Talk:Typesetting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Graphic design, which collaborates on graphic design-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.
Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 Citation for info on the fate of minicomputer-based systems 2 From the main page was this note: 3 Breaks within chapters in printing 4 Confusing Photo 5 Weasley phrase about TeX 6 Weird paragraph 7 intermediate period needs more coverage 8 Digital era - Fairchild 9 Lettering 10 Error in integral 11 1970s and 1980s

[edit] Citation for info on the fate of minicomputer-based systems

A reference or citation is needed for this statement added by user:Dsagman –

"...By the year 2000, this industry segment had shrunk to serving primarily educational, reference, and professional publisers. In addition, the majority of this work, especially keying and data conversion, has moved off-shore to countries such as India and the Philippines."

I snipped it out of the article for the meantime, until it can be verified.

The original paragraph for context:

"Before the 1980s practically all typesetting for publishers and advertisers was performed by specialist typesetting companies. These companies, many of which in the US were located in rural Pennsylvania, New England or the Midwest where labor was cheap but within a few hours distance of the major publishing centers, performed keyboarding, editing and production of paper or film output, and formed a large component of the graphic arts industry. By the year 2000, this industry segment had shrunk to serving primarily educational, reference, and professional publisers. In addition, the majority of this work, especially keying and data conversion, has moved off-shore to countries such as India and the Philippines."

Arbo | talk 14:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From the main page was this note:

note: deal with offset litho, production of a flong, etc. etc. here

I removed it because it should belong on talk, not the main page. Perhaps the author of the note would like to complete the task. Until then, let's not clutter the entry itself. MShonle 22:06, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Breaks within chapters in printing

The questions and imperfect answers are copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk. I wish someone here would know the answer. -- Toytoy 15:10, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

In many books, especially in fiction, "breaks" in the text (by which I mean one or two completely blank lines separating groups of paragraphs) are seen at irregular intervals within chapters. Typically these breaks are found every few pages or so (although the spacing varies considerably), and they usually occur at the end of a "scene" or some other transition point. They break up a chapter into several sections, they provide logical stopping points for readers who want to quit before the end of a chapter, and they make it easier to find your starting place when you begin reading again at a later time. Somewhere I have read a specific name (a printer's term) to describe these "breaks". I believe I also read that if one of these breaks occurs at the end (or beginning) of a page, where it would not ordinarily be apparent, the printer should insert an ellipsis or similar indicator. My question is: what is the correct term for a break of this type in printing, and what are the proper rules for dealing with them? --DannyZ 03:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I guess these breaks are called "blank lines":

Blank lines. If blank lines are used to indicate a lapse of time or a break in the continuity, a page should not break at this blank, for then the blank line is completely lost. The blank should be within the page with at least two lines of type between it and the top or the bottom of a page, If asterisks are used for this purpose, they may stand at the bottom of a page, but not at the top. (Words into Type, 1948, p. 154).

If you need more updated information, please check the latest edition of The Chicago Manual of Style. I don't have that book at hand right now. -- Toytoy 08:13, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Errr... I'm pretty sure I've seen an article somewhere on Wikipedia on that topic, and they had a more technical name. — Kieff | Talk 10:00, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing Photo

The photo with the caption 'Movable metal type' is not correct. The type should be in reverse, so it would read properly when used to transfer ink onto paper. Looking closer, the logo on the type holder seems backwards also, so my guess is the negative of the original photograph was flipped so the common phrase could be read properly. In the context of this article it should be flipped back. --ArtJazd Fri Jul 29 10:55 2005 (PST)

"Typesetting involves the presentation of textual material in an aesthetic form on paper or some other media." - Surely, it should be 'medium'? Reader, 8 Oct 2005

[edit] Weasley phrase about TeX

211.30.107.214 replaced "has" in the passage about TeX to "is considered to have". Okay, I can appreciate why, but "considered" is weasley and needs to be qualified. Who considers TeX to have set high standards? And what's the source? This criticism should be applied to the original, ie: what was the source for "...has set high standards..." Who, or what group of people say it has? —Arbo 19:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Besides the issue of attribution, the reason for leaving it as "has" and not changing it to "is considered to have" set high standards for setting mathematics, is that it either has or it hasn't. There are no two ways about it. If experts on TeX say it has, then it has. Period. If non-experts say it hasn't, they're incorrect because they're not qualified to say so. The purpose of every article on Wikipedia is to convey expert knowledge from experts on a given topic. If there is a substantial body of opinion that says TeX has not set high standards for setting mathematics, we need to know who, and where and when they published their opinion. If those details are not provided I will revert the edit by 211.30.107.214 —Arbo 20:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Whilst i don't really care which phrase is used, as it is pretty immaterial in the end (angels on heads of pins etc) it is possible that the experts might disagree. Some might say it has. Others might say it hasn't. Period. Then we are getting into an argument about which experts views we should be accepting. And it doesn't really matter. Frelke 21:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"it is considered to have" is semantic quibbling and a form of wordiness/writerliness. It complicates the sentence, and its a weasely turn of phrase. Its bad writing.

Good writing is simple and easy to understand.

Have you read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words? "The key to improving weasel words in articles is either a) to name a source for the opinion or b) to change opinionated language to concrete facts... ...If we add a source for the opinion, the reader can decide for themselves how they feel about the source's reliability."

it is possible that the experts might disagree. Some might say it has. Others might say it hasn't.

Fine by me---let's have some sources from these anonymous experts.

Then we are getting into an argument about which experts views we should be accepting.

No :-) I'm not arguing about which views to accept, just asking for sources for those views. Since we don't have any sources for expert opinions on this, the passage is best kept simple and to the point. Arbo 04:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Rather than revert the edit I have reduced the weasle phrase. I don't think the previous edit was vandalism but made in good faith. But wordy. Arbo 04:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weird paragraph

That paragraph about TeX is weird. It is entitled "TeX" but most of it does not talk about TeX at all.—Gniw (Wing) 19:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Only the first sentence talks about TeX. The rest of it details other hypertext systems with "attractive WYSIWIG interfaces". —Arbo 03:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This one has an easy solution:

Same information rearranged with a better heading. The paragraph about TeX needs more info. I have emailed office@tug.org, inviting one of the staff of TeX Users Group to contribute some basic info on TeX.—Arbo 10:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

My typo in last edit summary shouldd read: "Split the difference and the ripples magnify. This way the article is more structured." :^) Arbo 10:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] intermediate period needs more coverage

The article goes straight from the letter-press era to the digital-era. But there was a considerable period between the two of analogue offset printing, light-tables, paste-ups, camera-readies, etc.

[edit] Digital era - Fairchild

I suspect that the Fairchild that is intended here is Fairchild Semiconductor, but I have no idea where to find a source for it. If someone knows sources for this info, citation would be excellent. -Sopoforic 02:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lettering

The stone carving article says "Stone carving that is done to produce lettering is more often referred to as Lettering." which was forwarded to this page. However there is no discussion of Lettering on this page. I do not think that typesetting is the correct place for forwarding lettering and the discussion does not seem to have any details on stone carving of symbols, letters. Any ideas on where it might have gone? Synapse001 13:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The original redirect was to Calligraphy, which doesn't deal with your question either. It does seem to be a better fit, however, and I'm inclined to change it back, subject to any objections. --Moonraker88 14:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK no objections I'll revert it to Calligraphy. Synapse001: sorry I couldn't help with your question – it's something that should be in. --Moonraker88 10:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Done --Moonraker88 06:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Error in integral

The integral on the image showing int(f(x),0,3) is mathematical nonsense. The integral is definite integral, while the result on the right side of the equation is antiderivative. The simplest solution is to remove bounds of the integration.

212.2.99.88 11:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC) et21@go2.pl

[edit] 1970s and 1980s

A list of minicomputer-based typesetting software, said to have originated in the 1970s, included Xyvision. But Xyvision was incorporated, and shipped its first product, in the early 1980s. Therefore, I added "and 1980s" to the wording. Publius3 05:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)