Video Template talk:Free and open-source typography
Dubious inclusion
I have removed the following items from this template:
- Fixedsys Excelsior, extension "may be public domain" of an exclusive font type.
- HyperFont, exclusive font type.
- FontLab Studio and Fontographer, exclusive font creation software. (Sure, they can be used to create free/open source fonts, but so what?)
Can anyone explain/justify the inclusion of all this? I'm also not sure about the entry of OCR-A and OCR-B; the first is (in accordance with the article) font design that has a free and non-free implementation, while the latter article does not make reference to open source typography at all. - Perey (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Maps Template talk:Free and open-source typography
section
Why the difference between operating system typography and more? Why is that significant enough to be separated? <=> ChristTrekker 15:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It does look arbitrary. Maybe we should take out the GNU, SIL and Adobe fonts into their own category, because there are enough of them? Or maybe with a license? S-1-5-7 (talk) 07:33, August 19, 2014 (UTC)
One of my concerns is the very similar proliferation of font variants:
- Liberation Font and Croscore are two names for the same thing - the Arial/Times New Roman/Courier font is compatible with metrics by Steve Matteson.
- Nimbus Sans/Roman/Mono * also * trio clone Arial/TNR/Courier
- The DejaVu font descends linearly from Bitstream Vera and possibly a superset of its parent; should they be listed under both names?
- Noto is a descendant of Droid.
--April Arcus (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I think the OS/non-OS separation is a bit arbitrary but it can not be supported: it splits fonts that are controlled by the company and is meant to go into the user interface of more hobby projects: open-source project at the bottom, open- sourced above. I think if changes are made it might make sense to put the OS box as a 'corporate project' box. I can see Open Sans climbing into the box, because Google uses it a lot on its site. Sans source too, maybe.
Regarding the Noto/DV/Nimbus issue, I can see that the merge may be a problem. For Noto/Droid, I would say more than that. That said, a little awkward decide what to join into what? Personally, I combine Droid to Noto instead of Noto to Droid because Droid dies as Android system font and Noto is a live project with the latest modifications, but others may disagree.. When in doubt, do not change. However, I think the Nimbus font deserves a separate article from the Croscore font. Unless they share a history of design other than identical in metrics? In any case, it may be good to combine the three fonts of Nimbus because the Arial/TNR/Courier design is well captured elsewhere on Wikipedia.
In the box below, the current list is somewhat arbitrary: it's far from the list of the best open source fonts or most importantly, only the fonts that people write are articles and can be justified as important. This kind of box is difficult to curate, so it can stay that way. What I might do is write some more articles about open-source foundries -Pablo Impallari comes to mind, and League of Movable Type as well. Blythwood (talk) 23:52, October 15, 2014 (UTC)
Font notability?
I came here initially looking for Lato (font), which is listed in this template but the page has been deleted due to lack of notability. I'm not sure if Lato is famous or not by Wikipedia standards, but I see fonts in many and will find useful reference articles. If not, what makes any font important enough to be on Wikipedia? If fonts are generally unimportant, then what's the future of this template? Marcstober (talk) 12:39, April 26, 2015 (UTC)
Packages section
I've been thinking about the navbox organization. I think an interesting key separation is between large enterprise projects to design fonts for purposes with professional engagement where designers are paid pro and more amateur projects more independent. contained and for which the user must (frankly) be much more careful to watch out for interference. This seems like a good comparison with me because the font may be part of a large project without just being on the OS: The TeX font is a semi-professional project at least, the company's STIX work coalition (like open-source Sabon), PT commissioned by the government and OpenSans because of the webfont Google Maps may be used by more people than Ubuntu meetings. So I propose making an expanded section at the top, adding TeX fonts, Ghostscript, Open Sans, Nimbus, STIX, PT, Bitstream Vera, OCR, Source fonts, Utopia. I'm not sure what to call it: 'Company, interface & amp; government is as close as I can in a few words. Mind? Blythwood (talk) 05:10, September 22, 2015 (UTC)
- Apply this now. Blythwood (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments