Humanities desk
< August 22	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 23

Is there a standard font for formal or professional writing?

Is there a standard font (and font size) for formal and/or professional writing? Do any of the style manuals address this? Or, what is the commonly accepted practice? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They vary from publication to publication, so it's best to ask whoever you're writing for what they need (often, they'll be able to send you a template, or alternatively, they'll accept your writing in any font and change it fit the publication's style guide themselves). In screenwriting, 12 pt Courier is standard (since it's a standard size, so a page of Courier 12 should usually correspond to one minute of screen time). In many academic fields, Computer Modern has become the standard, since it's the default font in LaTeX and has a very comprehensive set of mathematical symbols. For other general uses, just go for a standard typeface like Times New Roman, Arial, Helvetica etc, at a size between 11 and 14, with a bit of extra space between the lines and you'll be fine. Smurrayinchester 06:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second advice above.

Every academic and professional field has their own preferences, and every publisher can enforce their own rules.

In business and professional writing, the best generic wisdom is encapsulated in the Chicago Manual of Style.

Rhetorically, you aim to please and persuade, so usage is your guide. But good taste is allowed: one need not be boring.

An excellent ebook by a font designer that Bryan A. Garner, editor in chief of Black’s Law Dictionary, calls a “tour de force” that’s “smartly reasoned,” “well written,” and “assuredly infallible” provides great background and strong, succinct recommendations, not only for his own relatively inexpensive fonts, but for several openly licensed ("free as in beer") fonts:

Butterick, Matthew (2010). Typography for Lawyers. Houston, TX: Jones McClure. ISBN 978-1598390773..

I'll name and link to these beautiful and businesslike free fonts later today. But do read the free preview of the book - Edward Tufte quality. (Another font of wisdom, and well worth emulating.). -- Paulscrawl (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 7th edition of the MLA Handbook (2010) has this:

"Always choose an easily readable typeface (e.g., Times New Roman) in which the regular type style contrasts clearly with the italic, and set it to a standard size (e.g., 12 points). Do not justify the lines of text at the right margin; turn off your word processor's automatic hyphenation feature." (section 4.2, "Text formatting", p. 116).

The 6th edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2009) advises:

"The use of a uniform typeface and font size enhances readability for the editor and allows the publisher to estimate the article length. The preferred typeface for APA publications is Times New Roman, with 12-point font size.

A serif typeface, "with short light lines projecting from the top or bottom of a main stroke of a letter" (Chicago Manual of Style, 2003, p. 837), is preferred for text because it improves readability and reduces eye fatigue. (A sans serif type may be used in figures, however, to provide a clean and simple line that enhances the visual presentation.) Do not use a compressed typeface or any settings in your word-processing software that decrease the spacing between letters or words. The default settings are normally acceptable." (section 8.03, "Preparing the Manuscript for Submission ", pp. 228-229)

Both the 15th and the 16 editions of The Chicago Manual of Style do not have any specific recommendations on fonts, deferring such choices to publishers. A work based on the Chicago Manual of Style is the venerable Turabian. The 8th edition of A Manual for Writers of Research Papers Theses and Dissertations (2012) has this:

"Choose a single, readable, and widely available typeface (also called font), such as Times New Roman, Courier, or Helvetica. If you use a less common typeface, you may need to embed the font in the electronic file. Avoid ornamental typefaces,which can distract readers and make your work seem less serious. (For the characteristics of specific typefaces,see Robert Bringhurst, The Elements of Typographic Style [Point Roberts, WA: Hartley and Marks, 2004].) In general, use at least ten-point and preferably twelve-point type for the body of the text. Footnotes or endnotes, headings, and other elements might require other type sizes; check your local guidelines." (section A.1.2, "Typeface", pp. 225-6)

Times New Roman is "safe", but widely regarded as a lame default, an admission of typographic illiteracy. Robert Bringhurst, in the cited contemporary classic The Elements of Typographic Style:

"When the only font available is Cheltenham or Times Roman, the typographer must make the most of its virtues, limited though they may be." (p. 96)

"Times Roman - properly Times New Roman - is an historical pastiche drawn by Victor Lardent for Stanley Morison in London in 1931. It has a humanist axis but Mannerist proportions, Baroque weight, and a sharp, Neoclassical finish." (p. 97)

"There are many versions of Times New Roman. The version tested here is Times New Roman ps mt, version 2.76, the default text font in recent versions of the Microsoft Windows operating system. ... The kerning is good as far as it goes, but it does not go nearly far enough." (note, pp. 204-205)

Stephen Coles has this to say, in his "The Anatomy of Type: A Graphic Guide to 100 Typefaces" (Harper Design, 2012):

"Good for: A non-designed, conventional office-document look." ("Times New Roman" entry in surprisingly good looking e-book on typography)

If one desires to please and persuade, alternative typefaces are preferred. Wikipedia uses Linux Libertine for its logo. It is included with Libre Office and is freely licensed and free to use. A good choice in my opinion (and especially good for lawyers submitting Microsoft Word documents, as it preserves the overall transitional serif style and spacing of Times New Roman very well - see comments under review). Recommended commercial alternatives include Le Monde Journal (recommended by Stephen Coles) or Equity (recommended by lawyer/typographer & Equity font designer Matthew Butterick). His two books, Typography for Lawyers (2010) and Butterick's Practical Typography (2014), are freely readable online; the former title is also available in print and epub. Highly recommended first title has foreword by legal eagle Bryan Garner, second by noted type designer Erik Spiekermann -- Paulscrawl (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, master type designer Erik Spiekermann chose Butterick's handsome Equity font for the new edition of his masterpeice, Stop Stealing Sheep & Find Out How Type Works, 3rd ed. (Berkeley, California: Adobe Press, 2013). ISBN 978-0321934284 -- Paulscrawl (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To all of the above excellent advice, I'd add one suggestion from this former professional editor – don't use a font in which "capital eye", "lower-case ell" and "numeral one" can't easily be distinguished. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious. Why do you say that? (Apart from the obvious, of course.) I understand that "capital eye", "lower-case ell", and "numeral one" might not be easily distinguishable in a certain font. However, they are pretty much always easily distinguishable by context, no? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ask this question in Illinois... Or in a sentence beginning with 'Illegal'...Hayttom (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the intended character may be unambiguous in context, the actual character used may not be readily apparent to typographic slobs, but will stand out as a glaring error to typographic sophisticates, including many who read a lot for a living: not only editors, but lawyers and academics. They will know what you meant (usually), but will also know you apparently consider such niceties not worthy of your time and may well think your writing and reasoning less worthy of theirs. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole issue of font aside, it does seem like 12 is a standard size, then. Is that correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would say the sources cited above agree. Think of it as a courtesy for older eyes, perhaps wiser readers. But think twice:

Matthew Butterick again:

"While courts often require text to be set at 12 point — and sometimes larger — it’s not the most comfortable size for reading. If you compare a court filing with the average book, newspaper, or magazine, you’ll notice that the text in the filing is larger.

When you’re not bound by court rules, don’t treat 12 point as the minimum. Try sizes down to 10 point, including intermediate sizes like 10.5 and 11.5 point — half-point differences are meaningful at these sizes." -- "Point size" in Typography for Lawyers (2010)

See also his revised discussion, with clear examples, in Butterick's latest free Web book:

"... the point-size system is not absolute—different fonts set at the same point size won’t necessarily appear the same on the page.So you need to let your eyes be the judge. Don’t just rely on the point size." -- "Point size" in Butterick's Practical Typography (2014)

As noted on that page and detailed elswhere in Practical Typography, line spacing ("120–145% of the point size") and line length ("45–90 characters or 2–3 alphabets") would need to be artfully modified as well to achieve your desired effect. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English translations of Proust

Per In Search of Lost Time#Publication in English, there seem to be two major English translations of Proust available - the Moncrieff/Kilmartin/Enright translation and the one by a team of translators edited by Christopher Prendergast. What is the critical consensus on the respective merits of these translations? --Viennese Waltz 09:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Scott Moncrieff, it seems the consensus is he was not accurate, but created a wonderful read. Some references:

This textbook on translation (published 1988) says, page 56, that the Moncrieff version is "a model of translation"

The Public Domain Review claims "Moncrieff’s translation of À la recherche du temps perdu is considered by many journalists and writers to be the best translation of any foreign work into the English language"

Boston Review: "The translation Moncrieff produced was a masterpiece. That said, it was not without its share of controversial choices"

2004 article in The Atlantic which contains a long discussion of a retranslation in the 1980s and gives a bit of history on why people started wanting to redo the Scott Moncrieff version.

On Prendergast, it is harder to determine, since everything seems a comparison with Scott Moncrieff rather than assessment on its own merits. People think simplicity and humour have been restored. Have a read:

New York Review of Books article (itself critical of the Prendergast book) beings with "The six volumes of the new Viking Penguin translation of Proust received rave reviews in England"

And here are some of those reviews: Guardian (2), Guardian (2) and Telegraph

New York Times review of Prendergast, and I can't tell if it is positive or negative

(afollow-up discussion on the NY Review of Books letters page provides some insight into the differences between the two.) 184.147.128.46 (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really useful collection of links, thanks very much. --Viennese Waltz 13:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reference needed

G'Day. I know of a person called A. M. [name hidden] who has been a priest for over 50 years in Pakistan but cannot find any reference to the date of his ordination. Can you help? Tissueboy (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have hidden the name, given "outing" a private person where he can be murdered is counter to WP:BLP. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting that we cannot ever type anyone's first and last name on the reference desk? SemanticMantis (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsouzaron: The priest in question has some info at the facebook page for "St. Lawrence's Church - Karachi, Pakistan" here [1] - they have a contact email for the church, I suggest you contact him/ the church directly if you'd like more info. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was also an alumnus of St Patrick's High School, Karachi and principal of St Paul's English High School (see this site), and parish priest of St. Jude's Church, Karachi (see our article). I think Medies is being a little over-enthusiastic in her interpretation of WP:BLPNAME. Tevildo (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given Christian clergy are subject to assassination, yes, I hid that person's name out of caution. Hence is is not searchable, but anyone who edits here can read it. While this may have given SM a sour stomach, the OP got his answer. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point me toward the policy that indicates that we should censor the names of people whom individual Wikipedians decide would be put at risk by being identified? Even when that person's own organization is happy to publicly identify them on Facebook, and they appear in lists in article space whose very existence imply that the Wikipedian's conclusion is contrary to general consensus? Because it certainly isn't WP:BLP. And this strikes me as very paranoid and out of line (not to mention potentially severely offensive by implication to Pakistanis). The Catholic Church in Pakistan is not some sort of clandestine operation, and its priests are absolutely public figures. -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]