Talk:Ming (typefaces)

message: 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)
replies: text: I've seen it called uroko on several occasions, usually in katakana as ウロコ. For example:  It is defined as such in Jim Breen's EDICT  as well. I'm surprised to hear of a Japanese designer with an interest in typography who did not know of the term.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.118.76.139 (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Uroko''? Really?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article Name 

message: 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)
thread_title:  MingLiU 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Propose move 

message: 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)
thread_title: The start of the article is a mess!

message: 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)
thread_title:  And the list is a mess too! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Korean section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Typeface? Not really

message: Orthographic reforms have adopted a standard that is closer to commonly handwritten forms, although the change isn't dramatic. The current revision implies people were already writing in the current form of Simplified Chinese during that time. I will change the wording. Asoer (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  About orthographic reforms 

message: Above, someone asked about the names Song and Ming in different areas. I look around and found what looks like a good source, http://www.kinkido.net/. From reading about Song typefaces, I at least know that 仿宋體 isn't a kind of Ming typeface. Furthermore, the style described in this article probably did not exist in Song, as the source says this style developed out of the style printed in Lin'an, which is what 仿宋體 imitates. Also, 仿宋體 isn't a kind of Ming typeface, nor is 教科書體. However, because my Japanese sucks, I might have misread something. If you can read Japanese well, please check with the source. Asoer (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes about edits 

message: 'Mincho' redirects here but the term 'Mincho' is not explained on this page. This is confusing.
130.60.233.59 (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term 'Mincho' unexplained 

message: :Ming (typefaces) →  – Per WP:NATURAL. Remsense诉 02:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 2 June 2024