Template talk:alternative typography of

Category:Latin orthographic variant forms to Category:Latin typographic variant forms
I mentioned my reservations for the original name in the discussion now archived at Talk:dies Iouis, and they still apply. "Orthographic variant" is not distinguished semantically from "alternative spelling", and this category contains terms that are, by definition, not orthographically distinct, as there is underlying identity of U and V and they merely differ visually. This seems more like the domain of typography, much like we still use different shapes for the lowercase letters A or G depending on the font being used. —CodeCat 20:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * NB the existence of Template:obsolete typography of, and the discussion on Template talk:obsolete typography of. - -sche (discuss) 21:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "obsolete" would only be suitable for languages that are still spoken. But it does make me wonder if we should rename this to Template:alternative typography of instead? To put "typography" on the same level as "spelling" and "form"? —CodeCat 23:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, I wasn't proposing replacing Template:orthographic variant of with Template:obsolete typography of, just noting that the latter should be considered in any renaming, and that its talk page has some discussion of "typography" vs "orthography". (Sorry for the unhelpfully short comment.) I agree that renaming Template:orthographic variant of to Template:alternative typography of to make it parallel the other templates would make sense. - -sche (discuss) 23:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to Template:alternative typography of. —CodeCat 20:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)