Talk:Papyrus (typeface)

Dark Sun

Papyrus was used quite extensively in the Dark Sun setting books for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition, especially the interior titles and chapter headings. I don't actually have any references to cite, just the books sitting in front of me. RyokoMocha (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I recently edited the page with removing this line:

As has been the case with Comic Sans, graphic designers, including Costello himself, often criticize Papyrus for being overused. See undertale

Is this vandalism?

--ShintoCoffee (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Costello's feelings on popular culture references

Costello's reaction to the typeface's references in popular culture don't belong in the article. While the popular culture references themselves are fine for inclusion since they're about the subject itself, the designer's reaction to them simply isn't encylopedic. I therefore removed his feeback about the Saturday Night Live sketch. The fact that he and his wife thought the bit was very funny is quite trivial. It's acceptable for a magazine or newspaper article, but certainly not for an encylopedia. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D8E:D6F3:A7EA:C247 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The editor reinserted the content, thus establishing edit-warring, rather than discussing the issue here and gaining consenus among other editors. I have again reverted the content for the reasons stated above. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D8E:D6F3:A7EA:C247 (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Restore It's only the IP editor who is the one account repeatedly removing this. If the sketch belongs here, so does the font designer's reaction to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Remove Of course I'm the only one who removed it (so far) because it was added just a few days ago and I did so shortly after it was added, then quickly started this thread. In fact, I was the very next edit after the content was added. And it's not like this article gets lots of eyeballs anyway. So your implication that a large number of editors saw the content and decided it was okay is factually incorrect. It's simply an illogical argument that because the sketch belongs, so does the creator's reaction to it. The sketch is encylopedic obviously because the subject of this article (Papyrus) was what was being parodied on the show, not the subject's creator. Many things are parodied on SNL but we do not include the reactions of the "creators" of those things when it happens. But let's be honest, including content that simply says so and so (and his wife) thought something was funny is in no way encylopedic. Not even close. It's meaningless and adds no value to the article. I mean, so what, he thought it was funny. I'm not trying to be difficult, but let's not dumb down this article with drivel like that. This is an enyclopedia. Had Lorne Michaels or one of the show's writers consulted with Costello about the sketch, then that would have been noteworthy content. We've included the portion of the story that is important: that Papyrus was parodied on Saturday Night Live. We should leave it at that. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D8E:D6F3:A7EA:C247 (talk) 10:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Restore or keep the sketch off the article. As noted previously and by Andy Dingley, and in complete disagreement with the IP editor, if the sketch is encyclopedic then the creator's reaction is. If not, neither is. ATS (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself. If you honestly didn't believe the sketch itself was encylopedic, then you wouldn't have expanded that content to include that Costello and his wife thought it was funny. Your "none or both" argument is illogical. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D8E:D6F3:A7EA:C247 (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Remove I agree with the IP editor. There's nothing noteworthy in mentioning the creator's [public] reaction just cus it's in news media. If the article cited mentions that, then there's no need to add it in prose because Mr Costello is not the topic of this article here. —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. If SNL does a sketch about Post-it notes and Spencer Silver thinks it's funny, are we going to include that in his article? No, of course not. And we most certainly wouldn't care that Silver's wife thought it was funny too. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D8E:D6F3:A7EA:C247 (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

"No, of course not"? Your opinion of the encyclopedic is not law. ATS (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment ATS, throwing a tantrum by reverting the content about the SNL sketch itself is inappropriate and unproductive. As you well know, there has been no disagreement about that information being encylopedic, and it of course fully adheres to "In popular culture" guidelines for inclusion. The content about the husband (and wife) thinking it was funny does not. This matter is not personal; it's about improving the article. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D8E:D6F3:A7EA:C247 (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Stop virtue signaling; my actions are no more or less "tantrum" than are yours. Your insistence on removing/restoring your version of this article is in violation of both EW and OWN. ATS (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The sample of the font is wrong and other errors

The sample font shown on the article is Papyrus (EF) not Papyrus. Also, the section on the 'variant' states Papyrus (EF) has a capital E with the top bar longer than the middle one. This is the case and the original Papyrus has a longer middle bar. The source of confusion may be that version of Papyrus on Windows machines is actually Papyrus (EF) although it is listed as Papyrus. Stub Mandrel (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

freaky

this is the freeaky fontd 2603:8081:4DF0:9910:E943:D8A5:CF8:B0F (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)