Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Typography

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Typography and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Typography This page is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography

I just came across Template:dagger at Larry Monroe Forever Bridge. I was surprised to find that this template, unlike say Template:ndash or Template:asterisk for example, does not actually insert a dagger (†). Instead it inserts a picture of a dagger. This seems so wrong to me. The resulting text is not searchable or pastable, among other things. This has been discussed on the template talk page but nothing has been resolved. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's fixed now. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I not too long ago proposed the Engschrift article for deletion, but it was opposed by @Kvng, who instead suggested a merge. I was referred here by them since I had a question regarding redirecting once relevant information is moved to the applicable articles (DIN 1451, Austria (typeface) and Tern (typeface)): since it's not possible to redirect to multiple articles, what can / should be done? Thanks in advance. EthanL13 | talk 19:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had added this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Typography/Unicode but this page seems more active:

I have been adding redirects from CJK Compatibility characters to appropriate articles or Wiktionary if I don't find one.

There is a discussion about it in Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_10#㌽ if you want to voice your opinion.

--Error (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all! I've been looking over the Times New Roman article recently and it is, in my humble opinion, an absolute mess. I'm working to clean it up and (hopefully) bring it to GA status, but I'm not sure how my skills at editing measure up to the problems I've found in the article. I felt I should bring it to this project's attention so that someone who's a bit more experienced could help out.

As for the actual problems in the article, I've found quite a few:

• The lede reads like it's a history lesson on the typeface
• There are a lot of not-quite-weasel words scattered throughout the article (for instance, from the lede, spindly nineteenth-century face and robust, solid design)
• There are a lot of parenthetical statements that feel conversational and detract from the encyclopedic tone
• Sections describing digital releases and alternative metal type releases don't actually include the name of the release in the body text
• Sources are named directly, making it feel like I'm reading a textbook or paper and feels borderline WP:SYNTH
• I feel like the Free Alternatives section is WP:UNDUE

Thanks a ton, /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 17:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful--the article has a lot of good content, but judicious editing and copyediting could certainly improve the tone and presentation. The concrete problems you mentioned above all look like reasonable criticisms. Thinking of fonts as computer programs, it is typical for an article on software to include a brief free/open source section toward the end of the article. But I agree the section could be condensed to just a list of alternatives that were explicitly intended to be derivatives of Times New Roman, along with the citations to that effect. As for editing, I'd recommend for you to just go for it and start making changes. Start with the concrete problems above and proceed from there. Articles are under version control, any mistakes can be undone, and it is a good learning experience and good prep for a GA run. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of all Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, WP:BEBOLD seems to be the one that I have the most trouble with. Thanks for the gentle reminder; I suppose if I mess anything up a talk page discussion will remedy it. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 21:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GracenC, thanks for the interest in making this a GA. It's a goal I'd love to see and I'm glad to see your enthusiasm for this. I assembled most of the article into its current form and considered raising it to GA in 2020 but realised I didn't have time to get it there. I'm satisfied with the accuracy of most of the content but the main thing I needed to add was line-by-line sourcing to specific pages in sources like Barker's biography of Morison, Letters of Credit, the McKitterick books and so on, many of which are quite long books so really need clear citation style. Will look at doing that. I also was planning on adding citations and quotes to Morison's big 1953 book Printing the Times which isn't in there yet. Blythwood (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, hope my harsh words about your article didn't sting too much. I'm absolutely fine with the current factual content of the article (to be fair, I haven't actually taken the time to read through the listed sources myself), I just personally feel like a lot of the way it's presented isn't great. I'd be happy to discuss certain parts of it, though, and I'm always open to being proven wrong. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 22:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Morison's prose can be a bit congested and hard to read through. Amazing aesthetic sense though. One of the great pleasures of working on this article and others on typography was going to libraries and digging up some really obscure sources in journals like Matrix and JPHS, like Crutchley's article from 1990. I recommend doing that if you're able to, printing history journals are, as you'd expect, often really beautiful. Had been working on something else really nice but I've gone through the article and done a quick sourcing upgrade. Will think about other edits. Blythwood (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never really done much research involving physical texts outside that prescribed to me by various educational institutions, but it does sound like a joy. I unfortunately don't have much free time to work on such things throughout the week, but I'll look into taking some time over the coming weekends to acquire and read through these texts. I'll probably move further discussion to Talk:Times New Roman, though. Looking forward to seeing this article renominated! /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 18:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blythwood: Sorry I haven't been active on Times New Roman... at all. I've had finals prep and finals themselves, but that should be done today. Glad to see you've been doing some work; looking forward to getting this article to GA! /home/gracen/ (they/them) 15:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]