Talk:Glyph

message: Can you include an image with a glyph ?? compared with a normal type. TIA (Thanks In Advance). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.144.127.11 (talk • contribs) 
We need Robert Langdon over here. Ironiridis 03:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: While ffi is not a character, it can be a glyph, when combined as a ligature. Shinobu 13:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that's exactly what the article is saying now. the removed statement claimed that ffi could be a character, which is incorrect. dab (ᛏ) 10:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of ligature 

message: This article is about the use of the term "glyph" in typography but does not address the term glyph as it pertains to archaeology.  This article is missing, to quote Wiktionary: "A figure carved in relief or incised, especially representing a sound, word, or idea [or] Any non-verbal symbol that imparts information". 
I'm thinking that we might need 2 articles??  Madman 04:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are so right, and I am WP:boldly moving it, after 11 years. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Glyph (typography) and Glyph (archaeology)? 

message: Some sources may use 'glyph' to mean 'allograph', but I doubt that's the predominant meaning. Per the OED, a 'character' is a distinctive written symbol (that is, a grapheme), but a glyph is specifically a carved symbol, not a graphic variant of a character. Given the ambiguity, wouldn't this article be better moved to allograph? kwami (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  glyph vs. allograph 

message: I've read this article twice, and almost nothing has stuck due to the obscure  technical terms and its academic style. At the risk of sounding like a cranky old man I'm definitely nominating this for translation into the 'Simple English' Wiki....
Harry Zilber (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. I've been in design for 20 years and I just had to read it twice. It is very jargon heavy.--Knulclunk (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this page is unreadable in its current form. Were I qualified, I would re-write FROM SCRATCH. Crosslink (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree!  The i with and without a dot?  Does not help explain the topic at all.  Todd (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a really, really academic article

message: This bot has detected that this page contains an image, :Image:MAYA-g-log-cal-D10-Ok.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at :File:MAYA-g-log-cal-D10-Ok.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And I did this. Fruckert (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I completely agree.  It is not clear why the dot on the dotless i should be considered a glyph.  The dotted i (including the dot) is one glyph, and the dotless i (just the base, without the dot) is another glyph. Todd (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:MAYA-g-log-cal-D10-Ok.png]] 

message: About the term "glyph", there are some variations, like at  W3C this table with images showing the "typical symbols" in the column Glyph:  
* W3C, perhaps in a "loose use of the term", use the concept "glyph = typical symbol" about a set (charset and Fonts) of possible representations.
* the illustration here use an opposite concept, as "various glyphs representing the typical symbol".
--Krauss (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting concepts 

message: The lede contains the claim that the word glyph is a typographical term then later in the article Archealogical glyphs have a separate section, making the lede inconsistent. I note that my 1993 edition of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary has ONLY the archeological and not the typographic meaning. The lede goes on to claim that the dot above the i in Turkish is a glyph "...because that language has two distinct versions of the letter "i"..." This is rubbish. This is like claiming that O and Q in English prove that the \ character is a glyph since it changes an O into a Q. The set of glyphs that make up a character set may or not contain elements that must be combined with other elements (diacritics). Note that I make no claim about whether Turkish has that particular glyph, just that the logic "it is a glyph because I and İ are different" is rubbish.
This article fails miserably in actually defining what a "glyph" is - claiming it is a "mark" that "means (or changes the meaning of) something" is more rubbish. Changing a l to a T by a horizontal line on top of it is therefore a glyph? A glyph, it seems to me, is a member of the set of elements used to write a particular language, that set being one agreed to by the users/community. This topic gets a lot more complex in dealing with writing which is not character based (eg Chinese), or with information added to an element or group of elements either directly above, below, left or right of the element(s) or in some other location in the text. Some of this information may be variable in shape and size, making it difficult to precisely define typographically. It would be interesting to compare English, Arabic, and Chinese typographic definitions of the concept.72.172.11.121 (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede is garbage. 

message: I'm left a little confused by this article. If it is true, as the article says, that a diacritic is a separate glyph from the letter it is placed on (even when they touch), so that for example Ł is a combination of two glyphs even though it is a single grapheme and represents a single phoneme, how is it possible that a ligature such as the ſi-ligature in the photo counts as a single glyph even though it represents two phonemes and is obviously two graphemes run together? Either there is an inconsistency in the article, or a far better explanation is required. Or possibly there are varying views on what a glyph is, in which case that needs to be said. --Doric Loon (talk) 13:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glyph v. ligature 

message: I removed the reference and section on Graphonomics because I was completely unable to find anywhere on the web any supporting evidence (but lots of copies of this information). I notice the word is not included in the list at Index of graphonomics-related articles. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphonomics 

message: Even after cleaning it up, I'm still not happy with the section "Glyphs, graphemes and characters" as it stands, because it is rather a collection of miscellanea without any coherent structure. It really needs an intro but I can't think of anything more than what has already been said in the lead. Fresh eyes welcome. , any ideas? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Glyphs, graphemes and characters