2

The two questions are asking very similar things—how does one change the font for a particular piece of text—but there's a fairly crucial difference: the font.

Because of that difference, I'd hesitate to mark the latter as a duplicate of the former since it really doesn't answer the question of how to get Chancery in particular. However, I don't think we really need two questions asking for the same basic information.

(Even though the two questions ask about different fonts, I feel a little bit silly for having answered a nearly duplicate question rather than voting to close. Actually, with a tiny bit of searching, I found another question that contains the answer of how to change the font.)

What should be done here? Should I delete my answer, leave a comment with the particular font family name, and vote to close as a duplicate pointing to one of the other questions?

3

An answer along the lines of

You need the techniques given in the answers to Change font in a single paragraph to restrict the font in the way you want. The font name you need for Chancery is pzc, so substitute that for ppl in the Tex code, which in this case gives ....

addresses just what is different about the question

Should you do that? Well, for one variant, I'd say leaving it open is better than closing, provided the cross-referencing is in order. If several variants start appearing, I'd post a more general question with some wording as "for typical fonts such as Chancery" and explicitly ask for the names of common fonts the question. Then the variant questions can be closed as a duplicate of the new general question.

1
  • I thought about asking a new question along those lines, but wasn't sure. Maybe if this starts to pop up more often. – TH. Mar 7 '11 at 16:04
2

The one questions is about whole paragraphs and the other for short pieces of text. In the first an environment or fontspec is used and in the second a macro. A real beginner will not be able to go from one solution to the other that easily, or know how to exchange the font. So it is good to have both question around.

I see no much reason to close (not delete) it as duplicate except of to linking benefit it brings.

4
  • The links can (and probably) should be added in manually, of course. – Andrew Stacey Mar 7 '11 at 7:53
  • @Andrew: That kind of goes without saying. There is already a link from the new to the old one, which also makes the new one get listed under the "Linked" section of the old one. – Martin Scharrer Mar 7 '11 at 7:57
  • I was just meaning to point out that your possible reason for closing wasn't one (thereby supporting your position that there isn't really a point in closing)! – Andrew Stacey Mar 7 '11 at 8:00
  • The word "paragraph" does appear in the title of the first question, but it goes on to ask for "selected text", and that is what the answers respond to. It's not clear that the difference really exists here. – Charles Stewart Mar 7 '11 at 8:37
2

The chancery question had some difficulties with English (which I fixed) which made it originally even harder to figure out what the intended meaning was. Thinking more about the phrase "instead of the whole document", I think TH's interpretation is correct, since loading the chancery package makes the entire document chancery.

So I think the question should definitely be left, since the other question assumes that the person knows the 3 letter code for the font.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1119/really-similar-font-questions-but-with-a-crucial-distinction
tex.meta.stackexchange.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-10
141720
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:BSMPACPXSC2F3VETXZM6K5V4DSSOI5NR
<urn:uuid:004678d1-2910-4c90-aff8-ff5ed81a6824>
2021-03-04T14:56:51Z
151.101.1.69
text/html
sha1:F45JMTZZANTSI32HM7D2IZN3XSMY43D5
<urn:uuid:7c1ef64e-5e02-416e-a72c-e47e3a4a3489>
https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1119/really-similar-font-questions-but-with-a-crucial-distinction
response
<urn:uuid:9f8dacbc-96e6-4dc4-bb1c-92df56be5704>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-10
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for February/March 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-134.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/