User talk:Thunderbird2013

Welcome!

Hi Thunderbird2013! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Blythwood (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Crimson (typeface)

The article Crimson (typeface) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It exists, but there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. (t · c) buidhe 22:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Crimson (typeface) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Crimson (typeface) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimson (typeface) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

(t · c) buidhe 19:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

Hi, thanks for all your edits on typography and font topics! I've seen some of your edits have been edited and removed and can imagine that's really frustrating. Wikipedia has strong policies that material added to Wikipedia should come out of reliable sources, both to document that something is true and that it's a notable topic enough for an article. Obviously, that last point can be frustrating-here's this font, you can download it and see it's a real thing, it's used on a lot of websites, isn't that enough for it to get an article? But it's necessary for something on Wikipedia to have coverage from reliable sources.

I've been trying to look after the Wikipedia articles on fonts for a while now. My suggestion is that it's good to read up on the history of typography from the great authors and experts who have written about it like James Mosley, John A. Lane, Harry Carter, Justin Howes, John Dreyfus, Paul Shaw, Sébastien Morlighem and Hendrik Vervliet, the back issues of the journals Matrix and Fine Print or the Slinn/Carter/Southall history of Monotype. For me, the real breakthrough in my knowledge of font design was when I went into libraries and started reading books from these great authors, few of whose works are available freely on the Internet. It gave me a whole new set of ideas on things that I immediately felt needed to be included on Wikipedia and broadened my knowledge in a way reading what's on the internet couldn't.

If you're interested in typography and have thoughts Wikipedia isn't the right space to publish, I really recommend establishing a blog-I'd certainly read it! (There's Typographica, but its main publication is its annual review of new fonts and Font Review Journal seems to have stopped running new content, and Type Mag runs relatively few articles.) Publishing new things is great, and although I'm not sure Wikipedia can take everything I can tell you're interested in, getting it on the Internet would be awesome. Blythwood (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blythwood, just want to say thank you for your suggestions and comments. I understand and respect the policies on Wikipedia, so I am not really complaining about the proposed deletion and/or edits to the contents that I added. Thunderbird2013 (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IPA font support

Hi. Perhaps my fonts are out of date. Could you set ⟨t̬͜ꞎʚ͋̍ʨ̼̻̚˧˥˨꜒꜕꜔⟩ into Arial, TNR and Noto Sans, and send me a screenshot? I just tried Noto Sans again, and it failed. — kwami (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typeface dates

Thanks for your edits. In my experience it's totally pointless to give specific dates for a lot of typefaces in the metal type era. Sources are astonishingly inconsistent about exact release dates. I've seen both 1922 and 1923 for Monotype Garamond, and both 1958 and 1961 for Simoncini Garamond. My feeling is people have been bamboozled by the fact that metal types had long design timeframes-it could be a very long time between the making of the drawings and the issuing of the type or the publication of the glossy specimen. It isn't worth having them in the headings. Blythwood (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blythwood, I think it is at least somewhat more logical to sort the revivals by chronological order.

Currently the subsections are sorted neither by chronological nor alphabetic order. All we need to do is to move Adobe Garamond and Garamond Premier after Berthold Garamond, really.

I don't have strong opinion on whether the exact dates are included. Thunderbird2013 (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's fine with me! Blythwood (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen your edits to Plantin. It is known that Plantin didn't have the complete Granjon type-his inventories of what types he had still survive and it's not on the list. Explained in Vervliet Palaeotypography, page 226. It probably arrived there in the 1730s. Again, this is why it's so valuable to read the most serious sources.

With "inspired", what Tracy and Moran felt was that Monotype were interested by the release of this typeface called "Plantin", and it may have prompted them to research the types in the Plantin-Moretus Museum. It seems like a huge coincidence that two types named "Plantin" suddenly came out in quick succession. Blythwood (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

I found it confusing that the writing (before my first edit today) seemed to imply that the design of Plantin was inspired by Shanks' "Plantin Old Style", but free feel to change my new wording.

The intention of my edits today was mostly to reorganise the section so that it reads better (also to distinguish Christophe Plantin and Plantin the typeface). Thunderbird2013 (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I've rewritten it to clarify and I hope tightened up the sourcing positions. Blythwood (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Optical" sizes

One for your "to do" / "watch out for" list.

It would be good to add a line that gives the etymology of the word "optical" in the context of fonts. If you happen upon a source in your reading. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helvetica World

Hi, thanks for the comment! I agree with you on balance, looking on MyFonts Helvetica World seems more likely to be based on Helvetica than Neue Helvetica looking at the shape of the 'R' and the obliques especially. (Can't remember if I put it there, but the idea could have been to put it in chronological order-I don't have a release date for Helvetica World but MyFonts says "about the turn of the millennium"; Gornitsky says 2002 but I can't confirm this.) Unfortunately, there's little coverage of the language variants known to me besides Helena Lekka's thesis, which covers Greek a bit. Blythwood (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]