary of the font without reading the articles..."

I was concerned about this when User talk:NGAGAS replaced most of the content of Bodoni, including swapping the infobox for a broken image uploaded without copyright status without consulting anyone or leaving any message on the article talk page. I rebuilt the article a few hours later and restored the Bodoni info box.

Examine the edit histories and you'll see I haven't replaced any of the infoboxes—all have been removed by other users. No agreement was made anywhere that the infoboxes could be deleted without consultation.

User:GearedBull objected to my restorative edit of Bodoni, rewrote the article again, took the infobox out again, and put the broken image back in. I've avoided trying to persuade CApitol3 because he and his students who are replacing the infoboxes with new font samples are all a bit new to WP and perhaps a bit naive.

I also recognize that the technical and aesthetic quality of the samples from User:GearedBull surpass those used in the infoboxes and are almost as informative. They definitely add value to the font articles and help make a better encyclopedia. By comparison the samples used in the font infoboxes have aesthetic shortcomings and their only advantage is the Show all characters link to the full character sets.

The samples added by Geared Bull's students (not the same quality as his) are visually nicer but aren't as informative as the infoboxes.

Advise you, User:Jossi and others who made the infoboxes talk to User:GearedBull about this, because he and his students are replacing the infoboxes, not me. I'm too busy working on History of typography, Typography and fixing problems with other typography articles to pursue the fate of the infoboxes.

Even so, thanks for consulting me because you need to be informed as to what is going on. Note, I'm not at all bugged that you asked me about it, but rather doing my best to give you my informed opinion.

Best regards, Arbo talk 21:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox v typographic illustration

Hi Atanamir. Please consider allowing the illustrations to be just that: an illustration of a typeface, without the added visual noise of competing vertical lines and horizontal lines. The caption provides quick, succinct, easy to to find info about the typeface designer, the foundry, when designed, and when it was released which is an important piece of history quite different from when it was drawn/designed. Quite often they are not the same year.

I do understand the desire for continuity, for a sort of system. I have worked on the design of several type specimen books, one with three volumes and nearly 3,000 pages. I give very great thought to how he letters are seen online, and I am trying to create a small visual environment where hey can be seen, even on a smaller laptop monitor, and not be overwhelmed. Please consider that placing them in the infobox makes them smaller and surrounds them with some noisy competing information. Please also consider I have received many notes praising the new deisgn without the infobox. Links can and I have in many cases, placed them in the captions. But there too I have had notes compalining that there are too many links. I have had many notes, some on my talk page, spome on the typeface's talk page, and some by email praising the new diesgn. Two other users have copied my templateand are preparing new specimens. Please consider that it might be good, and that through well systematicly writen captions we can have nearly instant presentation of information without requring the articles to be read.

Those are my thoughts, please feel free to let me know why the infobox adds something better. Thanks. Jim CApitol3 12:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could something like this work?

Hi Atanamir. It is hard to separate one from the other, the infobox seems to want to make a unit of them. I have some concerns that the infobox entries are not academically correct, and that they might be a bit of a straight jacket. But all that said, I wonder if something like I have posted here to the right could work? I would love it if it is was mostly light grays, and just enough tint to define the space but not a jangle of vertical and horizontal lines which make so much visual noise beside something (type) that is so subtle. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Jim CApitol3 20:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Atanamir. Thanks! I think your design is great. But as a type person I think the entries should probably be: Typeface Designer(s) Classification Design date Foundry Release date

and, when the design dated and release date are the same only one would need be used. If your intuition is that the two dates are too complicated than I could just go with " Date." Could the infobox be edited in anyway with the new entires that would not require all of them to be reset? Thanks again. Best, Jim CApitol3 23:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (again) Atanamir. It is close to perfect. Could you please make "Date Created" lread "Dates created" or Date designed"? I think it only needs the first word capitalized to echo wiki style in headlines. Then I think we would be ready to impliment. Thanks again. Jim CApitol3 12:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Hi Atanamir, in my, and my students,' excitement to design type specimens and, simplify page layouts I realize now I may have taken the wiki moto "be bold" very literally, maybe too literally, and I had not been mindful of all the hard work you, and others have put into these pages. Thanks very very much for going easy on this newbie, and I hope the new info box will help me edit more gently–leaving the essential information in an easy to read box. Jim CApitol3 12:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I owe you a response on your question .svg v .jpg. I much prefer .svg in quality: chiefly in its clarity. But, strangely, some of my typefaces do not appear in Illustrator. So there, I go from Quark (where they do display), to .pdf then resave as a .jpg in Photoshop. I am grateful for advice you might offer on this. CApitol3 13:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Atanamir! i will look for the sftware, and the info box. I appreciate it. CApitol3 19:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Font infoboxes etc

reposted from User talk:GearedBull#font article infoboxes:

"I have seen you receive much praise about the new design of the specimen itself, but not about the omission of the infobox."—User:Atanamir

Atanamir, this is a very valid point and I'm glad you made it. Just letting you know I avoided criticizing Geared Bull at the time—as a diplomatic measure (don't bite the newbies, etc). I felt it was more important to gain his trust first to make him less defensive, then tackle the issue of infoboxes later, or refer it to the editors who made the infoboxes (maybe a better and more appropriate stategy).

I assure you I wasn't playing politics, or chickening-out, but playing it safe, and since my time at WP is limited and pre-comitted to unfinished work, it wasn't practical at the time to take on the 2nd issue. (Jim, if you're reading, this is all in good faith for the benefit of all concerned.)

How's progress on the revised font infobox design going? Have we reached a final model yet, and if so how close is it to implementation? Thanks!
Arbo talk 00:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Atanamir, if the format for the new infobox is ready I would love to start iplimenting it. Thanks. CApitol3 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

following text reposted from User talk:James Arboghast

Hi,

Working with gearedbull has been a nice experience; he's open to new ideas and has provided good design ideas for the infobox. However, i'm in the middle of applying to graduate school and i'm in midterm testing / GRE season, so it's hard to find time to work on wiki stuff. However, we've come up with a nice prototype at User:Atanamir/TypeBox. I've yet to clean it up and modularise it (the template is still hard-coded for bodoni). However, I think it looks a lot better than the old infobox. Do you have any design ideas for it? atanamir 09:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I had a look at the new design a few weeks ago. Looking at it again now it looks great. Beethoven said one could go on refining a creative work forever, but in practice we stop at useful level of reinement. It seems close to that now. A few suggestions:

Invert the background and text colors of the Typeface row to give that field emphasis, as the name is the most significant. This will turn the row into a line-like element, dividing the box height into unequal halves, creating an artful balance and sense of proportion, fitting and relevant to typeface design. If the text color ends up looking too dark, increase the lightness until it looks right, or darken the background color, or a combination of both.
Place the Designer(s) field second, underneath Typeface, and make Date Created third position.
Change the case of Date Created to Date created as per wikipedia style guide.
How extensible is the template? Can we make it so that additional fields can easily be added by users on a per-article basis?

I love it when a plan comes together guys. This is excellent. I'm supposed to be on wikileave too, but you know how wikis are :) Don't wait for me, but do finalize the box as you see fit.
Best regards, Arbo talk 19:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and cleaned up Template:TypeBox to best meet both aesthetics and wikipedia style formatting. It now conforms to the style of most other infoboxes, but I've added more padding to the edges and that has help. It also retains its integrity when changing the font size on your web browser. The next step is to merge this with Template:Infobox font and adjust the parameters so that the infobox can grow with additional parameters.

It's meeting a tricky middle ground between the "artful balance" of print typography and the assembly of clean, simple, flexible and managable wiki markup that makes this challanging. I hope my edits are satisfactory. —Down10 ^TACO 11:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input.

"It also retains its integrity when changing the font size on your web browser."

The alternative smaller text size versions have no problem with that, so it's not an issue.

" I've gone ahead and cleaned up Template:TypeBox to best meet both aesthetics and wikipedia style formatting."

Can you point me to a page in the style guide that stipulates infobox text has to be black on a white (or light) background, or that the main caption/name/title has to be larger than other text in an infobox? I have not found such rules or guidelines.

"It now conforms to the style of most other infoboxes,"

That's what we're trying to avoid. The penultimate official policy is: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. We are encouraged to do it, and if it helps create a better encyclopedia, all the more so. The design of Infoboxes is flexible and evolving, eg: Greek primordial gods. The black & white text colors of the original font infobox are rudimentary and outmoded by the variety of infoboxes in use.

Wikipedia:Use common sense (not policy or guideline), makes a lot of sense: "The spirit of the rules is more important than the letter...Invoking the principle of "Ignore all rules" on its own will not convince anyone that you were right, so you will need to persuade the rest of the community that your actions improved the encyclopedia. A skilled application of this concept should ideally fly under the radar, and not be noticed at all."

To that end, I suggest we use this version by Down10 with its 10pt text [1] rendered with the dark grey text color of this version [2]. The font name/title does not have to be larger text (12pt) to be obvious. Keeping it at 10pt and inverting the colors of that field will do the same job—artful and subtle emphasis, a "skilled application" of ignoring the rules. That's a good compromise and will easily fly under the radar of most readers.

The Font (and impending Typo article) infobox(s) ought to be on the very cutting edge of wikitypography. Black text on white background is harder to read than dark grey text, which alleviates the basic legibility problem of the low resolution screen medium by reducing contrast. The increased legiblity delivers increased readability. Dark grey text is widely used by the professional online type community – Typophile.com, Typographi.com, Typoographer.org, et al. It has been adopted by millions of additional internet users (especially bloggers) over the past 3 years (albeit frequently overdone with lighter grey, making text harder to read).

"An infobox on Wikipedia is a consistently-formatted table which is present in articles with a common subject to provide summary information consistently between articles or improve navigation to closely related articles in that subject." —Help:Infobox

"consistently formatted" means as in "articles with a common subject", but not across the whole encyclopedia. Each subject-area is encouraged to develop its own unique colors and typography. 8pt text for the main caption/label is not unknown: Template:Infobox animanga, Marie Curie. For detailed infoboxes 8pt is a practical solution. Some examples use 6pt, but that is too small.

10pt captions may be an emerging standard. Please refer to these examples:

Greek primordial gods, Titan (mythology). — progressive!
Marie Curie 8pt bold text in dark grey

Hi Down10, Arbo, and atanamir. Looks like the typeface infobox is very close. I wonder if you could please take a look at Template:TypeBox and see a comparison between the box, and a secondary illustration I've added from the Georgia page. Any chance of reducing the horizontal spacing between rule and type (is this what is called "padding") a hair to match what happens with wiki images and captions? Also, might we lighten the vertical and horizontal rules to match the light gray used around images? it will still define and contain, just liberate the text a bit. Thanks for looking and your thoughts. Jim CApitol3 15:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bengalooru

The point is that there is no regulatory body for the English language - no equivalent of the Academie Française for instance, and no country, government, city or municipality has the right to impose any particular usage on English-speakers. Wikipedia's policy is to reflect common, not "official" usage in the case of names which are well-known or where there is an established English spelling. This is certainly the case with Burma (which should never have been moved to "Myanmar", not least because of the nature of the regime requesting the change). I feel the same way about Bombay, which was renamed by the fascist Shiv Sena party to "Mumbai", but at least that name is very widely used in English now. This is not true of Calcutta or Madras, which should not have been moved to "Kolkata" and "Chennai". Almaty and Kyrgyzstan are sufficiently obscure for this to be less of an issue, and for the latter in particular there has never been a common English spelling. Which brings us to Bangalore, a city very widely known in the English-speaking world and with an established English version of its Kannada name, ("Bengaluru", "Bengalooru" - nobody even knows how it should be spelt), which has been in use for over two centuries. The narrow-minded decisions of the Karnataka State Government do not make one iota of difference to the name of the city in English - that can only be determined by what most English-speakers call it. And for many years to come this will continue to be Bangalore. If that changes, move the page, but not before. Sikandarji 09:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Cote D'Ivoire is still called "Ivory Coast" in English. The name change is widely ignored, and rightly so. Sikandarji 09:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old samples

Hi atanamir and CApitol3.

I would like to make some request.... since CApitol3 is replacing the old samples of the fonts, could you please put the old SVG with link to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samples_of_Serif_typefaces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samples_of_Monospaced_typefaces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samples_of_Sans_Serif_typefaces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samples_of_Script_typefaces

and complete these tables according to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_typeface

What happens is that the old SVGs created by Atanamir are now orphan. Since there is no page that links to them, in some weeks a bot will appear and will erase them. Therefore, before it occurs, it would be better to update those tables.

Now, I dont have too much time to do this, since in two months I have to submit mi dissertation.

Maybe Anatamir could write a small script to do that, given that he is a programming expert.

Diego Torquemada 20:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:NewBeach-seal.gif, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 01:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Java

Your recent edit to Java (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 21:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FHWA Series fonts

I think you meant to use "Jackdaws love my big sphinx of quartz." in the images. --NE2 00:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second the thought. --Yath 03:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Interstate58B.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Interstate58B.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bigr Tex 17:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:ExpressionWebDesigner Icon.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:ExpressionWebDesigner Icon.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AZ-101.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AZ-101.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bigr Tex 21:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AZ-303.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AZ-303.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bigr Tex 19:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AZ-202.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AZ-202.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bigr Tex 20:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atanamir/Periodic

Cool - thanks doing that. If possible though, could you give normal fill colors to all the undiscovered elements? A few were discovered after I first created these images and that requires updating all images. Would be better to have non-muted colors for all since the discovery of everything up to 118 is likely to occur sometime. Also, please remove the dark lines below some of the images. That was an idea to denote what block an element is in, but using a line for that is non-obvious. Also, 71 and 103 are not Transition elements even though they are in the D-block. They are in Lanthanides and Actinides respectively. See Periodic table (wide). Thanks! --mav 15:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Adobe Illustrator CS2.png

Hello, Atanamir. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Adobe Illustrator CS2.png) was found at the following location: User:Atanamir/Adobe Illustrator. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AIcstocs2.png

Hello, Atanamir. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:AIcstocs2.png) was found at the following location: User:Atanamir/Adobe Illustrator. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TypeBox

What is the purpose of Template:TypeBox? It isn't used as a template in any article (there is another infobox for typefaces in use). Can it be deleted as unused and replaced? Thanks for any info about this matter.-Andrew c 02:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Irvine 100.gif

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Irvine 100.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Adobe-acrobat.png

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Adobe-acrobat.png. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 12:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]