Talk:Roman type

Semantic twaddle

"The Colorado Court of Appeals requires all briefs to be submitted in plain, Roman style typeface. The Court does not consider Garamond to be a Roman typeface."

Why not? We need some eloboration and references.

That's trivial semantic quibbling usually found in the trivia section, but it doesn't add much to the article so I took it out. The Colorado court of appeals is a court of law and should know better. Garamond is considered a classic "roman" (in a manner of speaking) by typographers and printers.

Arbo talk 21:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"roman" versus "Roman"

The OED, inter alia, capilatises the "R", supported by quotations. — DIV (128.250.204.118 02:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The OED is not the authority on typographic terminology. What counts here is that typographers and type historians differentiate letters designed by Romans during classical antiquity (ie: during ancient times) by capitalizing the word "Roman", to distinguish those letters from typefaces designed in the guise of Roman letters. The latter are referred to as "romans", uncapitalized. This is a well-established convention in type history books and used by working typographers which the OED does not take account of. The text of the article explains this clearly enough.

Arbo talk 14:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an amateur linguist, I find that very unconvincing. Note italic type, for example. Anyway, are there any sources which specifically mention the reason? --Kjoonlee 14:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've added a citation for Alexander Nesbitt's History and Technique of Lettering.

To answer your query, "sounds like OR to me", the view expressed is not original research. It is the accepted published opinion of major type historians including Alexander Nesbitt and Robert Bringhurst.

Arbo talk 15:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks like opinion, other than proper research. --Kjoonlee 22:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. That's just your opinion. Since you find it hard to believe I can only recommend you do some detailed reading of type history.

Arbo talk 22:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Accepted published opinion" can still be POV or unverifiable. Reworded. --Kjoonlee 22:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rewording is fine. The opinion expressed is verifiable, if you find a copy of Nesbitt in a library you can check it for yourself.

Wikipedia is a compendium of POVs, all of which are supposed to be from published, verifiable sources. All human knowledge is opinion. Some of it is well-informed, some of it not so well-informed. Italic type contains at least a dozen factual errors and could use some more reliable verifiable references, but it tells the story behind the name "italic" adequately. The story behind the name "roman" type is different.

Your edit summary: "that sounds like there's specific intent; that's unverifiable IMHO"

Please help me understand what you mean by "specific intent". Intent of what, by who, and why is it unverifiable?

Arbo talk 23:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is roman type really a superset of serif and sans serif typefaces?

In template:typography, the roman type is depicted as a superset of serif and sans serif typefaces. But this article doesn't mention whether the roman type is really a superset of serif and sans serif typefaces. It only says that it's the superset of Antiqua (typeface class). If it isn't, then template:typography will have to be edited accordingly. Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉edits 04:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]