Talk:Mistral (typeface)

Specimen, edits, references[edit]

Hi, Chowbox. Your reverting has deleted copy edits with referenced info, as well as the new specimen. The specimen is designed to show more than the sample in the previous infobox. It shows a larger complete lowercase showing, larger select characters, a word sample pertinent to the culture time period of the face's creation, and a large lowercase to invite comparison with other faces when opened side by side. I am one of about a hal dozen people working to bring referenced information, new links and to intnetionally replace the info box with a specimen and caption. There is no information pertaining to the designer, date foundry or source not now included in the new specimen and caption. Please' give it a chance. Best, Jim CApitol3 03:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I prefer the infobox. Easier to scan at a glance.—Chowbok 03:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you shouldn't remove redlinks. I've restored those. —Chowbok 03:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, why do you want red links, they don't function right? Jim CApitol3 03:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because when the article does get created, it's much harder to backtrack through all the articles that might point to it and restore the links. Also, the number of red links pointing to a nonexistent page is used as a barometer for what articles most need to be created. When Wikipedia was started, most links were redlinks—it would have never been as built up as it was without them. You should never delete redlinks unless you're reasonably certain that the subject of the link will never (and shouldn't) have an article. —Chowbok 03:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did not know this. But my god, some articles seem to be better than 40-50 percent red and blue text. Imposible to read. Even he Wiki style book warns of this. I mean some people can place brackets about good near to half text easily, but if it is not pertinenet to the story, why do they do it? I saw someone had made a blue link to the word "American" pointing the United States page, is there really anyone on the planet who has Internet connection that hasn't heard of the U.S. if the article were specific to things American, maybe I could see it. Well, thanks again for the explanation. Jim CApitol3 03:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right; some people are link-crazed. I agree there are too many links in a lot of articles. But in this case, I think having links to the designer and foundry is reasonable. —Chowbok 03:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarity with Minstrel[edit]

I've seen in many font libraries another font called "Minstrel", which is almost, but not quite identical to Mistral. Does anyone know what the story is behind this? Is Minstrel a deliberate rip-off of Mistral? Is it an older version whose name was misspelled? They're not the same font, but if you saw one by itself you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference. Side by side you can see some subtle differences - Minstrel seems slightly more slanted than Mistral, and the connecting lines are slightly longer, but they're otherwise pretty much the same. The copyright notices on them are (seen in Windows font viewer):

It's notable that there are no company names in common between the two, though they both claim 1992 as their copyright date. Any idea what's going on here? Lurlock (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]