Talk:Type foundry

A Major Distinction

I would like to advocate that there be two distinct entries created for "Type Foundry" that reflect both the important historic nature of the industry, and further, one which corrects the erosion of meaning in the labeling of current digital type design & marketing firms as "foundries". That is, digital type is not produced in a foundry, so it follows semantically that this label is a misnomer which ought to be corrected in this ostensibly scholarly forum.

Viz., the two new entries would be "Type Foundry" & "Digital Type (Design & Marketing) Firms". A link at the appropriate place in the Type Foundry article should link to the Digital Type Firm article, which would continue the history to the modern day in its parallel track to the history of the Type Foundry, as there are still hot metal Type Foundries in operation (at least in 2011).

This is a critical distinction and there should be a very clear demarcation between the two industries despite their interrelationship.

That said, I'm surprised and discouraged to find the quality of this entry so lacking in substance, or accuracy. E.g., there is no mention of the major historic European Type Foundries, nor of the still extant Schriften-Service D. Stempel which holds and continues to cast types in Damstadt, DE from matrices once owned by Stempel, Deberny & Piegnot, Nebiolo, Klingspor, Wagner, Berthold, et alia. This is a gaping hole in an entry ostensibly about "Type foundry"s.

Further, "Foundry" in the page title should be capitalized.

HotType918 (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)HotType918[reply]

There also needs to be some mention of wood type "foundries". Perhaps a link to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Type_Museum ? Danensis (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Large vs. Independent

These categories for "Large" and "Independent" are somewhat ambiguous

Agreed. Criteria for large or independent should be established. Hoefler & Frere-Jones can hardly be compared in size to Adobe, but it is definitely a large and established font house. T26, as another example, is very small in regards to their output of typefaces and much of their income comes from using third party distributors. I would categorize them as indepedent. Perhaps we should reorganize the categories such as: major, minor, independent. --radiokillplay 13:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although "major" and "minor" would also need to be defined. Also, I'm not sure this article wouldn't be better as "List of type foundries"; it is almost all list and hardly any article. Rivertorch (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Russian Workers???

This page lists the URW as one of the major type foundries. WTF? WTF?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.235.91 (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spin off part of this into a list?

Right now, most of the page is reading like a list, rather than an article. Might much of this content be more appropriate to spin of "List of type foundries", hatnote it, and then retain this for discussion of the history, workings, etc. of type foundries? As it is now, there is little if any curation, other than the sorting, and no discussion of the various elements---just a list. Thoughts? Morgan Riley (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list of independent type foundries?

Per WP:NOTABLE and WP:Wikipedia is not (a collection of links, an advertising hoarding, a yellow pages), I propose to delete the table of independent type foundries. I don't particularly like that this would leave the majors in place apparently unchallenged so is there a reliable external source than can be given to provide reasonable balance? Is there a convincing counter-argument as to why the list should remain (within Wikipedia policies). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of multiple (true) type foundries in this modern age is testament to the revival in the interest in handset typography as a niche industry. Providing a (partial) list of foundries (perhaps with some information e.g. inception date) would demonstrate this better than just a vague "several small foundries exist...". Similarly the foundries that no longer exist could mention closure dates, along with a discussion of the collapse of industrial-level handset typography with the advent of computer typesetting. This could also illustrate how hand typography is still (relatively) big business in other countries. Also, why pick on "independent" (whatever that might mean) foundries? Either list foundries or don't.198.91.146.145 (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Wikipedia has a strong policies on original research and reliable third-party sources, so we (well, you) can't just create the material you suggest, worthwhile though it is. We depend fundamentally on collecting external information and presenting it, for two reasons: first and most obvious, to show that we didn't just make it up, and second to help people (students and journalists mainly) to track down reliable source material for their own work. The current list contains only those foundries that are notable enough for there to be an article about them, which by definition means that they must have been written about in external sources.

I didn't particularly like having to delete the information about less well-known foundries and I expect that few of them actually tried to get listed on Wikipedia as form of marketing. But Wikipedia has a perennial problem with marketeers trying to do exactly that so we have no choice but to delete all such lists that are not properly cited. Who said that life had to be fair?

BUT if you can collect evidence ('citations') to support the kind of text you have in mind, you are entirely welcome to write it up and add it to the article. It stands or falls on that evidence. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]