Talk:Arial

message: This font (arial mt or arialmt) is used in the email reports sent by google analytics. It's pretty ugly too!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Family Guy Guy (talk • contribs) 20:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  google analytics reports 

message: I made a series of edits today to acknowledge a number of issues mainly relating to the comparisons of Arial to Helvetica and Univers.
* The intro section is not the place to publish any material that is unverifiable. Controversies are best characterized in vague terms, with details given later in the article, where they can be tagged as needed for failure to cite sources. Therefore I moved the Arial-Univers comparison to the 'Typographic tempest' section and left a more terse statement in the intro.
* There appear to be no reliable sources to verify that Microsoft wanted to avoid licensing costs in general, and that it wanted to imitate Helvetica in particular. Can someone provide such a source?
* Similarly, there appear to be no reliable sources to verify that Arial was developed to fill this perceived need. Can someone provide such a source?
* The claim that Arial was derived from Monotype Grotesque appears to be speculation by Mark Simonson. This claim is repeated twice in the article. Is there a more reliable source for it?
* Many statements in the article were variations on the theme of Arial being a cheap Helvetica knockoff. I attempted to reduce the amount of redundancy for its own sake, but also to avoid putting in that many more "citation needed" tags.
* The statement "The inclusion of Arial with Windows has made it one of the most widely distributed typefaces in the world" seemed to belong in the Distribution section, not the Typographic Tempest section, so I moved it. If Arial's ubiquity is also a factor in its being held in low regard, then that connection should be made more explicit (and sources cited).
* It wasn't clear what effect Arial's designers being relatively unknown had on the negative perception of Arial. I'm guessing the intent was to imply that unknown designers charge less, further bolstering the impression that Arial is "cheap". But maybe it was to imply that well-known designers wouldn't have risked their reputations to produce something so similar to Helvetica? Or perhaps it's just that well-known designers are prejudiced and hate whatever their lesser-known counterparts produce? Clarification is needed; I went with the first explanation but would prefer something more concrete.
* The article makes conflicting claims: Arial is shipped with "many" Postscript printers, but "most" Postscript printers substitute it with Helvetica. How can both of these claims be correct? I didn't do anything about this conflict.
* The statement that Arial's glyph widths are identical to Helvetica's is plausible, but not obvious to a lay person; a source for this claim would be preferred. It's also not obvious whether and why this characteristic would be a reason to deride Arial. Surely there are lots of fonts that have similar glyph widths.
* As more-or-less mentioned in previous discussion, the statement that Arial's most striking differences to Helvetica are actually things it has in common with Univers is pure original research, as far as I can tell. Cite a source for this. If the point is just to suggest that Arial should be hated for being a knockoff of not just Helvetica but Univers too, then this material is altogether inappropriate and should be removed.
I also made some relatively minor phrasing changes and copy edits to just be more consistent in neutrally characterizing the situation. If someone could research and address the issues above, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. —mjb 04:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some more references, and removed the conflicting "Helvetica is substituted with Arial" and the Univers stuff (since there didn't seem to be any basis for them). Since there are no more fact tags, I also removed the "needs references" tag.—Jlin 02:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unverified claims and other issues

message: Is it worth mentioning that Arial is the font used by Wikipedia?   If you want check that it is, click page>view source and read the css tags.  I think this would be relevant to the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.78.62 (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The font on Wikipedia pages displayed in your browser really depends on the Wikipedia skin you choose (assuming you you have a registered Wikipedia id), or whether your browser preferences override the fonts set up for the web page by one of your choosing. If you are using default settings, and are running your browser from a Windows environment, you should see Arial. Unfortunately, not all Wikipedia visitors will see Arial due to the reasons above, especially those not browsing from Windows or MacOS platforms where Arial may not be included in the distribution. --Chikinsawsage 22:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting Fact

message: It can be used on images? I mean, use it on a self-made work implies the recognition of some legal limitations? thanks190.21.213.196 (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: copyright

message: in the article about Arial, it were saying Arial has italics, what is completelly wrong - Arial has obliques, not italics - and the different between both oblique and italic is huge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblique_type  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.183.129 (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  mistakes 

message: User:193.35.132.46 tried to change the article to say that the Sonoran Sans Serif roots of Arial are a myth, and that actually it was based on an Eric Gill typeface which debuted in Penguin Books' Ariel. Specifically, his argument is that Arial began with Edward Johnston, because:
# Johnston influenced Eric Gill;
# Gill made the typeface for Penguin's first books in 1935, which incorporated progressive typography;
# Ariel ended up being the first Penguin book published;
# Gill then named the typeface after the book;
# Microsoft "went for a new radical version of this famous typeface" in order to compete with Apple.
This series of unsubstantiated arguments was made without a single citation to back it up. We must demand citations for anything that completely conflicts with the published, cited sources we've already found. Otherwise, it is original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia, violating the verifiability policy. (Basically, it must appear in print before we can accept it.) Also, he included a huge, copyrighted chunk of text about Penguin, lifted from Design Museum, so it was a violation of the WP:COPYVIO policy as well. Lastly, one look at the book cover in question suggests that Arial's resemblance to the Ariel typeface is no greater than its resemblance to a host of others, so again, citations of reliable sources are needed before we can even entertain this, ahem, novel theory. —mjb (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penguin Books' ''Ariel'' 

message: Didn't the PBS logo use the Arial font in 1970? 69.248.117.178 (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Helvetica, surely. Arial is a Helvetica ripoff designed in 1982. Blythwood (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Except, it wasn't a rip-off; Monotype designed it for IBM, and Microsoft decided to use it as a substitute for Helvetica. -- User:Edokter  11:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  PBS logo 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Arial. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.stepinsidedesign.com/STEP/Article/28763/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Arial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120604080020/http://support.microsoft.com/kb/135315 to http://support.microsoft.com/kb/135315
*Added  tag to https://fedorahosted.org/liberation-fonts/browser/LICENSE
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Arial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0%2C3973%2C469394%2C00.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619073124/http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Releases/Mandriva/2008.0/What%27s_New to http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Releases/Mandriva/2008.0/What%27s_New
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Arial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714113415/http://www.monotypeimaging.com/ProductsServices/TypeDesignerShowcase/RobinNicholas/Samples.aspx?type=samp3 to http://www.monotypeimaging.com/ProductsServices/TypeDesignerShowcase/RobinNicholas/Samples.aspx?type=samp3
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130128014314/http://www.linotype.com/en/522228/arialwgl-family.html to http://www.linotype.com/en/522228/arialwgl-family.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Arial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726163202/http://www.monotypeimaging.com/aboutus/MT1982_1991.aspx to http://www.monotypeimaging.com/aboutus/MT1982_1991.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304143518/http://www.monotypefonts.com/PDFs/Twenty20_080705.pdf to http://www.monotypefonts.com/PDFs/Twenty20_080705.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060603154650/http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/ps/PS3010and3011.Supplement.pdf to http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/ps/PS3010and3011.Supplement.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've had the idea of using the template DISPLAYTITLE and the font family html tags to display the titles of articles about fonts in their fonts. For example, for this article about Arial, using the source code:
{{DISPLAYTITLE:<font face="Arial">Arial</font>}}
I tried this on Arial, Times New Roman, Comic Sans MS, and I think it makes articles autological and personaly, funny and whimsical, without compromising their reliability. But I later undid the edits, because I think it goes against the rule Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Font family about font families, because Wikipedia is supposed to be flexible. Is it explicitly against the project of Wikipedia, displaying fonts in titles of articles about fonts? 177.71.22.253 (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles of articles about fonts 

message: Hello people,
I find it bizarre that Arial is repeatedly called a "clone" of Helvetica in this article. However there are no sources cited which directly show that Arial was designed with the intention to copy helvetica. 
Also, Arial is way too dissimilar to Helvetica to be called a clone. Arial mostly avoids horizontal stroke endings, whereas Helvetica always has them. Also there are obvious differences in many letters for example 'a', 'R' and 'G'. 
This should be removed and replaced with something adequate. 2003:CB:2723:3E00:F41F:6E07:F95D:1DDD (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the message. It's not a requirement of metrically compatible typefaces that they have the same appearance, just that the letters fit into the same box widths. That's true for Arial, it matches to Linotype's standard PostScript version of Helvetica. I don't include the word "clone" upfront in the lead because of these design differences. "Clone" is used in a direct quote from Matthew Carter, who consulted on the design. Mark Simonson's explanations are also good for the backstory of how and why Arial was introduced. Blythwood (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term Clone not really applicable to Arial.