Wikidata:Property proposal/is metrically compatible with

metrically compatible with

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

   Done: metrically compatible typeface (P4099) (Talk and documentation)

Description	typeface metrically compatible with this typeface: glyph position, width and height match
Data type	Item
Domain	typeface (Q17451)
Allowed values	typeface (Q17451)
Example	Liberation Sans (Q30523975) ⇋ Arial (Q653123)
Planned use	I intend to add this property to pairs of typefaces that are metrically compatible with each other.
Robot and gadget jobs	Ideally, bots would make this property symmetric.

Motivation

Metric compatibility is crucial when typefaces need to be substituted for one another, e.g. due to unavailability of the original typeface. The concept has shaped the history of typography, influencing the development of notable typefaces such as Century Gothic, Arial, and the Liberation fonts.

Currently, metric compatibility is often noted in the body text of articles on the English Wikipedia, but this is not especially consistent: sometimes compatibility might not be noted, or might be indicated using slightly different wording, etc. I have therefore requested the addition, to Infobox typeface on the English Wikipedia, of an equivalent parameter to the one that I am proposing here for WikiData, in the hope that the infobox parameter will ultimately be able to be populated from WikiData.

N.B. A typeface being metrically compatible with another is distinct from its being "based on" another. Zazpot (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Support. I changed the name from "is metrically compatible with" to "metrically compatible with", but would "metrically compatible font" be clearer? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support! In answer to your question: no, best not to mention fonts in the description IMO, as the property is of typefaces rather than just of fonts. Zazpot (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Then ""metrically compatible typeface". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
• Is there any prior art for this outside of the Wikimedia universe? ChristianKl (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi ChristianKl, yes, there is. See, e.g. the references in en:Typeface#Font_metrics. Zazpot (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
• I would like it if you define in the description a bit better what it means to be "metrically compatible". ChristianKl (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I added, to the description, a permalink to the relevant Wikipedia section. Does this help? Zazpot (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Property descriptions cannot contain wikilinks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
• Question: Do we have those name differences for copyright reasons? The face type file is copyrighted, but the font itself not, therefore it is needed to have another name in computers but the look n feel is the same? Should we somehow differentiate between the licensed font files and the font types itself within Wikidata? --Hannolans (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your questions, but I'm afraid I don't understand them, sorry. Zazpot (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    • In the US letter types are not copyrighted, but the font files are licensed instead. So the digital file has a license and computer systems are not allowed to use those without a license. You van however create a font type that have the same look n feel, but another digital file and name. --Hannolans (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I edited the description to hopefully be a bit more descriptive? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support ChristianKl (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
• @ArthurPSmith, Pigsonthewing, Hannolans, Zazpot:  Done Created as metrically compatible typeface (P4099). ChristianKl (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)