General meaning of "Typography"[edit]

The meaning of the word "typography by itself without an adjective usually include positive quality (at least 'good') or acceptable use of typography. Attaching a positive attribute is mostly redundant, unless you wish to praise a typographical work highly. When a typography is bad, it requires a negative attributive adjective, like "bad or atrocious typography". --- Hartmut Teuber, 22 June 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The "legible, readable, and appealing" is about good typography, not typography tout simple.

Please can somebody remove this unelegant and quite vague line in the introductory part (it seems I can't edit it) "Digitization opened up typography to new generations of previously unrelated designers and lay users, and David Jury, head of graphic design at Colchester Institute in England, states that "typography is now something everybody does."[4]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Typography. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Why no talk of rules (lines that separate or organize blocks of text)[edit]

I was very surprised that there's no section on rules (the vertical or horizontal lines used to separate or organize blocks of copy) either in this article or in the typography terminology sections.

Hsmith254 (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Lots of plagarism in this article[edit]

I came here to fix a citation needed tag, but after taking a look at the source, it seems that at least several entire sections of this page are completely plagarized from source.

@Alex Shih: @Hzh: @XavierGreen: @GreenC: @Britishfinance:

Anyone want to deal with this issue? (Notifying random people here; not sure if that's proper practice) DemPon (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The "See also" in the source makes it look the other way around, text copied from Wikipedia. -- GreenC 23:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
The text on this article existed long before that book was published. This is yet another vanity publisher of books collating wholesale copies of a number of Wikipedia articles into a generally poor product. Mindmatrix 23:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.DemPon (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)