Template talk:Typography

Gaelic

Gaelic typography is not blackletter nor sans-serif. It is a class of its own. The fact that its letterforms are Insular rather than Carolingian is a part of this. There are several books on Irish type design, and the other terms (Blackletter, Slab Serif, Traditional, etc) are never applied to it. See Gaelic script where I am adding some bibliography (Lynham and McGuinne; also my own external page on classification of Gaelic typefaces). I don't mind what order "Gaelic" appears in the template, but appear it should. -- Evertype·✆ 20:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you give me a citation to a general typography text that includes "Gaelic" as a classification? I'll go back and double check my references later tonight (I've got The Thames and Hudson Manual of Typography, Typography: A Manual of Design, Typographic Design: Form and Communication and a few other). I really don't remember ever seeing "Gaelic" listed as a classification type and it is not part of VOX-ATypI classification, and if we do that here it would be original research (unless we have sources to back it up). That said, if it fits in well in another section, or if we have other similar articles and could create a new section, I would not oppose at all placing that link somewhere else in the template. I just thought it was odd to place it in a classification where it clearly isn't one of the major classification (and if my memory serves me right, isn't a classification at all). That's where I'm coming from, so hopefully we can reach an agreement! --Andrew c ^[talk] 22:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Lynam, E. W. 1969. The Irish character in print: 1571–1923. New York: Barnes & Noble. First printed as Oxford University Press offprint 1924 in Transactions of the Bibliographical Society, 4th Series, Vol. IV, No. 4, March 1924.)
• McGuinne, Dermot. Irish type design: A history of printing types in the Irish character. Blackrock: Irish Academic Press. ISBN 0-7165-2463-5

It would not be surprising to find that mainstream typographic analysis has overlooked the Gaelic types. That does not mean it is not a valid category. If Vox-AtypI hasn't recognized it, that is doubtless due to inattention (and the relative rarity of Gaelic typefaces). I'm really not trying to push a POV here, but they are not the only authority (see the two books I refer to above, both of which describe "the Irish character". With regard to the T&H manual. for instance... note that they haven't mentioned Irish typefaces at all. They haven't categorized them as Blackletter or Antiqua or whatever. They've been ignored. I think that because of Insular v. Carolingian letterforms, Gaelic" is a valid classification. -- Evertype·✆ 23:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Those seem like interesting texts, and I'd like to get my hands on them for my own knowledge. That said, looking at Image:Gaelic-fonts.png, it seems obvious to me that "Gealic Script" is not a classification (especially take note of Doire). What is the relationship between thick and thin in this classification? What is the relationship between horizontal and vertical strokes? How are the serif's characterized? What is the general x-height? What is the axis/tilt? Looking at the 4 faces displayed in that image, I simply cannot answer any of those questions, and I am quite familiar with those concepts. Why can't I answer those questions? Because those faces are so completely different that they transcended (or defy) a single classification. The "e" character generally has a horizontal crossbar, but Corcaigh doesn't. Doire has uniform stroke weight and no serifs, while the others have varying degrees of high contrast between thicks and thins and varying classifications of serif. This is a little confusing, because terms like uncial, half-uncial, miniscule, etc are useful in script (handwriting) classification, and in varying degrees type classification. However, "Gaelic Script" is not useful in type classification. It is a generalized term to refer to the script (character set) used by a language. This script is clearly derivative of the Latin script (and is often classified as a variant of Latin), more specifically from the half-uncial writings in various manuscripts (c. 9th century Irish manuscript culture). But like any other script, typefaces written in, for example Cyrillic, can be classified in numerous ways (as your image demonstrates). I think your frank statement It would not be surprising to find that mainstream typographic analysis has overlooked the Gaelic types. is important, because it brings up weight issues. If no mainstream text uses this classification, is it not giving one non-mainstream view undue weight? This is really fascinating to me, and I do intend to do more research. I have a number of interesting questions in my head.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

They are interesting texts and should be available on ABE. But looking ata Image:Gebrochene_Schriften.png, I find that you would have the same problem with classification. You've got round o's and squared o's, two-tier a's and script a's, regular S's and cinnamon-bun S's, and so on throughout the rest of the alphabet. I think that Blackletter and Gaelic are both defined in opposition to Antiqua. I do not think, however, that a minority view is non-mainstream. My comment meant that since Gaelic typefaces were only really seen and developed in Ireland, it was ignored by the mainstream. That's an oversight on the mainstream's part, not a reason to exclude the style from (in this case) this template. This is a fascinating discussion; perhaps it will generate an improvement of the Gaelic script article. -- Evertype·✆ 09:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Browsing through a large number of typographic texts, and checking out Irish Type Design and reading the last chapter, I am now completely convinced that Gaelic script is not a type classification. Fry treated it as a foreign face along with Hebrew, Greek, Arabic, etc. If there is a specific page in Irish Type Design you'd like to draw my attention to which argues that Gaelic script is a type classification as opposed to a language character set, please do so. If not, I don't believe we have any reliable sources that argue this point. When you say That's an oversight on the mainstream's part, not a reason to exclude the style from (in this case) this template, it makes me think of WEIGHT issues. Wikipedia is not the place to try to correct the wrongs of the mainstream, and I am convinced now that including Gaelic script as a type classification is not only giving one view too much undue weight, it is in fact simply not supported by any source what so ever. Again, if I am wrong about this, direct me to a specific page, or quote a source that argues this point. Anyway, I'm glad I found this book, and I'll be reading more of it and probably adding more to the "Gaelic script" article (though I'm questioning if that is the best name for the article....) Cheers! -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You're "completely convinced" after browsing? Gosh, my opinion has been formed after a decade and a half of working with Irish typefaces. :-| Fry's type appeared in 1819, and I venture to suggest that in 1819 the classification of typefaces as we know it was hardly applicable. The description of the replacement of Gaelic type by Roman type in the final chapter of McGuinne is in every way analogous to the way in which German blackletter was replaced by Roman. You've asked for a page in McGuinne "arguing" that "Gaelic script is a type classification as opposed to a language character set". Now there are two things wrong with this. First, it was no McGuinne's intent two make such an argument. Second, you've opposed "type classification" against "a language character set" and the two things are in no way equivalent. The former compares typefaces, and assigns categories to them according to shape characteristics. The latter is a collection of letters. (I venture to suggest that I may know better what a character set is than you may.) While it is my observation that mainstream typographic analysis may have overlooked the existence of Gaelic types, that does not mean I am the only one to have noticed it. McGuinne p. 3: "The development of these printing types has attracted the attention of many scholars over the years, but few have examined it in its entirety." Even if no scholars attempted to fit Gaelic typefaces into their traditional classification of typefaces, that does not imply that Gaelic typefaces are not a unique category for such a classification. For you to be "convinced" that including Gaelic script as a type classification is a mistake, you would have to demonstrate how Gaelic script typefaces should be classified. They are not Blackletter (though they may share some features with it). They are not Antiqua (though they may share some features with it). They may or may not have serifs. Etc. And yet they are immediately recognizable. They are clearly a class of their own, apart from the others, and there are subclassifications within that class which have been identified. So... I dispute your suggestion that this is a question of "WEIGHT", and what the Wikipedia is for, in this instance. As I said, the whole argument about Gaelic v. Roman is the same as the argument about Fraktur v. Antiqua; if Blackletter has previously been classified but Gaelic has not, that is only indicative of the fact that the mainstream overlooked Gaelic typography. (The burden is on you, I believe, to show some mainstream classifier identifying the correct place for putting Gaelic types.) Finally—and thanks by the way for the stimulating conversation—"Gaelic script" is to cló Gaelach as "Roman script" is to cló Rómhánach. -- Evertype·✆ 10:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comparison to Blackletter is interesting to some extent. However, it is purely original research. Wikipedia has to be backed by sources. From what I have gathered, when Gaelic scripts are used for Irish (or related languages), they are generally considered foreign scripts, like Greek/Cyrillic. As the 2nd to last chapter of the McGuinne book states, the typographers from the early 20th century treated Gaelic script without the special characters as a display face for non-Irish, roman typesetting. Text fonts were not produced by those foundries. Therefore, I would concede that Gaelic script could reasonably be placed in either classification depending on the circumstance. However, we don't have sources that use this as a seperate classification (even if we can agree that there are some comparison points between it and Blackletter, although I'd argue that the ubiquity of Blackletter faces from the first western movable type presses, up through the centuries makes it clear why scholars have treated it much differently than Gealic script. You know more about this subject than me, clearly. However, you also seem to have a conflict of interest, and seem to be trying to push a fringe if not completely original theory here. Please keep in mind basic wikipedia principals. With them under consideration, I don't see how we can in all earnesty call Gaelic type a "classification". But I'm clearly open and willing to include the link somewhere else in the template. Unless we have new reliable sources that back up the classification hypothesis, I suggest we move on past that argument, and try to find a new home for the link in this template. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you reverted the Template too quickly. Discussion is not over. I also think that you are interpreting "original research" far too broadly. (I am not new to the Wikipedia nor to its principles.) For instance, you use the word "purely" alongside "original research" (a weasel word, and you say that it is a "theory" and "hypothesis" that Gaelic type is a different classification. I don't believe that either of those latter two words are relevant to "original research". I am, as you pointed out, an expert, and indeed my classification of Gaelic typefaces was published four years before I ever came to the Wikipedia. It is referenced on the Gaelic script page. Now, I'm not averse to continuing discussion of this, but I dispute your analysis completely. Whether Gaelic faces are used for text or for display is irrelevant. Fraktur faces are now no longer used for text, but rather for display. Yet the classification of them as different from the varieties of Antiqua or Roman type is there. Your argument about ubiquity is false: you state that the ubiquity caused scholars to "treat" Blackletter "differently" than Gaelic. This does not follow. They simply ignored the Gaelic faces. They didn't treat them at all. They didn't say "lump these in with thus-and-such other category". And indeed on the contrary, we do have three scholars who have treated Gaelic faces separately from Roman and Blackletter: Lynam, McGuinne, and (with apologies) me. Lynam notes that both "the Black Letter" and "the Irish letter" are analogous and were replaced by Roman type (p. 3). He does not classify Gaelic as Blackletter, and he keeps them both distinct from Antiqua. I have a number of type specimen books in German which distinguish Irish from other types. Faulmann 1888 describes Gutenberg's Bibelschrift, and then classifies Antiqua (Roman), Cursiv (Italic), Fraktur, Schwabacher, and "Neuere Französiche Typen" (Garamond, Etienne, Didot) (pp. 203-206). He treats Irish manuscript hand on p. 196 and gives an example of rectified Petrie type on p. 200, stating that it is "eine der Antiquaform sich nähernde Umbildungen der älteren eckigen Schrift" 'one of the transformations of the older square script which approaches Antiqua letterforms'. Note: he distinguishes Irish from Antiqua. There is a hole in the classification, and that hole's name is "Gaelic". If we do not fill the hole, we have no way to describe Gaelic typography. I do not consider this to be "original research" done on the Wikipedia, even if I have "an interest". Nor is the suggestion "fringe", a word which tends to reflect disreputableness. -- Evertype·✆ 17:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As for the blackletter example, this image shows the 4 major sub-classifications. We'd expect variation between subclassifications. As the name suggests, Rotunda forms are more rounded.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

We do have variation between subclassifications of Gaelic type. My article Gaelic Typefaces: History and Classification has been available since June 2000. -- Evertype·✆ 10:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, Luc Devroye's "Irish Font Scene" web page has adopted the subclassification in my Gaelic Typefaces article. -- Evertype·✆ 20:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been working on this problem off and on all weekend. I have found no classification systems that mention "Gealic script" "Gaelic type" "Irish script" or any other variation. Looking through the local university library and my own library texts on typography, I have been unable to find any that mention "Gaelic script" etc. That said, I have found one text which makes a passing reference to modern uncial typefaces. I've copied the relevant quote from Perfect's The Complete Typographer here. When it comes to actual classification systems, I have found two classification systems that mention uncial: IBM and Codex 80. In IBM, Uncial is a sub-classification of the "script" classification (and if memory serves me correctly, there were 12 or 15 total classifications, all with numerous sub-classifications). Alessandrini's system has 19 categories which are modified by additional parameters. One of the 19 was "uncial". We are currently not using either one of those classification systems in our template, and given that other major classification systems (and ones with less categories) don't include Gaelic or uncial, I think it is a fair assessment to say that uncial is a minor (or little notability) classification, where Gaelic/Irish is unheard of. I believe the current state of the template is flawed, as you point out, (4 links for serif faces, 1 for sans serif) and I believe that is partially due to a lack of articles on corresponding topics (who ever made this template was trying to compile all the blue links, instead of more systematically addressing the issue, even if that meant creating some redlinks). I think we should focus more on an actual classification system, or notable text, to avoid the issues we are having now (and my biggest concern, us publishing a novel classification system found no where else). As for historical classification, they doesn't seem that important to me due to how dated those sources are. As I mentioned above, I found a 1828 Fry specimen book that had uncial faces, listed as Saxon, under the heading Foreign Faces. It's interesting, but doesn't really help us here. I found a couple recent texts on typography that don't even include blackletter, and others that only discuss them in a historic context. I personally don't care that much about blackletter, but a number of notable typographers and historians have. ATypeI does use blackletter as a classification (as does IBM's 9.2 and Codex 80's germanes). Finally, as of right now, because Gaelic type seems to mix and convolute 3 different topics, only one of which is typographic of nature, I'm really not sure if that link even has a place anywhere in this template. An article specifically about a style of typefaces derived from uncial/insular manuscripts would be more appropriate. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Andrew. Pay attention. Lynam wrote a book about Gaelic typefaces. McGuinne wrote a book about Gaelic typefaces. I have published a taxonomy of Gaelic typefaces. Kindly do not ignore these sources. This Wikiproject is about typography. Gaelic typefaces are unique, and they are neither Roman nor Blackletter. If they were, you would have found them in your review of "general books" on typography. That you have not found them is not evidence that Gaelic typefaces are Roman or Blackletter. It is only evidence that some people interested in type have overlooked Gaelic typefaces, which were in use in lead type until 1960 or so. SInce the 1990s there has been a renaissance in digital Gaelic typefaces. I am only one person who has been involved in that (Morley suggested that my 1989 bitmap font Gaillimh was the first usable digital Gaelic typeface). Frankly your attempt to "prove" that Gaelic typefaces have not been classified by others seems a bit bizarre to me. I stipulate that they have been overlooked by many classifiers. That does not mean that they have no classification or that that classification has no place on the Wikipedia. And my publishing a classification FOUR YEARS before I began editing the Wikipedia should certainly qualify that contribution as legitimate. I did not invent it last week. -- Evertype·✆ 01:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

More Gaelic: thinking laterally

I would have no objection to taking this discussion elsewhere or to inviting people hither. But to go up to the top of this discussion, I note that you asked this: Could you give me a citation to a general typography text that includes "Gaelic" as a classification? Well, I think that it is unreasonable to insist that a citation be found in a general typography text for it to be legitimate. In specialist typography texts we do find Gaelic types distinguished from Blackletter types and from Roman types. Surely specialist texts are admissible. We have further subclassifications within each of those major forms of Latin-script typography. Perhaps it is in that direction that the template should develop. Currently it says Classifications: Blackletter · Old style · Transitional · Modern · Slab serif · Sans-serif · Gaelic but in fact the middle 5 are subdivisions of Antiqua. -- Evertype·✆ 17:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I was having a look at User:Markreidyhp/wpie_navbox2 where the section on Counties has two subsections, Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I wonder if "classification" here could not be eventually re-cast thus:

Would that be a direction forward? It is certainly more accurate with regard to Blackletter and Roman. -- Evertype·✆ 17:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think your proposal gives undue weight to Gaelic script. The idea that there are three categories of western typography "Blackletter", "Roman", and "Gaelic" is simply fiction. If that is a harsh word, prove me wrong with sources. We can't be the first place to present this novel classification system of yours (same thing goes for the 3 subclassifications of "Gaelic").-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight? Why? Because you aren't familiar with Gaelic typography? It exists whether or not it is well-known. It is no "fiction" just because you don't know about it, or because ATypI didn't classify it in 1954. Lynam and McGuinne are sources. They are people who wrote books about Gaelic type. They did not classify it as Blackletter, either, and neither has anybody else. Furthermore, the classification of Gaelic subtypes is not "novel": it was published eight years ago, has been cited by Devroyes, and indeed is known to the Irish representatives to ATypI who happen to be giving a lecture on Gaelic types on Thursday 20 November in Dublin. -- Evertype·✆ 01:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not been able to get the Lynam book yet, but McGuinne did not write a book about a typographical classification, per se. He wrote a book about the history of printing for the Irish language. He wrote about a unique character set, not a typographic classification. It is like a book about the history of printing in the Greek alphabet (to some degree, but I readily admit it isn't this black and white, because the Irish script is clearly a Latin derivative, and as Victor Hammer showed us in the 1920s, the scripts are not mutually illegible, though I would argue that what Victor Hammer created with no special sorts, and the rounded 'g' and ascendered 't' and dotted 'i', bears some similarities with Alessandrini's exotypes: a Latin face that simulates a non-Latin face. But that analogy fails when we realize that a 9th century insular manuscript like the Book of Kells was written in Latin...) Anyway, point being, McGuinne cannot be used to put forth the theory that the fonts he describes represent a unique typographical classification. The point of undue weight is to make sure that we don't make items that are not well known appear as well known as items that clearly are well known.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Lynam will not offer you a Blackletter/Roman/Gaelic "classification" table either. That's not what his book was for. He does (as I have shown already) discuss the relation between Blackletter and Roman and the relation between Gaelic and Roman in analogous terms. Nobody disputes that Blackletter and Roman and Italic and Gaelic are not all varieties of Latin. Why do you keep bringing up this "script" identity issue? It is a non-issue. Your reference to the language that Kells was written in shows some real confusion, in my opinion. Latin language and Latin script are not the same thing. I've no idea what you are on about when you refer to "a non-Latin face". Greek and Georgian are non-Latin faces. We are talking about Roman and Blackletter and Gaelic. Gaelic faces are different from both of the others in that they employ insular letterforms. There are other features. I wrote about this in 2000. McGuinne DOES clearl distinguish between Roman type and Gaelic type and so does everybody who deals with Gaelic type. Why is there such push-back from you on this? Regarding your comment "The point of undue weight is to make sure that we don't make items that are not well known appear as well known as items that clearly are well known", I'd like you to back off here. Look at Shaggy_ink_cap. These are well-known to me. I have one deliquescing in my garden as we speak. Are they "well known"? Well, they are to people who live in places where they grow. In Ireland, Gaelic type is well-known. We have studied it and written on it and classified it. Kindly pay attention, Andrew. You are using "weight" thus: "I haven't heard of it, and some books I respect don't mention it, so we should feel confident in disregarding it." And I do not believe that's in the spirit of the Wikipedia. -- Evertype·✆ 02:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

1. The word "Gaelic" doesn't appear anywhere within the article Typeface, which seems indicative that it is not widely considered a major classification.

2. The article Gaelic type is in Category:Blackletter.

I'd guess that it is a National form of blackletter? (Blackletter#National forms)

I agree that we shouldn't indulge in WP:Original research. This template should mirror the structure of our articles, or be referenced with good sources if our articles are still too low-quality. 96.50.4.248 (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(1) can easily be rectified, as can (2). The Wikipedia is not a primary source. No one who has ever studied Gaelic types has considered them to be Blackletter, and no one who has written on Blackletter has devoted a section to Gaelic types. I am not "indulging" in original research! Although I have written on this topic, so have others. It is in my opinion not acceptable for Gaelic types to have no place in the Wikipedia's classification: the status quo does not include them. That is a gap in the encyclopaedia. -- Evertype·✆ 01:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, a Gaelic section was recently in the typeface article for about 4 and a half hours on the 15th. Evertype added the text and used his own personal website as a reference, and I later removed that section. Some classification systems consider uncial type to be covered under blackletter (or both grouped in a larger category), and some differentiate between the two. As I noted above "Gaelic type" doesn't seem to be use in any generalized typographic text. I think the National variation of Blackletter isn't that good of an assessment. All that said, I agree with your last sentence... be referenced with good sources if our articles are still too low-quality.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The proposed text for a Gaelic section in the typeface article is on its talk page because you considered it controversial. The article I wrote in 2000 was one of three references. It is an error to equate "uncial" with Gaelic, although some Gaelic types have uncial features. Gaelic types are typically characterized by insular letterforms, which I have mentioned before, which is mentioned in the Gaelic type article, and which is not insignificant. I am asking again Andrew, why are you insisting that valid references to Gaelic type must be found in "generalized typographic text"? If it is found in "specialized typographic text" (which it is) that must surely be sufficient. Else this encyclopaedia is worthless. And I am quite certain that Wikipedia policy allows specialist texts. -- Evertype·✆ 01:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If I can open up any one of two dozen typographic texts and find the classification terms "Old style/Venitian/Humanist" and "Modern/Didone" and "Sans-serif" and "slab-serif", etc. is it fair (or NPOV) to say that something you can only find on your webpage should be held up as high, and in the same regard, as terms that are found in basically every standard typographic text? We allow specialist texts, sure! But when you take terms from a broad text, then find a specialized text to add another term in order to create a novel list, this is the essence of original synthesis. The result would be a typographical classification system not found anywhere. Wikipedia is not the place to publish such a thing. What I am asking isn't that strange. If we are going to have a list of typographic classification, it should be NPOV. It should be representative of scholarship. And the list should be sourced, not cherry picked from obscure specialized texts.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We know you can open up a dozen typographic texts and find classifications for Roman types and for Blackletter types. This does not mean that Gaelic types are either Roman or Blackletter. They are neither, as they have their own characteristics (such as insular letterforms, as I have said several times now). And Gaelic types can be classified. I made a classification in 2000. I do not say that it is perfect. I do not say that it cannot be improved. But it is a classification. Lynam and McGuinne also describe the differences in Gaelic types, though they did not try to establish a nomenclature for the differences. In any case, my classification was published 8 years ago. I will say again (since you are ignoring it): other people interested in typography have recognized value in that classification (Morley and Devroyes state so on their web pages, and Bolger who is lecturing on Gaelic types tomorrow night at the National Print Museum in Dublin has said that it is useful). What is my Point of View? That Gaelic types and Roman types and Blackletter types are three different kinds of type. Is that Neutral? Yes, it is. I do not find any books on typography that classify Gaelic as Blackletter or Gaelic as Roman. The specialists who do treat Gaelic treat it differently from those. I do not find this to be a "NPOV" violation. Lynam and McGuinne are specialists (as am I) in Gaelic typography. Do you dispute this? If you do not, then it would seem sensible to take this specialist information on board. Please see WP:EXP. -- Evertype·✆ 10:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is an analogy: take Template:Human history. Notice the "Three-age system" of classification: stone, bronze, and iron. Say I find an obscure notable in Sri Lanka book called The Lead Age of Southern Ceylon. I then propose on Template:Human history that we include "Lead Age" right along side Stone, Bronze, and Iron. Would this work? One immediate problem is that the "Three-age system" only has... 3 ages. So a solution could be to find an established system, maybe the hypothetical "Seven-age system" that includes the "Lead Age". But who knows, maybe The Lead Age of Southern Ceylon doesn't mention any of the other 3 ages, and there are no texts that include all 4 ages in one listing. It may be mixing apples and oranges. Just something to think about. Back to this article, I propose a way forward would be to find a typographic text or classification system that we can all agree on to use in this template. We don't necessarily have to limit it to just one system either.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Your edit changing "obscure book" to "notable in Sri Lanka book" does not make your analogy more accurate. Monotype and Linotype made Gaelic types. Victor Hammer and Colm Ó Lochlainn (famous typographers) made Gaelic type. You may wish to try to consider Ireland unimportant (I assume that is what "Sri Lanka" is for) but I say again, Vox's having overlooked Gaelic typography in 1954 is not a justification for the conservatism you are evidently pushing. -- Evertype·✆ 09:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this analogy is false. Lynam and McGuinne's books are not "obscure". My own scholarship isn't all that obscure either. Nor is the distinction I (and Lynam and McGuinne) draw between Gaelic types on the one hand and Blackletter and Roman types on the other some crackpot pseudoscientific theory. It is not the fault of Gaelic types that Vox failed to notice them in 1954. For pity's sake, Andrew. Be reasonable. It seems to me that you are arguing just to "win" (coming up with a false analogy like "Lead Age"). Intelligent scholars have made elsewhere distinctions between Gaelic and Blackletter and Roman. If we cannot do so on the Wikipedia because you are not satisfied that there is a single source (acceptable to you) somewhere that lays out the classification in the same way that VOX-ATypI_classification does. However, as you suggest using several sources, what is wrong with this classification"

Blackletter type: Textualis · Rotunda · Schwabacher · Fraktur

Roman type: Old style · Transitional · Modern · Slab serif · Sans-serif ·

Gaelic type: Angular · Uncial · Grotesque

Lynam and McGuinne certainly distinguish Gaelic from Roman, and Lynam's comments about Blackletter show a distinction of that from Gaelic. You will certainly agree that there are several sources for subclassifications of Blackletter and Roman, will you not? -- Evertype·✆ 10:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

How many sources do we have that say "Three categories of type: Blackletter, Roman, Gaelic"? McGuinne does not mention Blackletter at all. Every single book on the general topic of typography doesn't mention Gaelic type. We have NO SOURCES that say "Blackletter, Roman, Gaelic." Your three category proposal is contrived (and original synthesis). There has to be another solution. I'd propose creating a subheading perhaps related to national or language specific typography. The Irish language is not unique in that printers had to create special fonts to print in that language.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What you say is not true. Lynam discusses all three, and uses the words "Black Letter" and "Gaelic" and "Roman". I have said this before. When you say "The Irish language is not unique in that printers had to create special fonts to print in that language" I do not understand you. Roman typefaces used for French served for Portuguese just fine. But in Ireland, Roman typefaces used for English were not typically used for Irish (from 1571-1960) and a variety of Gaelic types were created to print in that langauge. -- Evertype·✆ 15:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you quote me the parts from Lynam? And I can't believe you are asking me to stop the "undue weight" argument, when the Lynam reference is a single book from 1924 which is focusing on printing in Irish. If Lynam actually does classify Latin typefaces into three, and only three distinct supercategories "Blackletter" "Gaelic" and "Roman", yet not another single source can corroborate that classification.... it's just... I don't understand how you can't see my perspective of things. It's like saying, if we had to go to one book to find out all we can about classifying typefaces, it's Lynam. But because you said Lynam will not offer you a Blackletter/Roman/Gaelic "classification" table either. That's not what his book was for. I'm highly skeptical of your line of reasoning here.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh! All it means is that people who were actively putting together a classification overlooked Gaelic type, and people writing about Gaelic type didn't write about its place in an over-arching classification scheme. I think your insistence that there be a book that does this is just setting the bar far too high, and even saying that, still I have given you a huge amount of information about this topic and I really think that there is a time when the expert is given the benefit of the doubt. All you've given back is "I want a single source". And when I mention Lynam, you say that's not good enough, you want a single source that does typeface classification. Sheesh! This is really frustrating, and I'm finding it hard to assume good faith on your part. Please consider what Angr wrote about this argument. -- Evertype·✆ 16:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"The conflict of nations in Ireland did much to cause the conflict of religions, and both contributed not only to keep printing in the Irish language active but to perpetuate the Irish character in print. In fact, had the reformed religion been established in Ireland as quickly as it was in England, the Irish letter would hardly have survived into print any more than it id in Scotland,—or at most for no longer than the Black Letter survived in England." Lynam, pp 2-3. -- Evertype·✆ 16:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote. I don't believe I'm setting the bar too high; I believe I am following basic wikipedia guidelines. But that is under dispute. It is just odd to me... if we are to present a section about typography "classifications", then why is there so much resistance from you that I ask we cite a source on "typeface classification". Seems quite rudimentary to me. But I think we can probably find some common ground and move forward, some way to present all desired information in a manner that suits us both (assuming willing to compromise from all parties ;) -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

How many typefaces are on the list of typefaces classified as Gaelic? Where is the publication that classifies those typefaces as Gaelic? Oicumayberight (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

To what do you refer? -- Evertype·✆ 15:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi-arbitrary break

I really have put too much thought into this over the past week. Anyway, I think we need to focus on the word "classification", and focus on how to present things in the template. There are probably literally thousands of adjectives that have been used to describe and group typefaces over the years. Just one example, I've seen bitmap (or dot-matrix) typefaces discussed in a couple books on typography. Bitmap type has an important role in the history of typography, especially when it comes to early digital fonts (and raster screen fonts and dot-matrix printing), but there has been recent attention by type designers into recreating these typefaces or creating new ones. "Bitmap fonts" gets 110 times as many google hits as "Gaelic type". Clearly, arguments can be made that "bitmap fonts" is a "classification" of type. But does that mean we need to say "old style, transitional, modern, slab serif, sans serif, and bitmap fonts"? Bitmap font is not one of the major categories of type, and it is not dependent on serif configuration. A list such as that would not be found in any typographic text. Does that mean we have to ignore bitmap fonts? heck no. I just believe it is problematic to start mixing in lesser known categories with the more universal, broad categories. Maybe we could split up the template to have a section for the major classifications, and a section for miscellaneous minor categories. I believe, like "bitmap fonts", "Gaelic type" just seems out of place in the list currently (and I believe such a presentation is original synthesis). I think a reasonable compromise and solution would be to find another way to present "Gaelic type". While it may be a little too specific for the template, I really am leaning towards Gaelic type fitting in a language/script specific classification scheme along side Greek, Cyrillic and others. I wouldn't mind moving blackletter there as well.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You are mixing things up here. "Bitmap type" is a matter of printing technology, not of type design. Roman types (and the many subclassifications we know, like slab-serif and transitional), Fraktur types (and the subclassifications like rotunda and schwabacher), and Gaelic types (with angular and uncial subclassifications) are distinguished by design, whether the printing technology is hot metal, linotype, bitmap, or TrueType. I will reject and oppose an attempt to treat Gaelic like Greek and Cyrillic; Gaelic is a variety of Latin, and the language/script-specific classification scheme you propose is, well.... far more an Original Research suggestion than anything I have said. -- Evertype·✆ 15:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

But here is an idea. Since the focus of modern typography is on the "roman" characters, and that Blackletter and Gaelic typefaces have basically only remained as display faces, perhaps we could have a "historical classifications" section? I mean, how important are the 4 groups of Blackletter to the modern designer? Plus, the Angular Gaelic type draws on the historical insular manuscript tradition, while the Uncial Gaelic type draws on the historical uncial manuscript tradition. I just think there is a better way to group these sections, and would be open to suggestions, if you'd be willing to compromise on separating the major designations of contemporary text faces, from the historical/script based groupings. I'm concerned about the hierarchy of the "classification" section.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You could make the assumption that they considered it "a unique alphabet" but honestly that conclusion would be based on a confusion of terminology. At a certain level of abstraction, "alphabet" could be used that way, but that line of thinking would get us nowhere; Gaelic type specialists no longer consider it that way, and make digital fonts with Unicode character identity. Gaelic type is considered today to be a typeface style. It is not considered "a language-specific alphabet". It is not considered by anybody in the same way that Armenian script is, for instance. I have some of those old dictionaries here in the house. They give alphabet charts because they mix Gaelic type and Roman type and learners may not be familiar with the Gaelic type. Also lexicographers like alphabet tables. :-) Regarding your suggestion, well, no. I don't believe that hiving off Blackletter and Gaelic to "historic classifications" would be a good idea. In the first place, it would conflict with the ATypI classification which you admire. (Adding Gaelic Type to that classification does not conflict with it. And yes, I discussed this matter with Ireland's two delegates to ATypI.) So... regarding the hierarchy, in terms of classification, we are concerned with letterforms, not popularity or contemporaneity of use. I placed Blackletter above Roman above Gaelic because Blackletter was the type first used in printing. Would you propose moving Roman type above Blackletter? I would not object to that. -- Evertype·✆ 16:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to push your own work. If ATypI ever does include Gaelic, then we can present this as such here. But not prematurely. Wikipedia follows sources, it doesn't create news. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have you 19 points of cumulative discussion and have provided abundant evidence that Gaelic is not considered identical with Roman, that Gaelic is not considered identical to Blackletter, and that Blackletter is not considered identical to Roman. That makes three. I am not "pushing my own work" though my own work (done 8 years ago, 1 year before the Wikipedia was created and four years before I started editing it) is part of the cumulative argument that these categories exist as distinct even if one single source does not list them together'. (In fact ISO 15924 does distinguish the three but even that isn't good enough for you. Whether you are an admin or not, I am beginning to doubt whether you actually understand the Wikipedia practices. This discussion is not about "creating news". I think that if this was violating OR and NPOV you would have found people speaking up and saying so. That's not what Angr said. Can't we move on and work to improve the articles now? Or do you have to keep going on about how it "seems" like A+B=C to you? -- Evertype·✆ 19:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the sub-classifications of Blackletter types to modern designers of Blackletter types are relevant. I know that from my own work as a modern designer of Gaelic types the sub-classifications were necessary, which is why I developed the system in the first place. For my part, I think that the template is now in good shape (though you may wish to put Roman above Blackletter as I mentioned. I don't think a "Classification" section and a "Historic classification" section makes sense because we make the classifications today. It's true that Roman is popular today and the other two less so, but that is incidental to the classification. -- Evertype·✆ 16:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Chapters?

I want chapters. Chapters are preceeded by chapter titles, often in another font than the paragraphs. Chapters are also often in old literature started by a mega-huge letter, often decorative, that runs in the first paragraph. So I think chapter sectioning is relevant for typography. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 16:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Initials ? (E-Kartoffel (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC))

Asian typography?

I'm not an expert at typography, but I think that adding a section for Asian typography with its relevant sublinks would be a good idea. Articles concerning Asian typography can be found here — [1].

I think that a Western typography (Roman/Latin and its derivatives (with subgroups for each language), Cyrillic (with subgroups for each language), etc. typographies)/Eastern typography (with subgroups for each language) divisions would also be something worth considering. I'm waiting for a respond. --Ve4ernik (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

emphasis as a classification

I don't see emphasis as a classification on the same level as the others. I preferred the previous organizational structure to the recent change. Perhaps it could go under a "style" group? The previous "font" group was sort of a miscellaneous group, and I can agree that may be problematic. But the solution isn't to create a new list in the classification group. Would anyone mind if I reverted?-Andrew c ^[talk] 12:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Please revert this. -- Evertype·✆ 08:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Your comment was from July. I'll do it then. -- Evertype·✆ 08:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Uncial is not a Gaelic type, but vice versa

Uncial is a more broad conception. It appeared firstly in the Continental Europe, in Rome and Greece. Its later development in Ireland and Britain is secondary. Reckoning Uncial as a variation of Gaelic type is wrong, confusing and "gaelocentric".--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• As nobody has answered, I will move Uncial to {{European calligraphy}}.--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I am undoing this. Unicial may be a number of things, but it is a primary variant of Gaelic type. -- Evertype·✆ 23:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like the Latin alphabet is a variant of the English alphabet. If for you Uncial is Gaelic, it does not mean so for everybody. Very gaelocentric and marginal view. May be at least you should, for example, look at dictionaries such as Oxford? Your reverting is arbitrary. Gaelic type has already its own article, but Uncial must have its own. Now we have two or three (including Insular) articles for the British and Irish scripts, but we have not any for the Greek and Roman ones, ridiculous!--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I see you feel passionately about this, but in fact Gaelic Type has two forms, Angular (= based on Insular script) and Uncial (= based on Uncial script). Roman Type and Blackletter Type have their own forms. Both Roman Type and Blackletter Type ultimately based on Carolingian minuscule (which derived from a half-uncial, but neither of these types have a standard subtype which is Uncial. of course no classification is perfect, but the one here does not seem to me to be particularly misleading. Note too that Insular script and Uncial script (the links from Gaelic in the template) are links to manuscript hands, not to typefaces. If you think there should be an article on Uncial type, perhaps you should start one, and perhaps that might find a place in the template. But I don't agree with the changes you proposed, and I certainly don't think you should impose them on the template without consensus. -- Evertype·✆ 10:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Italics

Is there a typographical explanation why italics is missing (probably together with bold and such)? Asks the typographic layman: -DePiep (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ordering pages on a sheet: what's is called?

What is the word for the process to order pages on a sheet, two sided, so that after the print-fold-cut they are in the right order & orientation? (And should that word be in this template, top row Id'say?). -DePiep (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Overstrike

Shouldn't overstriking be added to Typeface-anatomy? ⇒ Zhing-Za, they/them, talk 19:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)