Category talk:Typefaces by style
 | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
overly specific categories
editI'm a bit concerned about categorizing faces by the style of single, specific characters, e.g. Category:Looptail G, Category:Opentail G. While discussing the difference between these styles is interesting to note in typography, I think categorizing based on this approaches the realm of trivia. Categorizing by the style of a group of characters, e.g. Category:Lowercase numerals typefaces, is probably OK. Do we also need "category:open 4" and "category:closed 4", "category:single-story a" and "category:double-story a", and so on and so on etc. for every character that has common variants? It could quickly get crazy. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree with this concern, and will add that looptail seems quite an esoteric term and I am curious as to the source. I have taught typography for nearly 20 years using the following references and texts: "Typographic Design: Form and Communication" by Carter, Day and Meggs; "A Type Primer" by John Kane; The Encylopaedia of Typefaces" by Jaspert, Barry & Johnson; "Letters of Credit" by Walter Tracy; "Thinking with Type" by Ellen Lupton' The Elements of Typographic Style by Robert Bringhurst; "Typography" by Friedl Ott and Stein; 20th-Century Type by Lewis Blackwell; and "From Gutenberg to Opentype" by Robin Dodd. What is far more widely used to described a lowercase g with a closed upper and lower bowl is the term double-story g. This is not a case of usage differing between say Australian, British, Canadian and American English, but appears to be the case across English speaking literature concerning typography. CApitol3 (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
CApitol3, I have noticed your corrections to G and will update the relating categories. Thank you for your contribution. ChristTrekker, I agree that this is a category of less importance than e.g. serif vs. sans-serif. Nevertheless Wikipedia can perfectly handle extra both major and minor categorisations and allows for representing the different categories according to their importance. See taxonomy of organism. I hope this eases your concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SvGeloven (talk • contribs) 09:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)