Talk:Typometry (printing)

Requested move 9 November 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Ppp ery 20:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typometry (printing) → Typometry – There are no other articles on typometry (in any field), so the parenthetical disambiguator is unnecessary. The page Typometry is an attempted disambiguation page with one blue link (to this page) and two red-link entries with no possibility of blue links in them. A search in article space finds all of four articles with the word "typometry" in them: the two pages involved here and two other links to this page. Obviously, disambiguation is not necessary. — Gorthian (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Gorthian: source "Prehistoric Archaeology has preferred multidimensional data analysis for typometry, assemblage identification, intrasite spatial analysis and environmental studies. " is typometry in archaeology the same as the subject of this article, namely "an outdated technique which was developed during the 18th and 19th centuries for the composition of maps, drawings and other designs by means of setting cast type and letterpress type in order to reproduce words, lineworks and map signs." In ictu oculi (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: I really don't know. I think the article we've got is awfully vague on what exactly happens between "setting type" and "printing a map". I've never heard of any of it; and I thought I had a pretty good grasp of cartography. The explanation for the archaeological meaning made no sense to me. I didn't try too hard to understand it, since it was obvious there's nothing about it on Wikipedia and therefore no article to help guide readers. — Gorthian (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, kudos to you for making a stub about the archaeological meaning! I'll contemplate more responses in the (my) morning; I'm too tired to think right now. — Gorthian (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gorthian: The archaeological meaning - particularly in relation to axe-heads and arrowheads - is reasonably documented in books (I have to be honest I didn't know the mapmaking or glyph meaning even existed until this RM). Maybe Typometry (cartography) would be a better title? @Teknad: the current redlink on the dab could be expanded from es:tipometría but the lack of print references to this makes me wonder whether the measurement and dimensions of type/glyphs has another term in English? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: While it was clearly used for cartography, the first source cited in the article refers to other uses, so I called the article Typometry (printing). I would like to find examples of old drawings made by setting type, but I haven't found any related to that term, so I just refer to the source. As for typography, the most common term in English is simply "type measurements" (see Wikipedia article Typographic unit), while the term "typometric" may sometimes be used ("The Rijeka cicero is only 0,046 mm greater than Didot's (4,512 mm) accepted since 1879 as the standard international typometric unit"). So the red link on the disambiguation page could point to the existing "Typographic unit" article, since the contents are mostly the same as in the Spanish article "Tipometría".--Teknad (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Teknad: good point, I have interwiki linked the Spanish article to the Typographic unit article. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm both the original editor of this page and the original editor of the typometry disambiguation page. In my humble opinion, there is no particular reason why this article should be more important than the other two. "Typometry" is also a term that is used widely in the archaeologic field; while typometry (as a printing technique) has fallen out of use because it's no longer employed, and only has this meaning in a historical context. Typometry, as the measurement of the points of a glyph, is commonly used in other languages (German, Spanish), and it's sometimes (rarely) used by typographers in English ("Point is a unit of the typographical measurement system—typometry."), and it appears in at least one academic article ("Mitjà tipogràfic, El"). For these reasons, I don't think that this article should have a particular prevalence.--Teknad (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Teknad: I agree; there's no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. The only reason I was wanting to move this page was that there was (at that time) only the single article; now the situation is different, with two articles. So I'll withdraw the requested move, as soon as I figure out how to do that. — Gorthian (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A couple of minor sources[edit]

Actually, the first one isn't so minor, but it's from a blog, so doesn't count as a reliable source. The second is very short.

Wilhem Haas Mapmaker (I added this in the "external links" section.)
Typometry as a type of map

— Gorthian (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same Haas.[edit]

An embedded comment in the article says:

I have a possible possible explanation for this. The Wilhelm Haas that lived between 1766 and 1838 was the son of Wilhelm Haas-Münch (1741-1800), the co-inventor of typometry according to the Cartographica Helvetica review.

An online blog says that Wilhelm Haas-Münch (the father) lived between 1698 and 1764, but it's an error. It was actually Wilhelm Haas-Münch's father, Johann Wilhelm Haas, who lived between 1698 and 1764, and who came from Nuremberg.--Teknad (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]