Talk:Antiqua script

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Unsourced tag on "dispute"?

I don't really understand why that's tagged as needing a cite, since 'dispute' is linked to the article which describes the dispute. Any objection to removing it? 4.17.250.5 20:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it and rephrased the link to make it more obvious. 68.39.174.238 19:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of Antiqua

I'm wondering about this. Is antiqua really a generally used term for non-blackletter letter forms? (In English, I mean; in German it's clearly used that way.) I would have said that the opposite of blackletter is roman, and that Venetian applies specifically to early romans, whose most salient characteristic is a diagonal, not horizontal, crossbar on the lower-case e. (But I suppose this is original research.) Herbivore 03:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Is antiqua really a generally used term for non-blackletter letter forms?"

Nope. The text only says Blackletter is Antiqua's Germanic opposite, which is not the same thing as saying Antiqua = non-Blackletter.

I've rewritten the text to get rid of the statement that Antiqua has been the most common form of text type from the 16th century to the present. That was an erroneous interpretation of the development sequence given in History of typography. That kind of Wiki authoring highlights the problem of using WP articles as principal sources for new articles. Existing articles can be used to cross-reference facts, but their content (or fragments of content) should be read very carefully and checked against a reliable print source before being incorporated into a new article.

I put an {{Unreferenced}} tag in because the contributors who wrote this article have not specified any print sources.

"...in German it's clearly used that way."

It is? Where? Is there a WP article that states that?

Thanks for your input. Asking the right questions helps clarify the meaning of the article.

Arbo talk 12:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history I just discovered it was me who put the non-factual information in in the first place—godamn moron me! I'm astonished at how I could have been so sloppy. Unreferenced tag taken out and reliable reference added.

Arbo talk 13:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

In my French book (V. Sabard, V. Geneslay, L. Rébéna, Calligraphie latine, initiation, ed. Fleurus, Paris. 7th edition, 2004, page 8 to 11. ) they say : "In the sixteenth century, the rediscovery of old Carolingian texts encouraged the creation of the Antiqua script(about 1470)".

The name "Antiqua" is then understandable. --Yug (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)