Talk:Garamond

message: Also uses it. Might as well refer to the font as "Lattimore/Grene".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.19.12 (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: University of Chicago Press

message: While you point to the confusion between Jannon's and Garamond's faces, you have put Monotype Garamond in the infobox. This is based Jannon's work and is more of a transitional font, whereas Garamond's is old style. Would it not be more accurate to have a font based on actual work from Garamond there, like Stempel or Adobe Garamond? ~AR
----
Mention that Garamond was Apple's main font used in publicity during the 80s and 90s? Tobyink 07:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion

message: Could someone explain the numbers? It's confusing having the 1 look like a small I and the 0 look like an o. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.188.172.165 (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are oldstyle digits, also known as text figures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.144.9.74 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers

message: The introduction of Harry Potter as a specific example of a book using Garamond seems really out of place in the midst of a general discussion about the typeface. It should be removed unless there is some reason pointed out as to why this example is exceptional and significant. Brian Hill 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: removed. Kzhr 16:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: First three hardcover American editions are in 12-pt. Adobe Garamond. Not sure beyond  Prisoner of Azkaban. Rivertorch (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Harry Potter?

message: It says he was born in 1480 but the caption on the figure says it's an example of his font from 1485?  Precocious kid! - Rakesh K.
I noticed this too and removed it. 72.79.213.108 (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates Issue

message: It seems that "Monotype Garamond" is the typeface most often used in the classic Penguin paperbacks from the 1960s and thereabouts. It seems possible that this is the place most people would have encountered Garamond. Perhaps someone with more information can expand on this.Priceyeah 11:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Penguin

message: Glancing over the article, it occurs to me that most significant typefaces rate their own articles. While a general Garamond article is certainly a good thing, I wonder if some of the typefaces going by that name deserve separate articles of their own. Stempel Garamond, for instance, is much more similar to Granjon (which has its own article) than it is to ITC Garamond (which doesn't). At the very least, some redirects are probably in order. Any advice appreciated. Rivertorch (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The many faces of Garamond 

message: In Russian, two letters are visibly different from their original scripts. These are Д "de" and Л "el". These are displayed (if italicised with the Garamond font) similar to the Alexander font. The characters of these letters in Garamond font are rendered as follows: Д (Cyrillic letter "de"), and Л (Cyrillic letter "el"). The letters are similar to the Greek Δ "delta" and Λ "lambda", as the Cyrillic alphabet derived from the Greek alphabet.http://www.ancientscripts.com/cyrillic.html 序名三「Jyonasan」 TalkStalk 20:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I took this section out because it is unsourced and makes no sense. First, what is "their original scripts"? Original Garamond had no Cyrillic, did it? Second, you don't know how the reader's browser is going to render that span, it depends on what fonts they have installed and their browser preferences. I would fix this if I could figure out what you're trying to say, but I can't, so I have removed the section. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Glyphs

message: Why does the example of Garamond in the page image omit the digit 6? I would guess it's because you can deduce what it looks like by turning the 9 upside down.... 2.25.141.140 (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just curious.... 

message: This section should really contain a reference to Beatrice Warde's original article:  
Warde, Beatrice, The 'Garamond' types : sixteenth & seventeenth century sources considered / by Paul Beaujon [i.e. Beatrice Ward].
p. 131-179 In 	Fleuron no.5 (1926)
Also a summary was reprinted in The Montotype Recorder vol 44 no. 1 autumn 1970.  The details given in the section seem to be garnered from her research.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambrosebrown (talk • contribs) 21:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jannon misattribution 

message: A pity the remarkable Cursive of the Garamond (and the form of its Q and &) are completely ignored by this article. Glatisant (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cursive 

message: Someone added Classiq (which is a Sans Serif font loosely based on Garamond fonts) to the Jannon section. I don't think it's highly relevant here because strictly speaking, it is not a modern version of Garamond (and it is relatively unknown - try Googling "YOFonts Classiq"). Maybe we can mention it in passing?Thomas J. S. Greenfield (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  YOFonts Classiq 

message: I've been looking for a source on this but found it surprisingly difficult to get one online (and I can't get to a good library on this sort of thing), so I thought I'd put it open for discussion: Did Garamond's original type (the one he cut himself) contain a W? And if so, was it the double-v W we know today? I want to check this because I haven't found a source that explicitly mentions it. The EB specimen has one, but it's printed for German use and I suppose they could have added one. Blythwood (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The Garamond W

message: Hello all! I've been interested in upgrading the article for some time now - and am mostly finished, I hope. I'm considering nominating the article for Good Article status soon, maybe when I've cleared out and cited the list of usages. (I think many of these can be cut - Garamond is used in so many books as a body text face it's getting hard to care about them all.) Any thoughts or suggestions for deficiencies I should try to fix? Blythwood (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Going to nominate now. Blythwood (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Considering Good Article nomination 

message: I recommend a peer review as I can ping a few folks who'd be interested in taking a look at this, and then having a crack at WP:FAC. Once it passes there, you'll have a thoroughly-reviewed template to base other font articles on..an' Bob's yer uncle ;) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Peer review sounds great. I already have some other font articles in the GA queue - Gill Sans and Bembo, and Ehrhardt which Professor Eppstein passed - and am planning to start doing my own reviewing now or possibly after my next article - would welcome feedback on this though. I really don't want to write other font articles this big though and can't see it being worth it for most of them (Gill Sans is pretty big, though most of that is its usage) - this was a bit of a special project :)I'm certainly planning to turn this into a DYK submission [done now] but will think about FAC-although if you recommend it... One thing that is very awkward is that although I know a whole pile of publications came out of the Plantin-Moretus research in the 70s I haven't read any of it, since it's not available online! Obviously the article does though cite Vervliet's later book very extensively which I was able to read. (There just isn't the level of journal publishing in this area and digitising of old journals we're used to in science and medical fields.) So might have to go to the British Library but will think about it - on the other hand, you know, who cares what Garamond actually did? Certainly not the people who made most modern fonts named after him...I think the article is more about modern revivals of his work which are better-documented anyway. But I think both Garamond and Gill Sans could make FAC with a bit of effort, the latter perhaps more easily since the sources are more available to review. Once again, thanks for the very thorough review - this has given me a lot of food for thought on ideas on what to add to my other article projects. Blythwood (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where now.... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Garamond. 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.smu.edu/bridwell/publications/ryriecatalog/5_6.htm
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.adobe.com/type/browser/pdfs/AdobeGaramondPro.pdf
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://typophile.com/node/4255
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.adobe.com/type/browser/pdfs/1737.pdf
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://typophile.com/node/12216
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://typophile.com/node/33124
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://typophile.com/node/37259
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 09:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a picture comparing three "free and open-source" Garamond fonts. However, I don't know whether Garamond No.8 is "open-source" but it's certainly not free. It is gratis, yes, but it is restricted to non-commercial use, as the article states correctly. We should fix that description under the picture. --Johannes Arnold (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garamond No. 8 is not a free font 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Garamond. 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/20161009181144/http://www.ies.sas.ac.uk/sites/default/files/files/LRBS/Outline%20of%20Course_Type%26itsUses2013_2.pdf to http://www.ies.sas.ac.uk/sites/default/files/files/LRBS/Outline%20of%20Course_Type%26itsUses2013_2.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) 22:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Garamond. 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/20151208170545/http://designblog.uniandes.edu.co/blogs/dise2517/files/2010/09/ILGaramond.pdf to http://designblog.uniandes.edu.co/blogs/dise2517/files/2010/09/ILGaramond.pdf
*Added  tag to https://www.abaa.org/book/836792279
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222100257/http://www.alexanderslawson.com/anatomy-of-type-faces-variations-of-garamond/ to http://www.alexanderslawson.com/anatomy-of-type-faces-variations-of-garamond/
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) 14:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Recent article “What Did Garamond Do to Deserve a D.C. Court’s Wrath?
By Elena DeBré” ( https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/03/garamond-font-ban-dc-circuit-court-why.html?mc_cid=217c7a0cec&mc_eid=bc0401fadd ) says “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [...] announced an amendment to its handbook Tuesday: briefs will only be accepted if they’re written in 14-point serifed fonts, such as Century or Times New Roman. The courts strictly ‘discourage the use of Garamond.’ ” Felicity4711 (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garamond in Court