Talk:Roboto

Google Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Google To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Articles for most of the other products listed here and here. Assess : All articles in the Category:Unknown-importance Google articles and Category:Unassessed Google articles using the project's assessment scale Expand : Google Mapathon, Google Talkback Maintain : This WikiProject Merge : Google mobile services into List of Google products Stubs : Category:Stub-Class Google articles and Category:Google stubs Update : List of features in Android and Gmail interface#Product integration. Update logos of Google Marketing Platform products Other : Add more stuff to this to do list if you like! (click here...) create: Help the Google article for a good article status Improve the Outline of Google Get more members using : {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Google/Invite Members}} Infobox Images with transparent areas needing a different background color

Typography Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Just wondering how long Gruber (referenced) has been a "professional Graphic Designer"?

203.158.32.195 (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to that, I don't think "Daring Fireball" is a appropriate source: it is clear the author is pro-Apple and Anti-Android, so including it is likely a violation of NPOV. The reliability of typographica.org is also unclear and both seem to be Self-published sources --SF007 (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article on typographica.org is by Stephen Coles who has previously worked for FontShop and is also clearly an opinion piece. You have twice tagged this section, but the reception area is clearly always going to be based on opinion. You seem to take umbrage that anyone would criticize this subject and seem to seek to have any criticism expunged from the article. While Gruber does not appear to be a graphic artist, your statement that he is "Anti-Android" clearly needs sources other than your own opinion, which seems to be a violation of NPOV given your recent edit history. Given his profile and how widely quoted he was about this, it is just as valid to show his opinion as that of Joshua Topolsky's, isn't it? --203.206.236.114 (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for providing the information about Stephen Coles. I agree "Reception" sections are always going to be based on "opinions", but that was not the problem, the problem was that the article stated the font had been criticized by "professional graphic designers", implying either John Grubber and Stephen Coles are both "professional graphic designers" or some other "professional graphic designers" criticized the font. Either way, that was unsourced, and yes, I have twice tagged the section and I would tag it as many times as necessary, as Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of the pillars of wikipedia. "You seem to take umbrage that anyone would criticize this subject" - What I personally dislike is when people dislike some product/service/company and do their best to push their ideas, using sources and opinions that are not considered "reliable sources". I perfectly admit that my statement saying Grubber is Anti-Android is somewhat speculative and should have been backed by some more info, but I after analyzing his blog, one will conclude he is openly Pro-Apple and there are also strong indications he favors iOS over Android, in his words "We criticize Android for being poorly designed because it’s poorly designed. We favor iOS because it’s better designed."

"which seems to be a violation of NPOV given your recent edit history." - You seem to imply that as I have edited several Android-related articles, somehow tagging an article to request citations or openly analyzing the bias of a blogger is a NPOV violation? Actually no, the NPOV policy applies to article content, it is my understanding it is perfecly OK to analyse and make a critical judgment of the sources and express that on a talk page, as long as is is respectful/etc.

"Given his profile and how widely quoted he was about this, it is just as valid to show his opinion as that of Joshua Topolsky's, isn't it?" Actually, no. Being widely quoted does not mean it is appropriate for an encyclopedia, and regarding is opinion being "as valid as Joshua's opinion", I think it is clear that not all opinions are considered "valid", and some are considered more valid than others. Joshua's opinion is published on a media and news website, considered a more or less reliable source. Grubber'ss opinion is published on his own blog, without any editorial oversight and without any commitment to "journalistic integrity" or similar standards. While I don't dispute Grubber might be considered a reliable source for some information (I am not very familiar with him nor his blog), being a reliable source for one thing does not necessarily make it a reliable source for another thing. --SF007 (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Roboto.