Talk:Calibri

message: If this typeface was not created until 2006 (as indicated) how did it win an award in 2005? 69.197.169.65 03:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you have anything to say regarding this? --Saqib (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  - sure, here's my understanding. De Groot finished the design of Calibri in 2004 as part of the development of what became Office 2007, and you could download it as a beta soon after that. It didn't get "publicly released" with Office until 2007 because the rest of Office was a bit late ;) He's joking about it on Twitter at the moment. Blythwood (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The public beta release was 6 June 2006, according to Newsweek. —CrazyDreamer (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait.  the Newsweek story qoutes Dawn story and Dawn story quotes Wikipedia.. it says  "The first public beta version, according to a Wikipedia entry, was released on June 6, 2006 ". --Saqib (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch,  Going into that article and following the references further eventually yields a trail of broken links that left me digging through the Wayback Machine. The key here is that it was first publicly released with the first public beta of Windows Vista, whose date can be found here with various other outlets picking up the news over the following 24–48 hours (but not repeating the date). It would have been available to a more limited beta pool for some time before that, but I cannot verify exactly when it actually made it into the Longhorn/Vista private test versions. —CrazyDreamer (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Award in 2005?

message: Should we make one page for all six "Vista C" fonts? That makes more sense to me than having six typography stubs floating around. ModusOperandi 04:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One Page?

message: Whats up in the two example images the lower case "g" characters being different?  One is regular and one is italicized...but I can't think of a font that changes its g's so much between regular and italic. --Hergio 17:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not uncommon; it's simply got proper italic forms, rather than the oblique forms you migh be expecting.  Look at the "e" and "f" and so on as well as the "a" and "g".  Compare serif fonts like ITC Bookman. — Haeleth Talk 14:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perpetua, designed by Eric Gill, has a particularly striking difference between the roman and the italic "g". —— Shakescene (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

text: , no it's not. Calibri italic has an alternate double-storey italic 'g' if you prefer it, which I put in the sample. It's not the default. (De Groot's company used to display this on the technical manual for Calibri on his website, but it seems to be broken at the moment.) Blythwood (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lowercase g? 

message: Should we mention the worries over Microsoft essentially making their default documents incomptible with all other word processors since the default font is now a proprietary one? -Fuzzy 20:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forced compatibility? 

message: The article suggests that Arial has been the default font for Excel, but at least on the Mac version, the default font is Verdana. Theshibboleth 05:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excel 

message: Why is this a humanist type face? Should we remove that phrase? --Walter Görlitz 23:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Humanist" is an adjective describing typefaces that resemble Humanist. This could be confusing to people who aren't familiar with the jargon and think it has something to do with humanism, though. 194.151.6.70 12:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, but as mr. Görlitz has shown, it's quite possible to miss the contextual meaning. If you didn't know Humanist, how are you supposed to know that a "humanist typeface" isn't a typeface designed by humanists? I'm not sure this can really be solved, though. Maybe an article on Humanist that we could link to would help (presently humanist is a disambig page that does explain the typesetting jargon, but only as an item on a list). 194.151.6.70 14:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A link to the dab page is better than leaving the term completely unexplained. I'm adding it. —Angr 11:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humanist? 

message: I can only read about 2 seconds worth of Calibri before my eyes hurt. I have also read that people reading this font get headaches. From what I can see the font is too bold for screen reading and the words and sentences tend to blend together.-ps --203.52.154.133 (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Find references to back these claims up, and they can be included in the article. TalkIslander 01:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've mentioned it here because I think there should be research done on it. As for references I refer to blog comments, http://msmvps.com/blogs/bill/archive/2006/10/05/more-on-Calibri-font-_2E002E00_.aspx and http://www.oooninja.com/2008/01/calibri-linux-vista-fonts-download.html I also think the spaces between the words are too small (for example compare Calibri 11pt with Verdana 10pt in Outlook) for me I can see words but it takes a lot longer to comprehend when has been written. I was surprised to find that this font was intended to improve screen readability. I can post screen shots if needed -ps --203.52.154.133 (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That link to the blog comment on oooninja.com was very useful, but it works just fine if you access it directly instead of needlessly going through lifehacker.com. I fixed it. Bostoner (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

text:  Blog comments are not acceptable as sources on Wikipedia.  -/- Warren 02:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

text: in reply to "keep fanboy opinion out" & "At some point it will dawn on OpenOffice fans that the popularity of the Vista fonts will be a problem for them." This is hilarious... you should look up the term "Projection" in the subject of Psychology. --59.96.191.84 (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I removed the following:
In a survey conducted by researchers at Wichita State University, Calibri was the most popular font for e-mail, instant messaging, and PowerPoint presentations. It also ranked highly for use in website text.
because upon reading the source, such did not seem to be the case. For example, Times New Roman was rated 2% higher than Calibri for willingness to be used on the Web.  "Popular" was also the wrong word choice, as it implies it is used more than any alternative; rather, the study's participants were remarking on appropriateness for use in certain contexts, and the font list was small and finite. --AlanH (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed "most popular" claim

message: This article states that Calibri is distributed with Windows XP, however I have never experienced this. In fact I've never seen it on a Pre-Vista system with anything lower than Office 2007 installed. -- Nik Rolls (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distributed with Windows XP 

message: (I'm new at this so plese put me right if I go about things wrongly. - Thanks)
The above sentence is not clear to me.  Does it mean that Calibri works well on a computer where ClearType is available but not well where simpler rendering is done?  In that case Calibri might be best avoided where maximum compatibility is important.
Rjarvi1 (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Calibri was designed by Lucas de Groot for Microsoft to take advantage of Microsoft's ClearType rendering technology." 

message: Do you find the cognitive dissonance jarring too, or is it just me?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.44.91 (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unique features, which are common nowadays"? 

message: The Cleartype family of fonts are smaller than normal fonts, which means they often break webpages or documents if a font subsitute is applied (eg: Arial, etc...). This complaint can be found on numerous blogs and such, but I've not found a formal article on the subject. If anyone finds one, can you link?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.105.7.44 (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smaller than normal fonts 

message: I strongly disagree that 'I' and 'l' are homoglyphs in Calibri. They are very different in height (1300 vs. 1393 units on 2048/em) and visibly different in stem thickness (172 vs. 165 units) and glyph width (516 vs. 470 units). Older sans serifs often have identical ascender and cap heights, for instance Gill Sans, Helvetica (and its impostor Arial) and Univers (the latter also have identical glyph widths for 'I' and 'l'). In these cases 'l' and 'I' could be considered homoglyphs (though the stem widths are not identical, of course), but not in Calibri, because of the height difference. Paragraph removed.  84.208.236.180 (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Homoglyph "is one of two or more characters, or glyphs, with shapes that either appear identical or cannot be differentiated by quick visual inspection." You can quickly distinguish l from I in Calibri only if you can compare it to a nearby uppercase letter in the same row of text - see this example where the first row reads abclmino (all lowercase letters) and the second row reads abclMINO (4  lowercase and 4 uppercase letters). This homoglyph can be easily exploited in phishing e-mails when writing URLs, e.g. www.paypal.com, www.google.com. --Rprpr (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Homoglyph?

message: 109.200.228.69 (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  As who was designed Calibri? 

message: I have noticed that Calibri -- not Calibri Light, just Calibri -- contains a duplicate glyph for the combining half-rings (a̜ a̹).  The "Combining Left Half Ring Below" (U+031C) seems to replace its "Combining Right" (U+0339) counterpart, meaning they are encoded as two different glyphs but they display as one and the same: the left half-ring.
I don't know if this is worth adding to the article, but it might give someone a heads-up if they're about to use the typeface to write in the International Phonetic Alphabet: those diacritics are used to express respectively "more" and "less" lip-rounding on vowels.
--86.150.215.183 (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug: Combining half-rings ("more/less rounded"  IPA diacritics) 

message: Please restore the original content of this article. It has been recently badly vandalized. 
Thank you
-a Ali.muslim (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. (Guessing ths is already fixed, and that the previous responder forgot to remove this request tempate) (t) Josve05a (c) 02:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 11 July 2017 

message: I do not understand what is the dispute tbh. I learned that this typeface is a part of a judicial case currently in Pakistan, but what are the reasons for including or not including it, from both of you? Emphrase - 💬 | 📝 11:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The investigation team that was probing the corruption case found that the docs submitted to them by guilty party are fake, on the grounds that if they were signed in 2006, how can  the Calibri fonts ( released for usage in 2007) be used on them in 2006. Hope you get it? Honestly , we still need to find out when actually the fonts were released for commercial usage. The sources that are currently being used were published today and could be unauthentic. --Saqib (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Dispute 

message: Change "In 2017, the font was used as evidence in a Pakistani government corruption case Panama Papers case (Pakistan)." to "In 2017, JIT report raises doubts about the use of 'Calibri' font in evidence papers submitted to them in Panama Papers case (Pakistan)."
Remove "Date released	2007" info. This is not correct.
Add under availability "This font has been set as a default in Microsoft Office 2007. However. it was available in windows vista before Microsoft Office 2007.
 https://www.wfonts.com/font/calibri 
 https://www.microsoft.com/typography/fonts/family.aspx?FID=287 
I would welcome to further discuss if required. And would request you to please run a research on your end as well.
Thank you
-ali Ali.muslim (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: the first because this is the first time JIT is mentioned so some background or at least a link is required for the reader.  the second, as no one has opposed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:    you removed release date which I oppose. please see Talk:Calibri#Consensus_version. --Saqib (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You did not comment for 3 days so I assumed this was uncontroversial. Is there consensus that the release date should remain? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't responded here because the page was locked and so i thought it didn't make sense to respond to requests being made until we reach a consensus. The version below by  says "released to the general public on January 30, 2007" so I think we should go with it and should state in the infobox as well that the font was released in 2007. I am open to hear what Fvasconcellos suggest. --Saqib (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I have reverted for now. But I don't understand why you felt that it didn't make sense to respond. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 11 July 2017 

message: The edits on the Calibri Wikipedia page came within hours of the JIT Report being released. I've done some digging around and all the IP addresses seem to point towards the Pakistan Muslim League (N) social media team trying to manipulate facts by making unfounded edits.
The first edit was made on 06:24 GMT on 11 July 2017 by IP address 119.153.59.151 where several mentions of the font being released in 2007 were wrongfully edited to 2004. The IP address has been tracked down to Karachi, Pakistan at .http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/119.153.59.151 Wikipedia editors stepped in and made the proper corrections. The font was created in 2004 but released in 2007.
The second edit was made on 08:11 GMT on 11 July 2017 by IP address 203.99.59.46 where several mentions of the font being released in 2007 were wrongfully edited to 2004 again. The IP address has been tracked down to Islamabad, Pakistan at , which narrows it down to Street 54 in Sector F10 of Islamabad.http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/203.99.59.46 
The second edit was made on 08:14 GMT on 11 July 2017 by IP address 115.186.172.35 where the creation date of the font was edited to 2002, release date to 2004 and the creator of the font replaced from Lucas de Groot to Qasim Saeed. The IP address has been again tracked down to Islamabad, Pakistan at , which narrows it down the same address as above (Street 54, F10, Islamabad).http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/203.99.59.46 This same IP address made edits to Westminster School and College where an additional name was added to the article under "director" heading - Yashkun Sherdil Ismail.
The latter two locations are quite interesting since PML social media team is suspected of being based in Sector F10. I'm going to dig around some more and try and update everyone as soon as I get more information. If this is true, Maryam Nawaz is directly tampering with Wikipedia articles and it should be exposed to the media.
GO NAWAZ GO  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.109.155.159 (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan Muslim League Social Media Cell Vandalism 

message: Please do not let people edit this font as people are trying to save a corrupt political party on corruption charges by changing this entry.
https://thenextweb.com/world/2017/07/11/microsofts-default-font-is-at-the-center-of-a-government-corruption-case/#.tnw_S2KdZxvB 175.156.124.221 (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done Already protected until July 18. (t) Josve05a (c) 02:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 11 July 2017 

message: 188.248.38.166 (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (t) Josve05a (c) 02:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 11 July 2017 

message: It's rare that a Wiki article gets directly embroiled in an international level political scandal. The speed and efficiency with which this article was protected and its integrity preserved by the Admins is an example and proof that the Wiki model works. One of the Admin's protected summary even made the news: "[protected] from editing until July 18, 2017, or until editing disputes have been resolved"" https://www.dawn.com/news/1344654. Thank you all! Cheerz Code16 (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this one received a lot of press coverage. Kudos to . --Saqib (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Proud Moment for Wikipedia! Thank You Admins & Editors 

message: I here ask you to please revert Calibri back to July 4, 2017 edit. It is from July 10 and onward that people, majorly from Pakistan, have tried to edit that article and tried to add false information to accredit findings of JIT report. Before that this article has no mention of "release date" and many have tried to change its creation date. This JIT report was submitted before Supreme Court on July 10, 2017 and people have tried to accredit claims in that JIT report by changing Wiki article. The current version has locked false information and has no citations for "release date". So this article should be reversed back to where it is not controversial.
--Awaisraad (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert Calibri Article to July 4, 2017 Edit 

message: Please dont allow to edit this article. 2.50.66.161 (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done. This article is already protected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 12 July 2017 

message: }} 175.107.200.178 (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 12 July 2017 

message: Hallo 
For this (Calibri) page correction in needed for the following sentence:
In 2017, the font was used as evidence in a Pakistani government corruption case Panama Papers case (Pakistan).[3]
It should be corrected by inserting the following Sentence:
In 2017, the font was used as evidence in 
(at the time Prime Minister of Pakistan) Nawaz Shareef 
and Family corruption case Panama Papers case (Pakistan).[3]
Reason:
It would be helpful for the Reader in the future and our next Generations, 
in case the Reader access this page after several years, 
and it also makes it more clear that who exactly did this 
corruption in Panama Papers Case (Pakistan).
Thank you Very Much!
Khan
A Pakistani Citizen 194.25.158.132 (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 12 July 2017 

message: Mention it completely that it was used by Mariam Nawaz Sharif Daughter of Prime Minister of Pakistan to justify her property bought in 2006. Even before the release date. The document were yeared 2006. And was presented in Supreme Court of Pakistan. 39.50.39.176 (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 12 July 2017 

message: this font was started in 2004 167.98.11.50 (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  this font was started in 2004 

message: 86.98.74.245 (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 12 July 2017 - GO NAWAZ GO 

message: We're told
:For use in other operating systems, such as GNU/Linux, cross-platform use and web use, it is not available as a freeware.
And we're told exactly the same thing about Candara and Cambria (typeface). (I didn't look at the others.)
I hadn't known that "freeware" was countable. I'd start by removing the "a", resulting in "not available as freeware".
But that's still bizarre. There seems to be an implication here that, aside from "cross-platform use" (whatever that might be) and for "web use", and for Windows and OS X, it is available as freeware. Thus, using a Windows computer to write the CSS for a web page, I mustn't use 
:.pushingmyluck {font-family:candara, sans-serif;}
because if I did, then Microsoft could/would demand money (from me? from viewers of the web page?). Uhhh....
I'm not even sure that this is about freeware; is it instead about free software?
The following is a wild guess:
:The typeface is neither free software nor freeware, and is not legally available for other operating systems (such as GNU/Linux and Android). It is therefore unsuitable for web pages and for documents that should be accessed via these operating systems.
Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The typeface is neither legally available for tinkering nor freeware; and unlike Microsoft's earlier Core fonts for the Web, its use for other operating systems (such as GNU/Linux and Android) requires additional payment. It is therefore unsuitable for web pages and for documents that should display via these operating systems with this typeface.
However, this may be a bit lumpy. 
I'm purposely avoiding the matter of when the typeface was first issued. That's a separate matter. These references that you mention: are they directly relevant to this particular matter? -- Hoary (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Unavailability as "a freeware"

message: 202.142.166.162 (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: (Non-admin response) Not done, as no change has been requested. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 13 July 2017 

message: The paragraph about the Panama Papers case could mention that the case hinged on a purported 2006 document using the font, when the first public release of the font was in 2007. That should be sufficient to explain why the font itself was important in the case. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 14:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: Please supply the exact wording you are proposing, and please obtain consensus for the addition. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 13 July 2017 

message: I am pretty sure I downloaded this for use on Ubuntu before 2007, probably in 2005 or early winter 2006. (I had an office in downtown Oslo at the time, thats why I remember when I downloaded the files.) Not so sure whether I run a conversion program on it to be able to use it. I am definitely not sure whether it was officially freeware or simply openware, or even "grabware". A copy on an external disk reset the dates, so it can't be used as any kind of proof on when the file was grabbed. Jeblad (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freeware? Grabware? 

message: dear sir,
there are some crooks and corrupt politicians from pakistan, who are trying to edit this page to cover their lies and half truths to camouflage the crimes they committed against their own nation. I would like to appeal that this  article on Calibri must be kept protected against any alterations for definite period and the contents must be verified with the font creator before any public editing. 175.140.175.255 (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already been taken care of by Wiki editors. Pakistan Muslim League's Social Media Cell will not be allowed to make un-sourced edits to this page. This is Wikipedia, not Twitter. They can get away with making fake profiles and harassing people on Twitter, they won't get far doing that on Wikipedia, that's for sure. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 14 July 2017 

message: Hello, I think that the Pakistan case regarding forged documents with Calibri fonts is relevant to me mentioned in the article (ref). --167.58.171.25 (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Did you notice it is mentioned in the section Calibri#Availability? peterl (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan case 

message: The section on Carlito is pointless. Carlito has nothing to do with Calibri or its designer Lucas de Groot. If one was to include all metric-compatible fonts there is no end. I suggest to delete this section or turn in into a small reference. Theking2 13:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove section Carlito 

message: Political section talks about many cases. mentions only one. cannot find any other case.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harisrashid (talk • contribs) 00:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political section of calibri font 

message: "As of 2017, a Hebrew alphabet version is in development.[13] De Groot has also said in 2016 that he would like if possible to add Bulgarian alphabet variant letterforms at a later date.[14]"
Can someone update with current status to update that bit of text - it seems horribly out of date now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.160.249 (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs an update?