User talk:OptimisticFool/Font Name List
From Homestar Runner Wiki
< User talk:OptimisticFool
Revision as of 05:50, 5 March 2008 by It's dot com (Talk | contribs)
Purpose
I thought it was just going to be an internal list... is this page meant to replace Fonts? Does it already include all fonts listed on that page? Man this looks like it's been a lot of work! --Stux 17:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- This page was just going to be an internal list. And I was going to start from scratch on the Fonts-type table using a new page (like OptimisticFool/Fonts), but I figured it wouldn't get in the way if I just made the table here. Yes, I do want it (the table) to replace Fonts since all of the information I'm putting in this table is accurate (whereas Fonts still has mistakes even after I've weeded out a bunch). I do encourage people to help with the project though, because it is a lot of work. Over 300 fonts with just me editing.. it'll take a while. (And yes, it really includes all the fonts used by TBC, unless I've missed some.)
OptimisticFool 17:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sweet, that's cool. Saying that making these pages is a lot of work is an understatement. I've seen you laboriously churn out font after font and that's impressive. Keep in mind that not everyone has access to decompiler stuff so volunteers to help in your project will be hard to come by (I guess that includes yours truly). Before I forget, does this page have all the entries already contained within Fonts? If this page's content will be copied to Fonts then of course no samples/information should be lost. If you already haven't and you would like me to do the double check, let me know! That's a task that doesn't need any special software. Later! --Stux 04:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have been (mostly) thorough with Fonts. That is, I've removed the font entries that really shouldn't have been there (see the history to see what I mean) and double-checked to make sure that all the fonts accurately listed there are in my list. There are some names that I haven't updated on Fonts that are only wrong because of a few letters (like, they're missing an "LET" or something like that).. oh, and I think appearances of Alba and Alba Matter are all listed under the generic listing of Alba on that page, too. Anyway, there ARE some appearances listed on Fonts that I'm trying to make sure get onto Fonts By Toon before I replace the Fonts page. I don't want to miss any "shapes" fonts that have already been (correctly) identified. I've been doing that as I go, but if you want to double check to see that all individual appearances of fonts are actually correctly labeled on Fonts By Toon, that really would be very helpful. (You should know that I've learned not to trust Fonts to be accurate, so a visual confirmation of the font would be important before adding it to Fonts By Toon.) As for not having a decompiler, the demo version of Flash Decompiler Trillix is all that one needs. In fact, it's all that I've used. If you have a Mac or use Linux, I don't know what to tell you, but... I can at least explain to a degree what fonts as "shapes" are; they're usually text that isn't in a straight line (like this). There are many exceptions to this, but those are the easiest to spot even without a decompiler. If you can identify the font of anything like that that hasn't been documented on Fonts By Toon, great. And if you find a challenge, put it in the list of Challenges. OptimisticFool 05:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- The thought occurred to me that there is something else that could be done that doesn't require a decompiler. It would save me a lot of time if I had some help finding sites with download links for these fonts. OptimisticFool 05:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Still looking for volunteers to find some links to these fonts. It gets tedious pulling up Google as an extra step to dig through lots of useless web sites, so I'd appreciate being able to share this burden. Even if its just for a font or two. And a little tip to those intelligent, good-looking, elite individuals that are willing to help: Since Fontstock can be a major nuisance (in multiple languages), my suggestion is a Google search like this (including quotes): "Font Name" font download -fontstock OptimisticFool 06:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've added as many useful download links from sofontes as possible (I've ignored those fonts without previews). I'll try to find links for the rest at a later time. --Stux 20:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Still looking for volunteers to find some links to these fonts. It gets tedious pulling up Google as an extra step to dig through lots of useless web sites, so I'd appreciate being able to share this burden. Even if its just for a font or two. And a little tip to those intelligent, good-looking, elite individuals that are willing to help: Since Fontstock can be a major nuisance (in multiple languages), my suggestion is a Google search like this (including quotes): "Font Name" font download -fontstock
- The thought occurred to me that there is something else that could be done that doesn't require a decompiler. It would save me a lot of time if I had some help finding sites with download links for these fonts.
- I have been (mostly) thorough with Fonts. That is, I've removed the font entries that really shouldn't have been there (see the history to see what I mean) and double-checked to make sure that all the fonts accurately listed there are in my list. There are some names that I haven't updated on Fonts that are only wrong because of a few letters (like, they're missing an "LET" or something like that).. oh, and I think appearances of Alba and Alba Matter are all listed under the generic listing of Alba on that page, too. Anyway, there ARE some appearances listed on Fonts that I'm trying to make sure get onto Fonts By Toon before I replace the Fonts page. I don't want to miss any "shapes" fonts that have already been (correctly) identified. I've been doing that as I go, but if you want to double check to see that all individual appearances of fonts are actually correctly labeled on Fonts By Toon, that really would be very helpful. (You should know that I've learned not to trust Fonts to be accurate, so a visual confirmation of the font would be important before adding it to Fonts By Toon.) As for not having a decompiler, the demo version of Flash Decompiler Trillix is all that one needs. In fact, it's all that I've used. If you have a Mac or use Linux, I don't know what to tell you, but... I can at least explain to a degree what fonts as "shapes" are; they're usually text that isn't in a straight line (like this). There are many exceptions to this, but those are the easiest to spot even without a decompiler. If you can identify the font of anything like that that hasn't been documented on Fonts By Toon, great. And if you find a challenge, put it in the list of Challenges.
- Sweet, that's cool. Saying that making these pages is a lot of work is an understatement. I've seen you laboriously churn out font after font and that's impressive. Keep in mind that not everyone has access to decompiler stuff so volunteers to help in your project will be hard to come by (I guess that includes yours truly). Before I forget, does this page have all the entries already contained within Fonts? If this page's content will be copied to Fonts then of course no samples/information should be lost. If you already haven't and you would like me to do the double check, let me know! That's a task that doesn't need any special software. Later! --Stux 04:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Adequate ?
Is this link to the light futura the adequate one? I didn't add it cuz it was Furuta Lt BT Light and not Furuta Lt BT thus likely making them slightly different. (Similar with this edit.) Are they the same font? If not what are the differences and are they significant enough to warrant removal and/or the search for a better sample? --Stux 23:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Web sites don't always list the name of the font as it appears after installation. Words like "Plain" and "Regular" are often thrown in for example, but don't actually appear that way in Wordpad or whatever. I check every link I put on the page to make sure its name appears correctly after it's fully installed, and I'll check your links as I go to make sure they are correct as well. OptimisticFool 23:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Listen, hey, I forgot to say thanks for the help. Even though you haven't been able to compare the fonts you're finding to any samples, I expect the ones you've found will have about a 99% accuracy rate and will save me a lot of time. Being able to just click a link to download a font saves me time on the searching side of things, plus I really find that plainlinks template (even as simplified as it is) to be annoying to type. (I can never seem to hit that equals sign on the first try, dang it!) Plus, it's one less thing to make sure I have typed right when I reach for the "Save page" button. So, really, thanks a million. OptimisticFool 06:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes 99% accuracy! That means I must find 100 links before one of them must fail! :S Well, I don't think that my accuracy rate will be that high but I'll do my best! I'll also be a bit more lenient when including links. Actually here's another quesiton: some fonts have "<font name> plain 1.0" or "<font name> 1.0" appended to them. Do you want links to those too? As for the {{p}} template, it's really no big deal, you just have to establish a rhythm with your fingers. :) I hope I'll resume work on it sometime later this weekend. --Stux 17:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, anything with "regular" "plain" or version numbers are usually pretty safe to assume, especially since I'll be checking them as I go anyway. One big favor I'd ask is that you specifically let me know if you find a link to a font that I've already described in the table. I don't give up easily when looking for a link, so if you really do find a link that looks good, I'd like to make sure it wasn't one I passed on already because it was the wrong font. OptimisticFool 00:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, anything with "regular" "plain" or version numbers are usually pretty safe to assume, especially since I'll be checking them as I go anyway. One big favor I'd ask is that you specifically let me know if you find a link to a font that I've already described in the table. I don't give up easily when looking for a link, so if you really do find a link that looks good, I'd like to make sure it wasn't one I passed on already because it was the wrong font.
- Yes 99% accuracy! That means I must find 100 links before one of them must fail! :S Well, I don't think that my accuracy rate will be that high but I'll do my best! I'll also be a bit more lenient when including links. Actually here's another quesiton: some fonts have "<font name> plain 1.0" or "<font name> 1.0" appended to them. Do you want links to those too? As for the {{p}} template, it's really no big deal, you just have to establish a rhythm with your fingers. :) I hope I'll resume work on it sometime later this weekend. --Stux 17:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Listen, hey, I forgot to say thanks for the help. Even though you haven't been able to compare the fonts you're finding to any samples, I expect the ones you've found will have about a 99% accuracy rate and will save me a lot of time. Being able to just click a link to download a font saves me time on the searching side of things, plus I really find that plainlinks template (even as simplified as it is) to be annoying to type. (I can never seem to hit that equals sign on the first try, dang it!) Plus, it's one less thing to make sure I have typed right when I reach for the "Save page" button. So, really, thanks a million.
The Fate of Fonts
Since I've more or less hit the home stretch with these last few letters of the alphabet (M, P & S), I feel I should bring this up now to allow some time for discussion. I see two choices when it comes to replacing Fonts with User:OptimisticFool/Font Name List (which I don't think anyone is against (right?)):
- Dropping the table from User:OptimisticFool/Font Name List on top of the table in Fonts, thus preserving the history of Fonts but none of the history of User:OptimisticFool/Font Name List.
- Deleting Fonts then moving User:OptimisticFool/Font Name List to Fonts, thus preserving the history of User:OptimisticFool/Font Name List but none of the history of Fonts.
My vote is for #2, since I basically started from scratch with this article (only referring to Fonts as I've been going along to make sure I don't miss any fonts-as-shapes for Fonts By Toon). Thus, I feel the history of this article is more relevant than the history of Fonts. As for the talk page, I guess the relevant topics here can just get added to the bottom of Talk:Fonts. <shrug> I dunno. 
OptimisticFool 18:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- How about this: moving User:OptimisticFool/Font Name List on top of Fonts and keeping User:OptimisticFool/Font Name List as a redirect. Homestar-Winner (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think that both histories should be preserved. If you're okay with my adjusting the timestamps so that the histories of the two pages don't overlap, I can make one big history page once it's time to move this article. Either that or we should do what Homestar-winner suggested. In either case the history of the old fonts page should not be deleted. — It's dot com 19:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like a lot of adjusting, but that seems like the ideal solution, really. One thing, though: I was planning to use User:OptimisticFool/Font Name List for my "Simple Font List" (i.e. what I removed temporarily here), so if this page ends up becoming a redirect (which wouldn't bother me), then I'd need to create another subpage. No big deal, just an FYI. OptimisticFool 20:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, do we even need another Font page? I think the Font Name List is enough without a Simple Font page. Homestar-Winner (talk) 00:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's for me/us to be able to keep track of which fonts are confirmed, and which ones are not. Logger, Linoscript, and Sumdomgai are all fonts that have only been identified by doing a comparison. That is, they could be wrong because there are a lot of look-alike fonts out there. All the rest are loaded in the Flash files as fonts and are easily identified because the Flash file spells it out. Plus, it's interesting (to me, anyway) to have a numbered font list to know just how many fonts TBC have used without having to scroll along and count them. The simple font list makes all of that easy. Anyway, it's not going to be a "live" page, just a useful behind-the-scenes page like User:DeFender1031/Character Relationships. OptimisticFool 01:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's for me/us to be able to keep track of which fonts are confirmed, and which ones are not. Logger, Linoscript, and Sumdomgai are all fonts that have only been identified by doing a comparison. That is, they could be wrong because there are a lot of look-alike fonts out there. All the rest are loaded in the Flash files as fonts and are easily identified because the Flash file spells it out. Plus, it's interesting (to me, anyway) to have a numbered font list to know just how many fonts TBC have used without having to scroll along and count them. The simple font list makes all of that easy. Anyway, it's not going to be a "live" page, just a useful behind-the-scenes page like User:DeFender1031/Character Relationships.
- Hmm, do we even need another Font page? I think the Font Name List is enough without a Simple Font page. Homestar-Winner (talk) 00:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like a lot of adjusting, but that seems like the ideal solution, really. One thing, though: I was planning to use User:OptimisticFool/Font Name List for my "Simple Font List" (i.e. what I removed temporarily here), so if this page ends up becoming a redirect (which wouldn't bother me), then I'd need to create another subpage. No big deal, just an FYI.
- I think that both histories should be preserved. If you're okay with my adjusting the timestamps so that the histories of the two pages don't overlap, I can make one big history page once it's time to move this article. Either that or we should do what Homestar-winner suggested. In either case the history of the old fonts page should not be deleted. — It's dot com 19:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm done. OptimisticFool 03:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll move the page and merge the histories shortly. — It's dot com 03:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done. I preserved all the old timestamps in the edit summaries of the revisions of the new page. I didn't merge this talk page, obviously, but the thread above this one might should be moved to Talk:Fonts with a link in the edit summary explaining where it came from. — It's dot com 05:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
