Talk:Dune: Part Two/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Dune: Part Two. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Stylized as
Just because you've managed to find the four glyphs from what appears to be Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics (Unicode block), that correspond to the all-caps font used on the poster of the film, it doesn't mean this should be used in the lead. If the font on the poster was comic sans, would you also insist on Stylized as Dune: Part two?
Finally, using the wrong characters for something just because they look right is not screen reader friendly.
Removing this again, please discuss before adding it back. EditorInTheRye (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- They have been removed before on the first film's article. Feel free to revert again if editors attempt to add it back. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is not just a font. I just reviewed the trailer again, and it does not use this font for anything else but the title. So it is a stylization, and therefore we can (and should) have it. I don't think there is any connection to Aboriginal script, which in any case looks not precisely the same, so for that reason too this is not a font but a stylization. Debresser (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- If they used the font for anything longer than the 4-letter title, the text would be illegible. Unicode is vast, and it's not appropriate to try to reproduce logos just because another language happens to have the characters required to closely match a fancy font. It uses the actual letters of the title, but in a different font, so therefore it's not stylized in the same sense that for example the movie se7en was.
- Also since you're using the argument of ᑐᑌᑎᕮ being what Warner Bros uses, you can actually see an example of them not stylizing if you expand the "credits" section at the bottom of the official website. EditorInTheRye (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- It is just a font, so zero need to call it stylization. It would be interesting to see if that font choice was discussed and put it into a development section but no way it is a lede thing. Masem (t) 21:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, the font choice is interesting, actually. I've seen several people discuss it on social media, joking that they enjoyed "Dunc", etc. If any of that has made its way into a reliable source or two even in passing, a sentence in the development or marketing sections should be acceptable (and perhaps satisfy some editors' desire to have "DUNC" acknowledged) EditorInTheRye (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Wow, I can't believe this is still going. People, this is a font, not a stylization. Don't be silly ... InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- @InfiniteNexus Thank you for calling me "silly". I have been called worse here, yet don't appreciate it nevertheless. Debresser (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- My comment was not directed to you specifically, but I apologize if you felt offended. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- My comment was not directed to you specifically, but I apologize if you felt offended. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- @InfiniteNexus Thank you for calling me "silly". I have been called worse here, yet don't appreciate it nevertheless. Debresser (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)