Typography Template‑class

This template 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 Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The navbox as it stands is showing many typographic signs and symbols that are not punctuation marks. Does anyone object if I create a very similar template:Navbox typographic symbols and then move these symbols out of the punctuation navbox into it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems ok but you need to fix the pages for them that refer to this to refer to that one.Spitzak (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree a refinement is needed. But isn't this separation a non-difference? List of typographical symbols lists things like comma, exclamation mark. First question: which are the punctuation marks we want in here? -DePiep (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drat, yes of course, you are right. All punctuation marks are typographical symbols but the converse is not true. But it remains useful to have a navbox for punctuation...

How about changing the navbox title to Punctuation marks and other typographic symbols? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure. Anyway, any set required more organisation (grouping) for overview. -DePiep (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe just change the title to "Typographic symbols"? You could also rename the template to match, leaving a reference at this name for now.Spitzak (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds good too. Any idea can be explored in ((Navbox punctuation/sandbox)) without harm, and even ((Navbox punctuation/sandbox2)).

Since I don't know about the subtle differences & overlaps between typography and punctuation, I better stop "helping" here ;-). Open for (tech?) questions, just ping. -DePiep (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although the big glyphs are easy to pick out and mouse-over tells you what they are, the little ones are indistinguishable. Short of recreating the enormous side-bar, is there a better way to identify these? Text beside each one would be ugly, how about another list line containing only the names (but in the same sequence)? I think this would be a useful enhancement in any case.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Omitting the images would be missing the essence, IMO.

Adding texts looks good, because whatever the cost it should be clear.

What about this: more grouping by obvious grounds, and add the group name. Like "brackets, mathematical signs, property signs".

This also introduces graphical separation (rows), which supports the overview enormously.

When text is between symbols, we can re-introduce the grey backlground for the signs (want me to demo?). -DePiep (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definitely no suggestion of omitting the images, that really would miss the point.

There are two ways of doing it:

• & ampersand ’' apostrophe * asterisk ⁂ asterism @ at sign \ backslash • bullet (etc) (interspersed)

or

• & ’  ' * ⁂ @ \ •
  

ampersand apostrophe asterisk asterism at signbackslash bullet etc (in two rows)

I had thought that the second would be better but no, horrible. But the key point is that the names are really useful and should be added,

Grey background sounds good, please demo. As pale as you can make it to assist partially sighted readers (but not so pale that you disable them the other way!)

Yes, the grouping idea s definitely worth a try. Let's see it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, but could take some time. Could also be

"& (ampersand) · ’' (apostrophe) · "

"& (ampersand) · ’' (apostrophe) · "

Just playing. -DePiep (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just came on to say exactly the same thing: the marks don't need to be hyperlinked given that the names beside them are linked, the more so when the underlining that indicates hyperlinking distracts from the actual glyph. Extreme case: ͟  (underscore). So yes, the second definitely. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sandbox demo

• See ((Navbox punctuation/sandbox)). Pls do more grouping. Maybe a group may need a groupname. -DePiep (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The tooltip popup and/or preview worked pretty good for showing what one you are on, but it did require them to be in alphabetical order to make it possible to find a name. If you group them this will not work as they won't be in alphabetical order. However having symbol+name in a row (first example above) probably would work and would allow grouping. Don't put titles on the groups as people will think they are "official" titles.Spitzak (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The same thought occurred to me: risk of confusion with the Unicode Consortium 'Block' names (which we don't want to take on for a variety of reasons). But it still makes sense to have a logical ordering of rows, even if it is not exposed.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually the edit that was done (putting all the pairs at the end) looks pretty good, though I would remove the newline. In general there must be an intense effort to avoid bloat of this thing or it will get replaced with yet another one. That means no group titles. But I would try putting symbol+name interspersed just to see how it looks.Spitzak (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you looked at the sandbox? Isn't that how it is? Either way, I like this sandbox version and can't see a reason for more grouping: it's not like the list is overwhelming,--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you referring to the /sandbox, Spitzak?

No, to the current template:Navbox punctuation which is showing an edit by DePiep to put all the paired brackets together.Spitzak (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd prefer some grouping above alphabetical order, b/c the name is less to the point as is the image itself. So I prefer grouping all the ?, ! variants. That is how the eye sees extremely fast what it is looking for (pattern etc.). The /sandbox needs more separation (between groups) imo. -DePiep (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at the ((Navbox punctuation/sandbox)) now. I think the bg color should be removed, and all the newlines removed, so this is more compressed vertically. When you resize it too small horizontally the individual lines wrap anyway, destroying any attempt to use this to group items.Spitzak (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My re. The background color is a bit extreme now, but even when in lighter shade is has a very useful function: it helps distinguishing between the marks and all other text & background. It nicely highlights the marks the navbox is about. Consider the reader who is newer to the topic (unlike us).

About the grouping and ordering: I disagree, it does not help any reader making it a single long line wrapped by width only (sentence-wrapping). That is what the live ((Navbox punctuation)) shows now: a mess (sure everything is in there).

Also. Having everything in one wrapped line and depending on screen width to make lines legible as you point to: if that is needed. we must install that improvement anyway anyhow beforehand, enforced. And, when we start a group a at newline, a smaller box (or screen) does not disrupt that (we might use indention for a 2nd line by wrapping; detail).

I think my main question to you, Spitzak, is: what do you have in mind? No grouping at all? What order (sequence)? I will create ((Navbox punctuation/sandbox2)), for you to edit as you like. Feel free to ask (technical) support, to make it show your idea. Does this help? -DePiep (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to me that each group would need to be labelled (punctuation, basic math, commercial, mark-up) to help the reader find the symbol wanted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added examples in /sbox. Basic navbox options!. -DePiep (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That to me is good enough to go live. Just need to add thin space to space, and 'obelus' needs to be changed to division sign. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, currently there are not enough grouptitles (lefthand, on blue), only some examples. Suggestions appreciated. About thinspace: isn't that supposed to be covered by Space (punctuation)? The article lists half a dozen of regular space forms & widths. Maybe not dive into form-variants here. -DePiep (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And, take a good look at the sequence and grouping principles. I've only made a rough one, still too random. -DePiep (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks pretty good but I am very worried that people will read the titles on the left as some kind of "fact" about what the category is called or what symbols belong in that category. I would avoid this by not putting any titles on the left.Spitzak (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK then, especially since it is hard to find good names for all rows. I hope current grouping & ordering (in lines) is strong enough to help finding one. -DePiep (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose to go live with current version. No big errors, and better than current version. Also, we can keep improving. -DePiep (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree. I can understand the logic of Spitzak's concerns but I think the risk is minimal with the current version but yes it could certainly become an issue if we do so more extensively - to avoid wp:OR, we would have to use the Unicode Consortium block names, which would really not be helpful at all. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done. (Diameter sign not added). - DePiep (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A 'nice to have' would be an explanation of how the formatting mechanism has been separated from the list of entities. Someone in the future may need to maintain it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a proposal at talk:Fleuron (typography)#Move to specific aldus leaf, create general fleuron (typography) to split that article. Other voices are welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've changed the link in the template, understanding that it is a class of glyphs, not a single glyph (depending on one's categories, certainly this is also true for the letter a, ɑ, ᴀ). I think it'd be fine if it were renamed 'hedera' as well—i just think the class versus singular glyph distinction is being oddly applied only here. Remsense留 20:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]