![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I would like to advocate that there be two distinct entries created for "Type Foundry" that reflect both the important historic nature of the industry, and further, one which corrects the erosion of meaning in the labeling of current digital type design & marketing firms as "foundries". That is, digital type is not produced in a foundry, so it follows semantically that this label is a misnomer which ought to be corrected in this ostensibly scholarly forum.
Viz., the two new entries would be "Type Foundry" & "Digital Type (Design & Marketing) Firms". A link at the appropriate place in the Type Foundry article should link to the Digital Type Firm article, which would continue the history to the modern day in its parallel track to the history of the Type Foundry, as there are still hot metal Type Foundries in operation (at least in 2011).
This is a critical distinction and there should be a very clear demarcation between the two industries despite their interrelationship.
That said, I'm surprised and discouraged to find the quality of this entry so lacking in substance, or accuracy. E.g., there is no mention of the major historic European Type Foundries, nor of the still extant Schriften-Service D. Stempel which holds and continues to cast types in Damstadt, DE from matrices once owned by Stempel, Deberny & Piegnot, Nebiolo, Klingspor, Wagner, Berthold, et alia. This is a gaping hole in an entry ostensibly about "Type foundry"s.
Further, "Foundry" in the page title should be capitalized.
HotType918 ( talk) 04:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)HotType918
There also needs to be some mention of wood type "foundries". Perhaps a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Museum ? Danensis ( talk) 09:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
These categories for "Large" and "Independent" are somewhat ambiguous
This page lists the URW as one of the major type foundries. WTF? WTF?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.235.91 ( talk) 17:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Right now, most of the page is reading like a list, rather than an article. Might much of this content be more appropriate to spin of "List of type foundries", hatnote it, and then retain this for discussion of the history, workings, etc. of type foundries? As it is now, there is little if any curation, other than the sorting, and no discussion of the various elements---just a list. Thoughts? Morgan Riley ( talk) 06:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTABLE and WP:Wikipedia is not (a collection of links, an advertising hoarding, a yellow pages), I propose to delete the table of independent type foundries. I don't particularly like that this would leave the majors in place apparently unchallenged so is there a reliable external source than can be given to provide reasonable balance? Is there a convincing counter-argument as to why the list should remain (within Wikipedia policies). -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I would like to advocate that there be two distinct entries created for "Type Foundry" that reflect both the important historic nature of the industry, and further, one which corrects the erosion of meaning in the labeling of current digital type design & marketing firms as "foundries". That is, digital type is not produced in a foundry, so it follows semantically that this label is a misnomer which ought to be corrected in this ostensibly scholarly forum.
Viz., the two new entries would be "Type Foundry" & "Digital Type (Design & Marketing) Firms". A link at the appropriate place in the Type Foundry article should link to the Digital Type Firm article, which would continue the history to the modern day in its parallel track to the history of the Type Foundry, as there are still hot metal Type Foundries in operation (at least in 2011).
This is a critical distinction and there should be a very clear demarcation between the two industries despite their interrelationship.
That said, I'm surprised and discouraged to find the quality of this entry so lacking in substance, or accuracy. E.g., there is no mention of the major historic European Type Foundries, nor of the still extant Schriften-Service D. Stempel which holds and continues to cast types in Damstadt, DE from matrices once owned by Stempel, Deberny & Piegnot, Nebiolo, Klingspor, Wagner, Berthold, et alia. This is a gaping hole in an entry ostensibly about "Type foundry"s.
Further, "Foundry" in the page title should be capitalized.
HotType918 ( talk) 04:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)HotType918
There also needs to be some mention of wood type "foundries". Perhaps a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Museum ? Danensis ( talk) 09:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
These categories for "Large" and "Independent" are somewhat ambiguous
This page lists the URW as one of the major type foundries. WTF? WTF?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.235.91 ( talk) 17:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Right now, most of the page is reading like a list, rather than an article. Might much of this content be more appropriate to spin of "List of type foundries", hatnote it, and then retain this for discussion of the history, workings, etc. of type foundries? As it is now, there is little if any curation, other than the sorting, and no discussion of the various elements---just a list. Thoughts? Morgan Riley ( talk) 06:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTABLE and WP:Wikipedia is not (a collection of links, an advertising hoarding, a yellow pages), I propose to delete the table of independent type foundries. I don't particularly like that this would leave the majors in place apparently unchallenged so is there a reliable external source than can be given to provide reasonable balance? Is there a convincing counter-argument as to why the list should remain (within Wikipedia policies). -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)