Here are some links:
https://sitandr.github.io/typst-examples-book/book/basics/index.html
https://justinpombrio.net/2024/11/30/typst.html
Typst’s Intuitive Syntax: A Comprehensive Tutorial for Beginners
This video will make you finally try Typst [reupload]
Typst - The Future of Document Creation?
Start Your Typst Journey: Installation Guide and First Steps
The Ultimate Guide to Citations and References in Typst
Professional CV in Typst: Better Than Word & LaTeX
Fully agree with you, @edithatogo! Perhaps The Art, Science, and Engineering of Programming—a fully refereed, open access, and free electronic journal that welcomes papers “on the art of programming”, including “programming styles, pearls, models, and languages”—might also be an interesting venue for a credible reference.
There’s lots of options. Apologies, I don’t know who developed it, but the citations would be quite significant and it’s a useful “marketing” mechanism.
I submitted some drafts at some point, but the topic was rejected because the topic was not notable enough, meaning the number of secondary sources was not high enough.
See Notability
You can still find the Draft here, but it might be deleted at some point (can be recovered) if no edits are made.
Some good sources if that helps (they are already in the draft):
I agree with @antstei, publishing to JOSS might help, but I think Typst just needs to mature and release a major version 
. Interest might be high in our (niche) community, but in the public space, it’s relatively small. Unless high-profile journals start accepting Typst sources and that spreads, the topic is “not notable enough”.
This article is rather old (2023) and behind a paywall so I cannot access it entirely, and it’s in German, but at least it’s the “real” press (whatever that means) and I did not find it above, so here it is: Golem.de: IT-News für Profis.
Great, thank you. That article is in fact available in full on https://archive.fo/ (I’m not sure if I should direct link, that archive site is often flagged as spam?).
It’s like just a short notice level article, quite brief, if we look at just the Typst part.
Given that the article got rejected again based on lacking notability, I thought you might want to add the GitHub blog post about being the 2nd fastest growing major language on the platform in the history section.
Here’s a source that could be mined for the article:
Make Use Of has about 144K monthly visitors according to Ahrefs estimates.
…and a scientific article about Typst here:
Oh…well, I guess it wasn’t much of a surprise for the regulars on the forum. (For some reason notifications were set to “Tracking” instead of “Watching” and I missed a whole bunch of things here.)
Anyway, here is the announcement of the paper with all the relevant links: A paper about Typst, written in Typst, and with an official Typst-based template in the IJIMAI journal.
Actually Typst has Wikipedia articles in 4 different languages already, including Cantonese and Ukrainian
Maybe fellows here can also help translating the English draft in your mother tongues :)
I don’t really understand why there isn’t an English Wikipedia article on Typst. I don’t see any difficulties on writing about Typst. Is there any restriction imposed by Wikimedia?
You can read why in the banner on the draft page:
This draft’s references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia’s criteria for inclusion. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:
- provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements;
- are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
- are independent: not connected to the subject, such as interviews, press releases, the subject’s own website, or sponsored content.
A comment by an editor:
This draft is reasonably written, well structured and leaves nothing to be desired from a content policy perspective. However, the core problem is the referencing. A quick glimpse reveals that >12/21 footnotes refer to sources that are primary or non independent, which shouldn’t be the case.
This was from November 2025; Even more recently (December):
I don’t see how this meets notability requipements under the general guidelines, product guidelines, or software essay.
It seems that the article was submitted for review again. While I want to have a Typst article too, I’m not sure that was so useful. The only changes since the last rejection were three sources:
Since the submission, another change has noted Typst as the second fastest-growing language in 2025 – coming from Github, i.e. reputable, and directly related to notability. So maybe that will tip the scales, or we get some more improvements between now and the actual review, but all this is to say: if you read this and are among the people working on the article – maybe not every single incremental change is grounds for immediately resubmitting the draft.
Even though it’s indeed not a lotta changes, together they actually seem like a good next chance for accepting the draft.
The way I see it, the Typst paper checks the significant coverage (duh), is reliable (because journal with good JCR/Scopus score? and peer reviewed), independent (made by 4 “random” Typst enthusiasts). And the growing language mention checks the notability (to some extent).
So in a way, all the (main?) points were addressed, and therefore a new review was requested. But yeah, better not get your hopes up, as with all previous tries, they are rather strict with (at least) the English version one.
Yes, but note that the Github source addressing notability was only added after submitting, so I wouldn’t count that towards “was it worth resubmitting at that time?” I agree it might be enough, but better not expect too much.
Another thing that should be done (but not by you, I think) is to use the paper for more specific claims. Right now, it may still be seen as most parts of the article only coming from primary/non-independent sources, even though the paper actually also supports them.
Right, well then the trigger indeed was pulled too soon, maybe.
Yeah, I actually was very surprised to see this and Alberto’s paper (and a bunch of other articles for that matter) be cited for very generic statements that don’t even need citation/reference (FOSS, typesetting system, written in a language, has a license). If anything, it sounds like a wasted citation/opportunity since indeed they can be used for much more (unique/new) stuff/details/claims. You probably can write a separate paragraph just for them, though I’m not sure about what exactly, but the paper does go over many fields and topics, so…
Wow, those few changes were enough after all. Awesome!
Next up: Russian Wikipedia article. 
(Right after I finish the Russian paper article. 
) /hj
Also, no German article yet, what’s up with that?
Regarding the English article, first of all congratulations that it was accepted!
A few questions / suggestions, though I am not very familiar with Wikipedia editing, so I don’t know if such changes are allowed, or what requirements there are:
For missing functions, Typst supports community-provided packages and templates.
Would it be possible to refer to Typst Universe (maybe even with a link), in addition to the existing reference? That existing reference is to a third-party site which mentions somewhere in the text that Typst supports packages, and even there it does not mention “Typst Universe”.
Packages allow, among other things, integration with other programming languages and environments, such as generating illustrations with external tools.
This might be incorrect or at least highly misleading. Due to Typst’s security model you cannot really integrate with other programming languages[1] or call external tools (unless you count external tools compiled to WASM). The reference linked there is Jlyfish which actually has a separate Julia program constantly running in the background. I don’t want to trivialize that project, but I think many users will not consider such a setup “integration with other programming languages”.
Highlighting some of Typst’s major features
Without turning the Wikipedia article in a product pitch, I think it might be good to highlight some of Typst’s other major features which are currently not mentioned and which might differentiate it from other projects:
Typst can also be used as library
Typst’s security model
That is, that a Typst project can only access files in the project root, that projects cannot make arbitrary network requests or run arbitrary code, that packages can include WASM code but that is executed in a sandbox.
Though this of course also has its downsides, e.g. preventing to simply call OS commands, which should be mentioned.
That makes Typst somewhat unique? I am actually a bit surprised the Typst documentation does not highlight this more extensively on a single page (have suggested this now in Typst documentation should mention Security Model).
I am also wondering if for facts (e.g. Typst supports these features with that syntax…) links to the Typst documentation would be allowed; not sure what the Wikipedia policy is for that. It seems a bit weird to link to (potentially outdated, incomplete or incorrect) third-party sources for that. Though of course for anything which rates Typst in any way (positive or negative) third-party sources should be used.
At least not from the Typst side; though you can use Typst as library. ↩︎