Template talk:Blackletter

Why does the template make regular text larger? Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * or to put it another way

Why not use allow the font size to be controlled. cygnis insignis 07:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly to simulate the visual contrast of Fraktur type in a document primarily done in Roman type on systems which aren't set up to display it. However, it seems to have initially relied on some user css, and in the absence of that x-larger was added, which might be overkill. Maybe it would be best to add the user css to mw:common.css and get rid of the x-larger. Prosody (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Change template or start new one?
I almost forgot about this because the font didn't turn up on the webfonts list but we have UnifrakturMaguntia available now: a fraktur webfont. I'm not sure how blackletter appears to others but all I get is bold but still roman typeface. As a webfont, every user will be able to see it regardless of their machine's settings. As it's just a font, it will also be compatible with other formatting and templates.

Is there any objection to me re-writing this template to use the UnifrakturMaguntia font? If there is, my alternative is to create a new template, but it would be more useful to have everything in one place.

We can already mock-up this function with the lang template: : The result will look like this. This text can then also be made bold, italic, larger, smaller,,, and so forth. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For reference, 36666. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The capital S S is a little ugly and less than obvious, however, until we get something else, it will have to do. We are going to need to do something to the font size, as it throws it a fair bit smaller. The previous rendition threw the letters bigger than standard, and this one is significantly smaller.  I would think that we are going to need to add some size formatting into the template to make it equate to standard text, OR we are going to need to do a repair job to where it is used. I can think of a couple of ways to do it, though would like to see the underlying agreement before acting. — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The default font size could be increased a little, to match the standard text. I think 110-120% should be about right.  There will be size issues with past instances of the template but I think being consistent with any other text is more important for the future.  I'm not sure why the past version was so large anyway.
 * For reference
 * 100%: This is the current default text, and this is some text for reference. ( ooo ooo / OOO OOO)
 * 105%: This is the 105% size text , and this is some text for reference. (  ooo  ooo /  OOO  OOO)
 * 110%: This is the 110% size text , and this is some text for reference. (  ooo  ooo /  OOO  OOO)
 * 115%: This is the 115% size text , and this is some text for reference. (  ooo  ooo /  OOO  OOO)
 * 120%: This is the 120% size text , and this is some text for reference. (  ooo  ooo /  OOO  OOO)
 * Which looks best? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gone with 113% for now. After playing around with the sizes, that seemed about right.  If anyone has a different opinion, feel free to comment here.  (NB: I've substituted the last iterationo of the template into the examples in my last comment to preserve the comparison.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn’t an opinion, but I must say (much, much later) that I am having some frustration with this. The root problem here is technical, so anything to be done is a kludge (and just picking a size is the cleanest kludge). However, the font family I use on this wiki (Andika, very practical for reading and proofreading) is “shorter” than this one—even at 100%—so when used inline, the mismatch causes visibly uneven line spacing in the resulting text. I looked into it a bit (e.g.) and found that CSS presently doesn’t have a clean, font-agnostic mechanism for matching fonts with different metrics to each other. That’s arguably a pretty significant defect since it can be rectified with enough math, but of course browser technology is evolutionary rather than perfect. Alas (for now and the near future). -BRPXQZME (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Walbaum-Fraktur reference
From the Fraktur article on Wikipedia, this sample of Walbaum-Fraktur from 1800 is similar to the Unifraktur font recently added: In current blackletter

It's not quite the same but it is an interesting reference. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Broken
Seems that there has been some change with blackletter and I guess that it is one of the webfonts. Someone able to dig a little further? — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There has been a change in Special:Preferences which has pushed webfonts to be a preference  and it is currently off (well it is for me). I have spoken to WMF techs in IRC, and they are looking at the issue. We will need to do some pushing to see a resolution. — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Now in prefs (first page) as Enable the Universal Language Selector, with the conversation taking place in 46306 — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Testing
Modern-S per Sourceforge page:

Snakes Sneaking South Snakes Sneaking South

Snakes Sneaking South Snakes Sneaking South

Snakes Sneaking South Snakes Sneaking South

- AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * And with the modern-k, to test multiple option syntax:-

Snakes Sneaking South Snakes Sneaking South
 * - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)