Talk:Ming (typeface)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chinese character "Book" This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Uroko? Really?

I'm interested to read of uroko. However, the largest Japanese dictionary I have doesn't mention this particular use of the word. When I asked an acquaintance who's a graphic designer with a pretty good (for a designer, rather than a typographer) knowledge of typography, he too hadn't heard of it. We discussed the delightfully simple character 大. At 96pt or so, the details become interesting. In a minchō font, there's a distinct blob at the right side of the first stroke; this he said was called migi-no-kaeshi 右の返し (by analogy with calligraphy). At the top of the second stroke (surprisingly, in the goshikku font we used as well as the minchō) is something akin to a serif, which he says is called serifu セリフ.

I don't claim that this man is right (and he wouldn't claim to be an expert). But I do wonder about uroko. Somebody with more time than I (and also access to an excellent library) might look this up. -- Hoary 05:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Name

If this is a typeface of Chinese origin and still the most commonly used one in China, why is its Japanese name being used as the article name? 142.110.227.163 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps someone should point out a reason for the Japanese name. if not it shouold be changed to Ming since it is the first name of the intro. ian 01:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese name is the customary term in English.

[edit] MingLiU

I don't know if someone wants to add this somewhere (probably doesn't, since there's no way anyone can find a citation for this), but maybe someone may find this useful. So I'll put this here.

Before MingLiU (i.e., in Windows 3.x days), the default system font on Chinese-capable Windows is called "MingLi" (細明體 Xì Míng Tĭ, lit. "Ming Light"), which, when "reconstructed" back to Chinese, would very likely be "明儷", Míng Lì.

When Windows 95 was introduced, Microsoft released a new version of MingLi, called MingLiU (新細明體 Xīn Xì Míng Tĭ, lit. "New Ming Light"). The "U" in MingLiU most likely refers to "Unicode", so the English name is actually something like "明儷U[nicode]" Míng Lì U[nicode].

In later versions of Windows there is yet another version called "PMingLiU" ("Proportional" MingLiU), where the English portion of the font is "proportionally spaced".—Gniw (Wing) 20:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Propose move

I have proposed that this article be moved to "Ming (typeface)" or "Ming Dynasty (typeface)" because:

  • The current name can't be typed using most International or Asian keyboard
  • The current name is a phonetic transcription, which doesn't capture the meaning of the name.
  • The name of the font simply means "Ming" or "Ming Dynasty" in all three languages, so why not translate it as such. --Voidvector 07:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. Strong Support: "Minchō" is merely the Japanese variant of this name.--Ryoske 02:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support: The original source of the typeface name is Chinese, variant names (Minchō, Myeongjoche, etc.) should redirect there. --Lost-theory 20:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    1. BTW: I added Ming (typeface) to the disambiguation page for Ming. --Lost-theory 20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support: There is no evidence that Mincho, especially with that bar, is a common term in English at all. We should avoid foreign terms and use more "English" terms where possible. --Sumple (Talk) 10:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the page in accordance with consensus. --Sumple (Talk) 12:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The start of the article is a mess!

Is there some way of cleaning up the start of the article:

Ming or Minchō typeface (Traditional Chinese: 明體; Simplified Chinese: 明体; Pinyin: Míngtǐ; Korean: 명조체/明朝體, Myeongjoche; Japanese: 明朝体, Minchōtai;), also known as Song typeface (Traditional Chinese: 宋體; Simplified Chinese: 宋体; Pinyin: Sòngtǐ) in China...

These different names should be collected in one place, leaving the article itself to read:

Ming or Minchō typeface, also known as Song typeface in China...

How should this be done? Do people have any thoughts?

Bathrobe 02:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And the list is a mess too!

A long list of typeface names, with a lot of distribution information, but no clue as to the actual difference of the fonts. It doesn't even explain the difference between Mincho and PMincho. (PMincho has proportional halfwidth characters, which can improve the layout, depending of course on the software used.) Shinobu 13:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Korean section

The Korean history section states that Batang is the official standard name of this font category in Korean. On the other hand, Microsoft claims to own the trademark Batang. Has MS really trademarked a generic term, or is this really a standard in Korean? There's something that's wrong in the context.

I'd like the section to at least cite some sources to support its claims. --Himasaram 10:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typeface? Not really

One problem with this article - and several others that refer to the same concepts - is that it refers to "Ming typeface" and "Song typeface." This is an incorrect usage in English, as Ming/Song is a category of typefaces, just as "serif" is a category of typefaces, while "Times New Roman" is a typeface.

This can be fixed in any of several possible ways. Probably the simplest is to pluralize "typeface" in this context ("Ming typefaces are" instead of "Ming typeface is"), and changing the verbs to match. I will go through and do this. Thomas Phinney (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, did that. Sometimes it worked better to refer to "type style" instead, but the revised version seems to work much better. The other change that I am a bit reluctant to make is to the typeface box at the top right. This is a nice summary of information, except that it is the kind of box used for a typeface, not for a category of typefaces. (The "Category: Serif" entry is a bit odd, but the rest is useful.) Thomas Phinney (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)