Talk:List of CJK fonts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pan-Unicode[edit]

I'm removing for the time being the category "Pan-Unicode" from the list. This is because it's an inaccurate and arbitrary classification in the context of this article (and it even violates Wikipedia:No original research). Some problems off the top of my head:

  • Not all of the "Pan-Unicode" fonts listed are CJK fonts
  • Nor are they really "Pan-Unicode" in the sense that they cover most or all of Unicode
  • WenQuanYi Zen Hei and Micro Hei do have good coverage (they list impressive numbers on their site), but are listed simply as "Chinese"
  • No font containing Chinese characters can avoid choosing a particular style for han-unified characters, unless it mixes several styles; therefore the classification "Pan-Unicode" doesn't mean anything. Code2000, which was listed as "Pan-Unicode" must be listed as Chinese, Korean or Japanese, according to the style which it uses.

Rōnin (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the same is also true of Gnu Unifont, if it's true that it contains Hanzi characters from WenQuanYi. It should be listed according to its chosen style of characters, if that's how it's done in this list. No font can have a "Pan-Unicode" character style, unless they've invented their own. Rōnin (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've researched a little and used a little guesswork to try to put the fonts back in the correct categories. However, I can't find out what style of characters Code2000 uses, and I don't know if Bitstream Cyberbit supports Chinese characters at all. Rōnin (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the "pan-Unicode" is an original research. I can even give you refereces such as this page, Unicode#Fonts also gives some definition of it. But if you put something like GNU Unifont in the "Chinese" category, this does violate WP:No original research. It is definitely not true that GNU Unifont was designed for Chinese. The fonts, which are not targeted to a specific writing system and may want to "keep neutre" among these systems, exist for real, these are pan-Unicode font.
Pan-Unicode font is not categorically equal to Unicode font. A pan-Unicode font is a font which attempts to support the majority of Unicode's characters. An Unicode font is a font which contains a wide range of glyphs, but it may or may not intend to support the majority of Unicode's characters. You can assume "pan-Unicode font ⊂ Unicode font". Wenquanyi Zen Hei is an Unicode font, but it's not very wise to consider it pan-Unicode. Most of the Pan-Unicode fonts are not very "good looking" such as GNU Unifont. This article (open it then click the "Pan-Unicode Fonts" tab) discusses that the pan-Unicode fonts become less and less useful due to the increasing number of Free and open-source Unicode fonts.
Most of pan-Unicode fonts are CJK fonts (if that is unclear, let's define "CJK font" as "computer fonts which cover (at least) most of the Chinese/Japanese/Korean characters"), if an Unicode or pan-Unicode font is listed in this article, it is a CJK font for sure.
Btw, this is not about the style, this is about the characters coverage. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoooops, sorry; I looked at the WenQuanYi fonts in FontForge just now, and you're right about them not supporting that many character ranges after all. Sorry for sounding so self-righteous about it without even checking first. To my defence, I did look at the readmes for the fonts, but I got the wrong impression. Anyway, I'm reverting the page back to your latest version, as I can't remember which of the changes I made were justified and which weren't. Rōnin (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title[edit]

It should be renamed to List of CJK fonts.

These are obviously CJK computer fonts, and they are sorted by their typeface styles.

The typeface styles includes: Ming, Sans-serif, Regular script, Clerical script, Imitation Song, etc.

And why the word "computer" was removed from the title? "CJK" is used in the field of software and communications internationalization; "font" is short for "computer fonts". So, there is no ambiguity for "CJK fonts", "CJK fonts" is equivalent to "CJK computer fonts", and is used more widely. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why FOSS marked?[edit]

I feel like the very prominent marking of FOSS fonts in this list is pushing WP:NPOV. Anyone else agree?  — TORTOISEWRATH 20:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. BabelStone (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Moreover, 'NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it'. So what ? Pldx1 (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it has nothing to do with POV, marking FOSS doesn't necessarily mean they are recommended to be used. A lot of time FOSS can be discussed separately from others, see Open-source Unicode typefaces, Template:Free and open source typography, List of game engines#Free and open source. However if you find the color too prominent, you can change it using another mark which you think more proper. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish version for this page uses a table. 223.75.12.217 (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a very very useful data point for encyclopedic info. The license is by far one of the most important points to list. This isn't pushing or promoting anything - it is simply conveying extremely useful and relevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.16.12.162 (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another Font name change.[edit]

Font "中易楷体"'s name in Windows is now changed from "楷体_GB2312" to "楷体".
Confirmed on a PC with Windows 10 updated from Windows 8.1.
111.193.52.182 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FOSS fonts for Simplified Chinese[edit]

Fandol is a set of FOSS fonts gaining popularity among Chinese TeX users. 223.75.12.217 (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of CJK fonts. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DLCMing family source?[edit]

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CJK_fonts#Traditional_Chinese states that DLCMingMedium (華康中明體) and DLCMingBold (華康粗明體) are distributed with Traditional Chinese version of Windows 3.1, but both Retail version and MSDN version of Traditional Chinese version of Windows 3.1 have none of them. Roytam1 (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edited.--Tomchen1989 (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of CJK fonts. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Migration to table form[edit]

 Done Yug (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is the possibility to convert this page into a sortable table easier to compare, as do the Spanish article. edit.

English name CJK name Localisation Editor/Creator Style Open licence Comments

Yug (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I engaged the migration to table form. Please help forward. Yug (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New wave today. 3 sections lefts ! Yug (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021 edits[edit]

Please do not remove columns, I plan to merge tables by styles :( Yug (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, I'm getting your changes. Thank :) Yug (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. It is not advisable to merge all tables under one style as it can become enormous to be edited by anyone. I have separated them by language, and removed 2 columns (localization and style), and added localization column for Chinese fonts to ease the reader. The column for style is removed as it is redundant under the same style. In others I have removed only 1 column (localization) as it is quite messy and contain different style of fonts. NFSL2001 (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think merging the tables would increase the added value from table's sort capability. It will also harmonize's columns widths. I let you work as you wish for now, I will see if I can improve further later on, in April. Yug (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The table are only sortable by names and license, it is almost unsortable using other columns; few rows have actual descriptions or it is mixed with sentence. Mixing between different languages IMO is unadvisable as different writing strokes/glyph shapes exist between these standards. (I would actually suggest separating SC/TC but as some SC font also support TC... it's almost always a mess to deal with. NFSL2001 (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NFSL2001.
1) I think we should harmonize the "Editor" title, into something "Designer/Creator" maybe.
2) I would encourage to keep or move to one row = one font file, with a system of reference to the serie, which can contain wider comments. Maybe by moving the individual fonts into the respective sections, and by creating a "font series" table on the bottom of the page.
This would allows better sorting. For the same reason I'am also of the opinion 3) we should refrain from merging cells even when content is identical. Yug (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Acceptable. Maybe 4) adding one H3 in Ming/Song and Sans-serif (should be Hei/Gothic depending on C or J) section indicating operating system fonts such as Windows and Mac. NFSL2001 (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On 1), it appears you harmonized all title but one. I corrected this last item.
On 2), I created a #Font series section, moving in this section all "series" I quickly noticed. I forgot some but a search of "serie" on the page guide us pretty one for future edits. I haven't dispatched the composing fonts into their respective sections yet, but will come as well.
On 4), I'am not sure to understand your wish. Please go ahead if you think it feets fits (XD !). Yug (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidation to come[edit]

All the article's items are now in table form with harmonized columns. More can still be done :

  1. Merge tables by styles
  2. Change column titles to fit the content better.
  3. Review and balance the "Editor/Creator" and "Comments" columns better.

On the visual side, images snapshot are too diverses and requires harmonization. It would be wise to move to horizontal .png/.svg with CJK characters and conventional filenames, see this example. A discussion have been started on Commons for this purpose. Yug (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreee to merge table by style for "Ming/Song", "Sans-serif" and "Others" section, agree for the rest. These regional fonts usually could not be used interchangably between regions due to glyph standards and Unicode coverage and should be separated by regional language. Exception could be made for system fonts (as previous comment thread) as system fonts usually have great Unicode coverage, which can be group separately in another table. Grouping in "Others" is just redundant and should be avoided as there are different style selections for different languaes. E.g. In SC, the four basic fonts are Song, Hei (Sans-serif), Kai (Regular script) and Fangsong, however in TC the four basic fonts are Song, Hei (Sans-serif), Kai (Regular script) and Li (Clerical script).
Suggestion to refer to Template:Infobox typeface to separate "Creator" and "Commissioner" column, i.e. font foundry and user organisation. Redundant information should definitely be moved to "Comments".NFSL2001 (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion of me doesn’t define who I am[edit]

Your opinion of me doesn’t define who I am 110.93.86.116 (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_CJK_fonts&oldid=1206582215"