Talk:Bodoni

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Typography Low‑importance

	This article 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Comment

For all the discussion, this is a weak article, and the mentions of Z. Licko's Filosofia read like a sponsored infomercial. Needs much work. No mention of early/late Bodoni, difference between Lange/Stone versions and others. Not a high quality article. Troneck (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Troneck[reply]

I think it would be a good idea to state what Bodoni is. --Ihope127 00:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easy to read?

The line "Bodoni is easy and inviting to read" is rather misleading. At small point sizes, Bodoni seems to glitter on the page, as mentioned in the article. So, which one is it? Javguerre 02:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IBM corporate identity

I put this back in because IBM do (have always?) use Bodonis in their print ads, especially for text in magazine inserts and outdoor. The well-known IBM logo is of course a typographic wordmark in a chunky slab serif style, but it's not the only public "face" of IBM. Text typography is a subtle and for some people subliminal part of corporate I.D.
Arbo talk 15:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few problems with new samples

I am troubled to see such rash and aggressive editing with deletion of what is clearly a superior specimen. What's next Mr. Arboghast? Sowing NGAGAS' fields with salt? Must you slash and burn? None of us own any wiki article. I have tried to find a middle ground between the new contnet and old. As a professor of typography I do not se a problem with the new information, If you differ and can back it up, please edit, not revert and delete. CApitol3

I have not reverted anyone's edits or contributions, as I did not perform a revert edit command. I have not deleted any facts but consolidated everything added so far.

I have not deleted any image files. I only changed the image source filename in the article text back to the last functioning image, as per WP guidelines. The image I replaced was not your specimin but another one by User talk:NGAGAS, "Bodonispecimen.jpg" tagged by an automated bot.

The image of Bauer Bodoni you "restored" --- Image:250px-Bodonibodoni.jpg --- is not rendering on its own page or in the article. You are the only person who has touched it --- [1]. If you wish to include the nice Bauer Bodoni specimin "Bodonibodoni.jpg", you will need to get the image functioning.

Arbo talk 23:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Arboghast, I, and my student, NGAGAS, each misread the meaning of your edit summary. As she had presented factual information, some replacing less accurate information, example being Bodoni falls into a classification termed "modern" and is not as previously described a "classical" typeface, though surely it could be described as "Neoclassical." My error, was in reading the mention of her deleted file in your edit summary as your intentional action. Given that his happened within 20 minutes of her upload, it seemed rash, especially given that she is a very new wikipedian. I apologize for my own misinterpretation, and for my agressive response. Please accept my apology and assurance I will lay off the testosterone. I am sorry. Best, Jim CApitol3

reposted from User talk:GearedBull

Hi Jim. :-) Thanks for the explanation. Everything is just fine. Here and there, the close timing of two editors can make one editor's actions seem harsher or more reactionary than they really are. I happen to be looking at the articles for Bodoni, Caslon and Baskerville at present, as I'm about to expand the section on 17th & 18th centuries for the History of typography. Apologies to Nicole; most of my edits are bold and in good faith. I considered yours to be in good faith too. I'm happy to build up the Bodoni article with you.

My apologies for my vague edit summary regarding the image being "deleted"—that was my error.

I hope we can get your samples working soon. Looking forward to seeing them.

Best regards, j a m e s t a l k 15:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

huh?

"Bodoni is used in THX's early trailers like Broadway and Cimarron."

Does anyone have any clue what this is referring to? Was it perhaps meant to say 'Fox'?203.220.212.117 (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]