Category talk:Typefaces by style

Typography Category‑class

	This category 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
Category	This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

overly specific categories[edit]

I'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]