File talk:Forte.png

From Homestar Runner Wiki

[edit] "Its" vs. "It's"

Shouldn't we only use images directly from site? --Trogga 16:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah, Mike admits he got it wrong. It's not hurting anything to fix it, and it looks better that way. — It's dot com 16:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

But it may be a bit confusing. --Trogga 16:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, it might be confusing to leave out the apostrophe, so we shouldn't. — It's dot com 16:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just as a side question, when did Mike admit he got it wrong? I looked in the Fun Facts section for First Time Here?, but there was no mention of it. If he did admit it somewhere, it should be mentioned on the First Time Here? page. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 17:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

See techno → Commentary Transcript. — It's dot com 17:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

But he didn't say anything about First Time Here? --Trogga 18:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure he did, just not directly. — It's dot com 18:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we at least mention that the original image was modified? --Trogga 18:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Done. — It's dot com 18:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 21:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello, my name is It's dot com

I have no way to resize these images for easier viewing, but here's the question. Which screenshot better represents the font? Using the "It's dot com!" wording has already created some controversy because of the addition of the apostrophe (see above topic). I thought I had the solution with a much more common use of the font with more unique letters. But it got reverted for an unknown reason. Assuming that we can determine this with some kind of consensus, let's have some opinions please. OptimisticFool 23:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, do you really care about what image is used? Because I do. I recognize I am 100% biased, but I'm okay with that. If it weren't for the line shown on the right, I might not even be here now. I think the image is fine, it's been fine for nearly two years, and it should be left alone. — It's dot com 23:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I personally think that a larger sample would be more appropriate. To that end, the issue at hand (assuming we stick with the original scene (First Time Here? instead of The Luau), if not that's another issue to be discussed) is whether or not we want the apostrophe present in the image. It is well within our technical means to do so (again). So what would be the best option: keep the fixed version as it is (but with a higher resolution sample) or keep the original apostrophe-less sample. Keep in mind that this sample is meant to document the font sample first, but we are still "faithfully" documenting TBC's work. However, a little anachronism never hurt. Low-resolution samples, on the other hand, (cue scary music) can. --Stux 23:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not low resolution. It's a screenshot of First Time Here? at the natural (unzoomed) resolution, plus an apostrophe. It's clearly legible at the given size. — It's dot com 23:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I stand corrected, I should've said "lower resolution". However, given the scalable nature of flash animation, lately we've been taking advantage of its zoom features to provide higher quality samples for this wiki (in this case the font samples have been generally set to a standard minimum width on the pages). I see no reason why we can't provide the same kind of high-quality image yet place back the apostrophe whose absence glooms over the sample. Or something to that effect. --Stux 23:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not that this interests or concerns me much, I think the "Hello my name is" sample is better. It is longer, bigger resolution, on a flat color background, without a drop shadow and 100% all original Bubs... I mean Forte. For all I've ever seen and/or needed font sample images, they should be big, on a simple one color backdrop and without too much extra bells and whistles. I would also like to remind It's Dot Com to consider whether it's really important what the sample says instead of the attributes that really matter; size and simpleness. --Sysrq868 23:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it doesn't interest or concern you much, then I suppose you'd be fine with keeping the old image. — It's dot com 23:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I uploaded a larger version of "It's dot com!". I admit the detail it shows (especially in the quotation marks) makes it superior to the previous image. I hope this is an acceptable compromise. — It's dot com 00:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The question still remains, which image better represents the font and eliminates the controversy? I don't want this to be about the stupid apostrophe, but one flaw I see with adding the apostrophe is that it misrepresents the spacing of the actual font. The name tag sample is authentic, shows 10 unique letters rather than 7, and is MUCH more common that the one-use "Its dot com". OptimisticFool 00:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Except the one image doesn't mean anything to you, my image gets the job done fine (it actually has 9 distinct characters), and, being the welcome page, First Time Here? is more visible than any other toon. — It's dot com 00:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, juys. Images should be representative of the subject, and not lie if at all possible. The apostrophe lies? Then it's not the best image. For a demonstration of font, content does not need to be well-known, in fact it simply needs to demonstrate the font appropriately. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  00:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The subject is the font Forte. The image shows that. The apostrophe has been discussed and settled on. Years ago. This isn't broken. — It's dot com 00:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, First Time Here? has high visibility. That, and the letter "I" is unique, and for those reasons the "Its dot com" use has value. But the controversy is still there, as well as what TBC choose to do (more) with the font. Oh, and the use of one sample or another shouldn't have any deep meaning to one person more than another, and the fact that it makes you happy to see your name on the Fonts page (the importance of which escapes me) doesn't change the fact that this ought to be a consensus and not an OF vs. IDC thing. Now I'm sure this is (somehow) going to turn into a popularity contest, which you will always win because people LOVE to say "I agree with the admin". But let's just let it play out, shall we? Your arguments are on the table, and so are mine. OptimisticFool 00:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Then please direct me to the years-past discussion where consensus was reached. If the apostrophe mangles the font creator's intention, it is broken and should not be presented as such on a NPOV wiki. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  00:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean the one right above this one? — It's dot com 01:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that in a wiki, something doesn't need to be broken in order for it to be improved. Now, I'm not saying this image needs to be improved, (I'm undecided on the issue myself), but your arguments in favor of keeping the image seem to be that "it's been like this for 2 years" and "I have a vested interest in this image", neither of which are really very valid. -DAGRON 01:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Another point: the point of the image isn't just to show what the font looks like, but also to demonstrate its use in H*R. For this, a line that was a major part of a joke ("It's dot com!") is a better example than one that's just a bit of background trimming in all its appearances ("Hello, my name is"). If the main point was just to show what the font looked like, we'd do the standard "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" or similar... but we go with the H*R screenshots because showing them in use is more useful and interesting than just showing what the font looks like. As for whether it should be the faithful "its" or the correct "it's" is a separate issue, which I have no opinion on... if pressed, I'd say that adding the apostrophe can't hurt. --phlip ^T_C 01:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If it really came down to it, I'd be fine with the canonical image from First Time Here?. Being as objective as possible, I still maintain that the corrected image looks better in the context of the fonts list. — It's dot com 01:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Barely a year and a half, IDC. Nevertheless, even long-standing fixtures can be discussed, and in this case, will be discussed. The image should be correct in every viewpoint, and if you're the sole dissenter, so be it. If the arguments above by OF are correct, the image should be changed. I think the best thing you can do, aside from repeatedly stating that it's been fine for a year and a half so why bother, is to present counterarguments to OF's claim. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  01:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

March 2006 to February 2008 is nearly two years. — It's dot com 02:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

To comment on Phlip's opinion: adding the apostrophe is - I think - a faux pas. If we are to document the way fonts are used in H*R toons, then let's document them as used in H*R toons. Looking the issue on the font sample side: I can't say whether that's the authentic Forte apostrophe, but nevertheless it's probably placed wrong. Is the shadow completely correct? It doesn't show the letter spacing correctly. If we are to use the "It's dot com" image, we should not have an apostrophe in it. You just simply do not edit font sample images; the second you do, it's a lie and no longer a very good sample/reference. --Sysrq868 01:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

After a good night's sleep, I think (hope) I can more clearly present a rational position:

1. The "Its dot com" image is more appropriate than "Hello, my name is" because even though it may only appear once, it is a much more recognizable and better known joke. Thus it would be more appropriate to use this as our sample image.
2. Currently, I have no strong personal preference on whether or not we keep the apostrophe.
3. That said, I do think it should be handled appropriately. If we do keep the apostrophe, given that this wiki tries hard to faithfully document H*R (without sacrificing hilarity), the apostrophe should be handled in the same way. Not only should it be documented here in the image (as it is) but it would need to be documented where ever it is used. In this case the font page should state that the original image has no apostrophe and that the apostrophe is not included with the correct spacing. Moreover, a link to an image of the original, apostrophe-less "Its dot com" should be provided for completion's sake.

--Stux 17:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to throw in a reminder that there is only one person who really wants the apostrophe. Any of that effort is a lot to go to satisfy the preference of one person. And let's imagine for a minute that it was a BRAND NEW USER wanting this apostrophe. We'd say, "Nope, sorry, this is the way TBC did it. Big pat on the back for getting the punctuation right yourself, but ... no." Am I wrong? OptimisticFool 01:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that brand-new users (justifiably) aren't in the same standing as users who have been here three years (notice I didn't say admins) isn't even the point, and the fact that this is admittedly personal to me doesn't mean that you have to attack me personally. What's real problem here? The apostrophe I added, almost on a lark? Back when the fonts page was new, our standards for the images weren't as strict as they are now (it took us a while to even decide to use H*R images), so it wasn't as big a deal to use a corrected image. We've obviously grown out of that, which is fine. A better course of action would have been to just reopen the thread above and suggest it be changed to the canonical form instead of changing the whole image. I naturally think it looks better with the apostrophe, but ultimately it's not something I care that much about, and I'm not nearly as defensive about it. Reading all these comments, I think everyone (even Trogga and I) would be fine with an apostrophe-less version of First Time Here?. I've updated the image to reflect that. — It's dot com 02:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason this wasn't a revisit of the above topic was because I felt that the name tag image was a better representation of the font and the change was reverted without a given reason (which, naturally, was not covered by the above topic). So, now that we've been reminded why that wouldn't necessarily have been the "best course of action", I will say that I still feel the same way about the name tag image, but I'm done fighting for it because of the general consensus that seems to have been reached ... which is all I can really expect. In the end, I'm satisfied with having a consensus. On a side note, I do find it a little strange that the image is now of a higher resolution than some people are able to see on one screen, but hey, whatever. OptimisticFool 03:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I do find it a little strange that the image is now of a higher resolution than some people are able to see on one screen, but hey, whatever.

Two words: WIDE SCREEEEEEEEEEEEN!!! Left side: W— --Stux 03:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely more good. Image as used in canon, demonstrating the use of the font as seen on the wedsite. Once again, everything is awesome. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  02:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)