Talk:Lucida

Bug?[edit]

Help! I am stuck! Maybe there is some bug in whole Wikipedia.

I think I am entering valid HTML- and CSS-code to this page but somehow Wikipedia renders it to invalid code.

Update: I think it is okay now. I must use single quotes inside double-quotes or vice versa.

-- User:Juhtolv

Luxi[edit]

I've added the Luxi Sans, Serif, and Mono families in the CSS.

They're Lucida semi-free fonts with a different name for X11.

This is a pretty useless page[edit]

.. especially for those without the fonts installed. Its actual content is about three paragraphs of useful information. Please could screenshots be added showing what these fonts actually look like? Thanks. L upin 01:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...... I fully agree with this comment! But the links are there and a better image of the fonts is given on Lucida Web site. Foxandpotatoes 16:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Lupin... images showing what the fonts are like would be a good improvement. _└^UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 13:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images Added! better now? atanamir 00:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better, indeed. But instead of the lorem ipsum blubber, some text describing the font characteristic would be better still. 81.208.36.85 13:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency; please check and fix[edit]

The "Usage" section says Lucida Sans Demibold is used by the MacOS interface, but the page for Lucida Grande says MacOS uses ... well, Lucida Grande. I assume it's the latter, since Safari for Windows has an embedded copy of the font, but maybe whoever added that fact knows something I don't. Octan (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, was wondering when reading that sentence. I myself use Mac OS X and really think it's just Grande Bold. Tonyngkh (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

This article omits any information on copyright for this family of fonts. It is my belief that this font is not open source, and therefore royalties have to be paid for its use outside the USA. Is this correct and if so how are licensing costs calculated? FreeFlow99 (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lucida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120425023335/http://www.businessweek.com:80/news/2012-04-22/consumers-buy-death-in-australia-s-cigarette-package-law to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-22/consumers-buy-death-in-australia-s-cigarette-package-law

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]