Category talk:Typefaces with text figures

Question

Wouldn't "ranging", "old-style" or "non-lining numerals/figures typefaces" be more appropriate, or at least "text figures" for consistency with our article? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome the category, but second the concern about naming. Also, the word "numerals" seems untypographic. Text figures might be the most neutral across the English speaking world. CApitol3 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with different releases of digital fonts

I do think this category is a bit complicated. Good fonts often come with both styles (even many free ones), and for older typefaces released in many versions (e.g. Garamond) it depends on which release you're talking about. EB Garamond and Adobe Garamond have text figures but the Garamond that comes with Office doesn't. For Perpetua I'd say it's less ambiguous: the vast majority of users who have Perpetua (by getting it with Office) have a version that doesn't come with text figures, so I've just removed it from the category. I'd urge caution when adding to this list any more fonts that might exist in common early digital releases without text figures to avoid confusing people. Blythwood (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, I've decided to include typefaces if either the currently available main version (that most people on earth have) or a decent free/open-source version has text figures. So still not Perpetua (since most users of it got it through MS and they only get lining), but Garamond is included (since if you download URW Garamond 8 or EB Garamond you do get text figures). And included Avenir since while the initial release didn't have it most users (with copies they didn't pirate, anyway ;) ) will now be OS X users who get Avenir Next which has text figures. Let me know if anyone has any objections, though... Blythwood (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]