Im sorry to bother you, but your the fisrt typographer I saw and I have some questions if thats allright. The letters I and J and the letters U and V all were variants of the same letters, but became seperated to do different jobs. ¿Why is it that long-s carloginian g and some other variants didnt become seperate letters?Cameron Nedland21:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cameron,
You're welcome to ask questions—I am happy to answer them. Sorry for the long delay in getting back to you, I've been on extended Wiki leave.
"The letters I and J and the letters U and V all were variants of the same letters, but became seperated to do different jobs."
Yes. Those derivations occurred as a result of the adaptation of the Latin alphabet from the ancient Latin language to serve the alphabets used by Old English and Old German (dark ages & medieval period). Ancient Latin did not have a U letter because ancient Latin word forms created the "u" sound with combinations of other letters, whereas Old English and Old German word forms required a separate U, so the Latin V letter was differentiated to produce U. Much the same evolutionary process occurred to I and J; that is, I was differentiated to form J as a new consonant due to differences in Latin word forms versus Old English and Old German.
"¿Why is it that long-s carloginian g and some other variants didnt become seperate letters?"
When moveable type printing came along, Italian typographers modified the Carolingian g by changing its shape into the familiar double story g seen in "roman" text/book fonts right up to the present. The Carolingian form was never abandoned altogether, but lives on as the so-called "single story" g which is standard in most sans serif text fonts. It helps to know that the Carolingian g evolved from the Roman majuscule G.
Long-s was a typographic convention that did not need to become a separate letter. Rather, typographers stopped using long-s in the middle of words because the long-s shape looked too much like "f" and caused readability problems, so it fell out of use for practical reasons.
Other variants (depends which letter forms you mean) fell out of use because their forms were not differentiated enough to withstand the homogenising force of uniformity in typeface design. From the 16th century up to the present, the general trend has been toward increasingly uniform type designs, in which letter forms to submit to a modular approach. The modernist movement of the early 20th century is perhaps the penultimate expression of this uniformity, rejecting even the smallest aberations wherever they exist, until "one size fits all".
To summarize, some letters split and differentiated to become new letters for linguistic reasons (the transition from Latin to Old English and Old German), while others were homogenised by the standardization wrought by moveable type printing and typography.
It's my pleasure! Glad we share a passion for antiquities (and space). I've got a lot more photos, and I travel to Italy twice a year or so - so if there are any articles you'd like me to shoot for, I'd be more than happy to oblige! And thanks for the lovely berliner. (Yum, yum!)-- User:RyanFreisling@17:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Monotype mats in matrix-case closeup.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the cat. It looks quite like the [Anubis] of the feline world...
My apologies for just writing up comments and not contributing. My intent on specialist articles such as this is to talk first, and edit later. It gives an opportunity to touch base with the principal authors (hello) of the article before messing with their workflow. Also, I've become a little busy lately with moving city and finding a new job, so I'll probably sit down and have a decent blat at it in about a month or so. I've been keeping a close watch on the page, and I'm impressed with the progress. Keep up the good work!
You've been invited to join the Graphic design WikiProject,
a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Graphic design. If you would like to participate,
you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
I saw that you made some major edits to the type section. We would love to have you work with the Graphic design WikiProject to strengthen and bring together all of the Design related articles on Wikipedia. See you there?
– Steveluscher17:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had corrected a typo in the section "Gutenburg's Hand Mould" where "possible with modest investme," was changed to "possible with modest investment," by me. The section was missing the letters "nt", thus rendering the word investment incorrectly.
Why did you choose to disregard my change and revert to an earlier version? It most certainly does not lie "outside the scope of the section, Gutenberg's hand mould" as it is a simple typographical correction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.139.64.88 Please sign your comments on talk pages by typing four tildes. For a registered user this will automatically print your user name and the date.
Dear 190.39.198.96, your addition (reposted below) to Typography lies outside the scope of the section, A brief description of the type casting process, the text of which is concerned with type casting, but not punchcutting or compositing. That stuff belongs in Typesetting, Sort (typesetting), and punchcutting.
Dear James,
Please excuse my momentary surge of enthusiasm, but I did read the section title properly, thus believe that your reason to reverse edit the changes I volunteered, highlights the very inconsistency that motivated these changes in the first place.
I would suggest that you consider that the actual type casting process does not start with the production of counterpunches, punches and matrixes, but with the configuration of the mould itself, basically because very different types of personnel would be involved.
The earliest work (in English), that I am aware of, that refers to this process is Moxon's Mechanick Exercises, whose descriptions, despite allusions to the contrary, point in this direction.
Perhaps you might like to divide this section into two separate ones covering type design and type casting and then flesh them out accordingly to bypass the aforementioned inconsistency. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.39.198.96 Please sign your comments on talk pages by typing four tildes. For a registered user this will automatically print your user name and the date.
...believe that your reason to reverse edit the changes I volunteered, highlights the very inconsistency that motivated these changes in the first place...
I've removed the info on compositing from the restored original draft. Your edit exacerbated that problem by introducing info on the of production of counterpunches, punches, matrices.
...I would suggest that you consider that the actual type casting process does not start with the production of counterpunches, punches and matrixes...
It was you who added info on the production of counterpunches, punches and matrices. (plural of matrix is "matrices"). That's why I removed that info. The section originally opened with a brief intro to Gutenberg and his familiarity with letter punches and casting from matrices, included only to make the description of typecasting comprehensible..
..Perhaps you might like to divide this section into two separate ones covering type design and type casting and then flesh them out accordingly to bypass the aforementioned inconsistency...
The complete Typography article is now larger than WP recommended maximum size, and as per another editor's suggestion the whole history section is about to be broken out into a new article, the History of typography.
Please do not twist reality, and please sign your comments on talk pages.
By the way, I do value your contribution(s). They're easily worth a Gentium Pilcrow Award. So thanks! We just have to put your work into the right articles. Don't be discouraged by bold editorial descision (mine).
Note I've responded on my talk page as well, regarding the page move. The article History of typography is a delight. You should be very proud of this contribution - I'd say it could make a featured article someday soon! For now, I'd put it on peer review when you're ready. And bear in mind this is not 'your' article anymore - it's been contributed to the WIkipedia and it may go in any direction - you can serve it best by practicing a bit of distance while you continue to help the article grow. Again, a really exceptional job. -- User:RyanFreisling@15:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're the best Ryan! I've responded on your talk page too. Don't worry—I'm much less posessive about the material I've written now that it stands as a separate narrative. Some valuable contributors have come on board recently and I'm looking forward to their input.
James, I've noticed your blitzkriegesque rapid reversal of new information and the deletion of new uploaded type specimens today. On my recommendation several students at The Art Institute of Boston have taken a dive into wiki typeface articles, and I believe left them better than they found them. If you differ, how about editing what you disagree with, rather than reverting, and please do stop deleting their images. Imagine finding your own lovely images deleted. Not nice, huh? Why invite aggression when my country is already supplying so very much to the world? Might we have a truce, or will the deletions continue, perhaps followed by slashing, burning, and sowing fields with salt?
Let's beat these swords into plowshares. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, the pen is mightier than the sword, e&, e&. Best, Jim CApitol322:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am troubled to see such rash and aggressive editing with deletion of what is clearly a superior specimen. What's next Mr. Arboghast? Sowing NGAGAS' fields with salt? Must you slash and burn? None of us own any wiki article. I have tried to find a middle ground between the new contnet and old. As a professor of typography I do not se a problem with the new information, If you differ and can back it up, please edit, not revert and delete.CApitol3
I have not reverted anyone's edits or contributions, as I did not perform a revert edit command. I have not deleted any facts but consolidated everything added so far.
I have not deleted any image files. I only changed the image source filename in the article text back to the last functioning image, as per WP guidelines. The image I replaced was not your specimin but another one by User talk:NGAGAS, "Bodonispecimen.jpg" tagged by an automated bot.
...and please do stop deleting their images.
I have not deleted anyone's image file(s). The image of Bauer Bodoni you "restored" to the Bodoni article --- Image:250px-Bodonibodoni.jpg --- is not rendering on its own page or in the article. The edit history shows you are the only person who has touched it --- [1]. If you wish to include the nice Bauer Bodoni specimin "Bodonibodoni.jpg", you will need to get the image functioning.
"Must you slash and burn? None of us own any wiki article."
"What's next Mr. Arboghast? Sowing NGAGAS' fields with salt? Must you slash and burn? None of us own any wiki article."
Mr. Arboghast, please see the Bodoni discussion page, where I apologize for my own misinterpretation, and for my agressive response. I am sorry. Best, Jim CApitol3
a nice cup of coffee. Because we're all human and make errors. I love John Kennedy, the man who got human kind to the moon! God bless. I love Boston and Philadelphia. The Pennsy railroad has a special place in my heart.
Hi Jim. :-) Thanks for the explanation. Everything is just fine. Here and there, the close timing of two editors can make one editor's actions seem harsher or more reactionary than they really are. I happen to be looking at the articles for Bodoni, Caslon and Baskerville at present, as I'm about to expand the section on 17th & 18th centuries for the History of typography. Sorry Nicole; most of my edits are bold and in good faith. I considered yours to be in good faith too. I'm happy to build up the Bodoni article with you.
My apologies for my vague edit summary regarding the image being "deleted"—that was my error.
I hope we can get your samples working soon. Looking forward to seeing them.
A typographic bone in this meaty matter. My coffee was delicious, and I helped myself to a Berliner. Almost want to look for an article on Berlin Sans. Thanks for your good cheer, and thanks to your country for sharing the Parkes Radio Telescope that allowed me (age 12) to see Mr. Kennedy's men walk on the moon. Thanks also to Michael C. Berch for the steak picture.
Hi James, I am relieved to have my apology accepted. Thank you. I am trying to see why my students illustrations are not showing on your computer. Are you on a Mac or PC platform? I turned of my Bauer Bodoni thinking the type might not be saved as outlines but it appears to be okay.
Do you know the typeface Bulmer? How about Walbaum? I've notice some very nice Roman temples on your talk page. Great stuff. Our Thomas Jefferson designed the original building of the Virginia state capitol largely inspired by the Maison Carrée. He changed the order though; from Corinthian to Ionic. Jim CApitol320:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello James,
Since beginning a cursory review of the articles relating to typography, I seem to have stumbled upon a slight problem.
In the course of preparing an article on type metal, to which various references appear in other articles, these all point to the punchcutting article, which surely is not appropriate.
Sorry to bother you with this, but since I'm not overly expert in wikipedia matters, I'd like to know if you can help me do something about this?
Thanks anyway, I think I've found it, never mind ... still fumbling a bit.
Hi James. I have given a try at putting a specimen back up on hte Bodoni page. Would you please take a look at it and let me know if you can see it. Curious too, to pick up the thread of our last conversation. I have been crazy busy covering a colleague's work due to an emergency in her family. besst, Jim 03:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi James. The Iowa face is realy interesting, might get a license for it. On the subject of replacing images, you mentioned "overwriting." I've not yet been able to locate that step. Could you please point me towards some instructions on Wiki? I think what you are suggesting is to upload a new image to replace an existing, possibly by deleting the old one as the new one is uploadedis that right? Or, I could be completely unclear on this. Thanks, Jim CApitol303:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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... atanamir09:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thanks for the reply. I guess the easiest solution would be to create a more aesthetically pleasing infobox that integrates the new samples, yet is as informative as the old one? IF you're interested, i've started wokring on one here: User:Atanamir/TypeBox. I know you're busy with other stuff, so if you're too busy, just ignore this! Thanks! atanamir05:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a more-than-passing interest in typefaces as well, and this was the first I'd seen this face. Is there some info you could direct me towards regarding the rationale and context underlying its' creation? It's seemingly 'heterogeneous' character forms (the serifs and 'color' of the letters seems to vary widely thoughout a single weight) seems designed for maximum readability in electronic means, but also a decidedly old-school look. It looks like a mix of Garamond, Adobe Serif and perhaps a touch of Myriad... What's the skinny, Arbo? -- User:RyanFreisling@02:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's that pesky Freisling harrying me with her pesky kvestions again! (much chuckling). I'm listening to Tehillim on radio. It's great. :-)
Iowan Old Style is by the much-respected contemporary sign painter John Downer. It's an old-style Renaissance-era book roman in the Venetian mode of Aldine and Jenson. It retains the lowish line contrast, diagonal stressing and incised bracket serifs, but has a larger x-height, tighter letterfit and reproportioned capitals, suiting it to "...today's demanding Freisling-driven typographic environment" It looks kind of Goudy-ish going by the italics and capitals. The conception and finish are much neater than the abberations Goudy put into his fonts to make them personal works of art with intentional faults, yet Downer's production is every bit as meticulous and artistic.
"It's seemingly 'heterogeneous' character forms (the serifs and 'color' of the letters seems to vary widely thoughout a single weight)"
Three different sizes in the sample may account for some of that impression. The heading is 20pt, body 14pt, footer 12pt italic. As book romans go Iowan's color and contrast are about midway between genuine old style Venetians and the transitionals like Baskerville and the Fell romans. The serif size range you're noticing is partly an artifact of the metal punch-cut medium and its abberations, associated with the style and integral with its forms.
Adobe Serif and Myriad are kind-sorta modelled on the old-style Venetians, Myriad more so than A.Serif.
As always, your mastery of the material is most impressive and helpful. Sorry to be so pat about it, but 'I knows what I likes' :) And the Jenson relationship is definitely apparent now that you point it out. I'll let the other typesetters here at FreislingInc know that you're available for unpaid consultations! :) -- User:RyanFreisling@21:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some suggestions on the talk page for "printing" I don't intend to mess with the typography parts, though I'm interested in them, but I do want to work a little on the history of printing. Among the various pages, it's a little disorganized. DGG04:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is time to do something about the "printing" page, and I'd like your advice--try to fix it, rewrite it from scratch, or merge it. They all seem prolematic given the nature of some of the prior edits.DGG02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems incorrect to say that "color and size are more prevalent". I think you mean size variations or large sizes are more prevalent. It doesn't make sense to say that "size" alone is more prevalent. What kind of size? Large size,average size, great size? Size is always present, you need to give it value. It works to say that color is more prevalent, but not in the same way for size.
I tried to make the smallest change possible that clears up the intended meaning of that sentence. I agree that my revision needed some work, but couterproductive? I'm not so sure. Try another edit please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lingchop (talk • contribs) .Please always sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your name and the date so that others will know who left which comments.
Hi Lingchop. 1st thing, thanks for correcting my bad grammar, converting "is" to "are". Normally I'm a much better wordsmith and I like to be corrected.
The very next sentence in that section explained what the first one omitted (for clarity):
"Color and size of type elements are much more prevalent than in text typography. Display typography exploits type at larger sizes, where the details of letter design are magnified."
It seemed comprehensible enough in the first place. The focus of the sentence isn't on variations in size and color; it's about the use of type at large sizes, in color (as opposed to the black ink of text typography). Variations of size seems implicit in "size". I think you misunderstood the paragraph.
Sorry I said "counterproductive" in my edit summary. I mainly meant the vandal 124.176.172.38 who showed up before you.
Some thoughts, use what you like--
I don't think there's any content in the Gutenberg section you
removed that isn't already in the Gutenberg article. And
I concur on
moving the 19th-20th century, the technical developments make for
a break with the earlier tradition.
I notice that a article on movable type was deleted at one point
and I thought from the time I started on this topic that doing so
was probably a mistake--I assume you're going to
start it again, it provides a good place for quite a lot of
materials.
I agree about a separate page for proto-typography. If the remains
in spite of all efforts, it won't get in the way nearly as much, and
a link to the photo will make it obvious what it can not
reasonably be.
Punchcutting/coning: There is a punchcutting article, but it specifically applies to
the making of type. We'll need to keep it distinct from the
stuff from here. There's a coinage page, but it doesn't talk about
making coin. & the relevant material from HofT should go somewhere--& its
not really"proto" since the technique continues. That whole
numismatics group of pages is under-developed.
I think the postulated spread of printing from asia to europe
could be put on the asia page, with a ref from current positions. It's
enough of a minority position that i wouldn't omit it altogether.
Might it be a good idea to have the printing press and printing articles frozen
for a a day or two until you finish moving, to keep everyone from
getting confused. You know what the appropriate way is better than I, and it's you who's moving the
stuff--should you ask?DGG18:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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? atanamir09:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I, and I hope all interested in the subject area, thank you for an excellent page on Movable Type, which should solve many of the long-standing difficulties the rest of us have been having.DGG23:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi James, I think the infobox is progressing. Here is what Antamir has done: User:Atanamir/TypeBox. It is quieter than what I first proposed (an improvment), and the tab nicely pulls out the information. Hopefully it will go up soon. Looks like you been a busy editor. The Jenson specimen is great! Best, Jim CApitol321:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 CApitol315:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent image of the Trajan inscription. Thank you. Will get it on the Trajan (typeface) page. Thanks! Do you know the status of the type info box? I would love for it to be visually subtle, and also be flexible enough to allow for a separate Design date and Release date as the two are often different. Any thoughts on your side? 13:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I didn't even know we had an article for the Adobe Trajan face.
We're currently waiting for Atanamir to respond to suggestions posted on his talk page, so be patient. Read my comments there and take a look at User:Atanamir/TypeBox for the updated design.
What about an article on History of Typography? Perhaps we can take a stab
at writing that first - or integrating things into the current article
(which would be my preference). In the event of a separate article,
perhaps what skeletal content is there in
History of Typography in East Asia can just go there, until such
time someone finds something better to say on that. I agree there is
nothing new in HTinEA as of now. mukerjee (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sufficient argument against a single article is that it would be too long. As is, we have to separate out the sections of later printing, and it will still be too long. If all the EA stuff we have were put in the EA article, then it would be substantial. Perhaps you can move it there, Mukerjee. Better you than me,for a variety of reasons. I'll support such changes.DGG06:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I did not take your comments as offensive/aggressive in any way. You're quite right to call for references! I was simply not aware that WP:REF was not in agreement with the other two policy pages you listed, so a statement that online sources were not valid sounded very strange to me. -- Jordi·✆14:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been here anywhere near as long as some others, but in looking both around at and page histories, I have never seen anything constructive done using words like "accuse" "POV pushing" "ethnocentric" (and of course this is just the relatively polite end of the spectrum) & I think them wrong however much I like the edits or the argument they support. It's not that I am timid--I have written some deliberately nasty comments outside of WP at times, and where more than encyclopedia articles were at stake. The reason is that I can not find a single case in wiki editing or the RW where even justified insults have done anything other than make the matter worse. DGG07:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is this paragraph at the bottom of the section (just above metal
movable type in Korea):
This system was later enhanced by pressing wooden blocks into sand and casting metal types from the depression in copper, bronze, iron or tin. The set of wafer-like metal stamp types could be assembled to form pages, inked, and page impressions taken from rubbings on cloth or paper.
This belies the whole point of this section - it simply cannot be that
bronze or copper were also being cast.
Around 1300, tin was being cast in China - the type may have been wafer-thin - it surely failed with the inks they were using then. This sentence is too vague and sweeping... Anyone to throw some light on this? mukerjee (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mukejee. Sorry for the delay replying to this question. I've been flat-out buried under a pile of work in real life.
The info on casting in China came from John Man's The Gutenberg Revolution, chapter 4 "Something in the air", quote, "The same principal was extended to make metal letters: the wood-block was pressed into sand, and the impression used as a mould for bronze, copper, tin, iron or lead. The result was a collection of thin stamps..."
What's so vague and sweeping about that? It's a specific regarding the materials. It may sound sweeping in being all-inclusive (of the metals), if you read it that way. I rewrote the info to avoid copyvio, but otherwise technically the meaning of the passage is equivalent to that in Man's book.
How is it that, "...it simply cannot be that bronze or copper were also being cast." ? John Man may have got the details on casting materials incorrect, or he may have got it right. If other sources contradict his account let's have them.
probably we all don't realize ourselves when we get angry--me included--and the real difficulty is the sensitivity level of some of the editors.DGG20:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
If people insist on showing themselves in a bad light, I guess we have to let them. I would have been glad for similar remarks to be removed. DGG03:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:250px-Bodonibodoni.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=79338140){kind=link}
