Talk:sylfaen

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

sylfaen

English: a certain typeface. Since when do we do typefaces? -- Liliana • 16:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

We do have Arial. I think this is a WT:BRAND issue. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 16:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Keep. Looks like a word with possible pronunciation, etymology and occurrences in sentences. "Since when do we do typefaces" is not a CFI consideration. If this rhetorical question is asked to mean that "we don't do typefaces", I point out that CFI does not say anything of the sort. --Dan Polansky 20:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  But the English proper name referring to a specific typeface should probably be capitalized as "Sylfaen", and thus moved to Sylfaen. For attestation, see google books:Sylfaen typeface. --Dan Polansky 20:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I really can't think of a reason to exclude this. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Bad caps if nothing else! Equinox ◑ 20:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Move to RFV for WT:BRAND. Sylfaen is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation. Equinox ◑ 14:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Again, it is not a brand of physical product. Keep in RFD and keep. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Nobody except for you supports that interpretation of the BRAND policy. -- Liliana • 16:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    • If that is true, nothing should be easier than removing the "physical product" language from WT:BRAND via a vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
      • @Liliana-60, I support it only in the sense it's written there, and it seems wrong to ignore it totally, which is what other editors do. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)