Talk:Papyrus (typeface)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Remember the verve

This page will eventually grow, and lose the character of an article written by one person with uncited humorous truth. The talk page always lasts longer than the article text, so I'm noting this revision here so that it's noticeable for just a bit longer. —Ben Brockert (42)09:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So true. And that's a revision worth remembering d-: ELLIOTTCABLE 04:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

This section is secretly an inside joke, isn't it? --j0nokun (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I guess somebody else thought so too. --j0nokun (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite.

Somebody should rewrite this article and mention the global hatred for this font. (Yes, mentioning its global hatred is NPOV.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.118.106 (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Global hatred? Aren't you exaggerating a little? Firstly, most people haven't heard of the font at all, they may have seen it yes, but there's no indication that the general public wants to banish it. Secondly, it gets used every so often, so there must be a lot of designers who simply like the font. You know what I think? That it's just a lot of mindless fontsnobbery. 82.139.87.14 (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

XKCD

The XKCD reference should be removed; Papyrus has been the butt of typeface enthusiasts jokes for a long time and just because XKCD runs a comic on it does not warrant it being included in the wikipedia article. See this PVP article from May 11: http://www.pvponline.com/2009/05/11/the-font-snob/

I feel this constant editing of the article of any subject XKCD covers is at best vandalism and at worst viral marketing, seeing as Randall Munroe profits directly from the comics status as an internet phenomenon through the sale of merchandise etc.

-AtomicDog1471

Wait, viral marketing is worse than vandalism? Take a deep breath, but keep up the good work in watching out for inane content on wp. Be bold and take this crap out! ErikHaugen (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Woah, the comic (590) has been online for less than an hour and someone already added it here? That's impressive... --Arew264 (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

rss is really fast! ErikHaugen (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

--eh, it's not THAT impressive. I read XKCD every M-W-F, and given that I didn't know what the 'papyrus' font looked like, guess where a Google search led me....yeah, here. Also, the XKCD reader demographic and frequent Wiki user demographic have quite a bit of overlap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.72.8 (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The really annoying thing is the logo in that PVPonline comic isn't Copperplate. Copperplate is the crazy cursive you see on wedding invitations. (Yeah, I'm off topic, I apologize). -173.79.24.47 (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong.[1] Shmuel (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No u. And Apple is wrong too. That isn't Copperplate, it's Copperplate Gothic. -Verdatum (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm one of the overlapping readers of xkcd and contributers to wikipedia (although I've never added any xkcd related) it just seems to me, the actual Papyrus article is in dire need of some more text, it's marked a stub, and beggars can't be choosers, in other words when resources are limited, one must accept even substandard gifts. --Opspin (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a retarded argument. I could also add something redundant and stupid like "Also it ttlly suxxxxx assss" and say beggars can't be choosers. Fact is, many people make fun of this font, and just because xkcd is so super special awesome and geeky doesn't mean it should be included in every fucking wikipedia article. I read xkcd too, but this is stupid.

In Popular Culture

• Some movie that fans of the popular webcomic XKCD seem to like a lot used this as the font for its title.

OK, would someone explain it and then maybe then think about putting it back? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.134.178.225 (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

At http://xkcd.com/590/ , the comic actually does mention Papyrus, and, IIRC, it is used for the title of the film Firefly, which is a favorite of XKCD. The "In Popular Culture" section was an XKCD joke found at http://xkcd.com/446/ (you can also see the popularity of Firefly in that comic). As to whether either belongs here... Comic 590 might be worth mentioning, but I doubt Wikipedia policy would allow either to be included. Be warned that there may be more attempts to add a reference to comic 590 here over the next few days. --Arew264 (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

XKCD is cool, i think we should include it ;-) --Stefan-Xp (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

XKCD is relevant in that it documents the statement: "Papyrus has become an inside joke in the industry". So it helps solve the unreferenced facts warning on the page. 217.30.32.17 (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize XKCD was part of the industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.61.67 (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I've cleaned up the xkcd reference that had been entered but wasn't being displayed (for lack of a References section). – Wdfarmer (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't document that statement. For it to be an inside joke, the joke would have to be made "inside" the industry. Randall is not a typographer. Regardless, using it in that sense is a Primary source, which isn't appropriate. People are likely to come to this article to have the joke explained to them. "Oh, it's funny because papyrus is an inside joke in the industry, it's even got a reference so it must be true, let's take a look, it's referenced by...that joke...", see, trying to explain the joke to people is a form of Original Research. Again, something to be avoided. Normally, even a mention of the comic is a one-off joke potentially deletable by followers of WP:HTRIV, but I'm not about to fight with XKCD fans (naturally, I'm one myself, or I wouldn't have found myself here today ^_~). -173.79.24.47 (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Totally Absurd

Seriously, a webcomic that is basically one guys fan fiction about Serenity, a major motion picture, gets added to the pop culture section, but not the movie Serenity itself, which used the font for its title?

XKCD fans are being ridiculous, by their own standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.61.67 (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone added "citation needed" on a talk page comment? You have got to be kidding.

Uhhh, no. Not at all. XKCD is in no way a fan fiction site, nor does it concern Serenity. It does feature Firefly every so often, but Serenity, while it is related, isn't mentioned anywhere. However, I agree that if a reference to XKCD is added, a reference to Firefly/Serenity should be added. It's not as ridiculous as you think, though. --Arew264 (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

my tongue in cheek comment was designed to point out the absurdity of treating everything that gets mentioned in XKCD as a sufficiently notable pop culture occurrence so as to merit the introduction of a new "In pop culture" section, within an hour of the appearance of the comic. This is wikipedia, not the annotated wiki guide to XKCD.

XKCD's recent week-long "race" saga can be described as nothing more than Firefly fan fiction, so I feel the statement "XKCD is in no way fanfiction" is erroneous.

The key word being recent. XKCD is a webcomic, and while Serenity is a somewhat frequent subject of comics, it's been included in less than 10% of all comics. I do agree that references to it probably don't belong here, but XKCD is not fanfiction, and it only rarely concerns Firefly or Serenity. That saga is one of the few places it's mentioned. --Arew264 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if you don't know what XKCD is, how do you understand the standards of its fans? This doesn't seem ridiculous at all to me, and I doubt it would seem so to many other XKCD fans. The fact is that most people don't pay attention to the fonts used in movie or TV show titles, and wouldn't have much appreciation for a direct reference. Such is my conclusion anyway. However, I don't think that's relevant because I doubt Wikipedia will allow the "In Popular Culture" section to remain here, even if it does cite actual uses of the Papyrus font. --Arew264 (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to explain what hyperbole is, and how I was using it. I was trying to draw out the fact that there are much more significant elements of popular culture than a single XKCD strip, say, the use of the font for the title of a major motion picture, which were not included. Since Randall just recently had a week long segment indulging his intense Firefly fandom, and since Firefly is referenced pretty frequently in XKCD, it is particularly surprising that Randall's legion of fans with an intense desire to edit wikipedia wouldn't be aware of, or think to contribute, Firefly's use of Papyrus when generating a section for the article. Especially since Randall had a comic about how these ridiculous pop culture sections were pretty absurd that specifically ridiculed the inclusion of minor/trivial/non-notable occurrences being included, using the fact that something on firefly was made out of wood as an example. So it isn't so much that I don't know what it is, as that I was, perhaps too subtly, mocking the xkcd fanboys who are so excited to add everything Randall says/does/thinks/blags to wikipedia, that they literally engage in an edit war to get the fact that one time Randall mentioned papyrus in a webcomic into wikipedia.

As I've already said, if XKCD is referenced, Firefly/Serenity should definitely be referenced as well. In fact, Firefly/Serenity should probably be referenced without XKCD. However, your point was that XKCD fans are somehow lost or imcompetent, an assertion that I will gladly debate with you all day. I also noted in the section above this that an edit war was fairly likely. --Arew264 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If we listed every webcomic in which Papyrus/Comic Sans/etc. was ridiculed the article would become full of useless trivia. - Super Sam ^{ultra quick reply} 06:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I remember downloading Papyrus from somewhere and thinking "oh, this is cool" and using it for some stuff. I never realized it is common. However, in regards to Super Sam, I seriously' doubt this font is ridiculed in many webcomics. Please feel free to point out which ones. 69.105.172.180 (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Tall Comics and PVP come to mind. As with xkcd, I don't think either one particularly needs to be mentioned in this article. Maybe a separate Papyrus in webcomic culture article? 76.100.65.79 (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

How can one cite a web comic as an authoritative source on the nature of a font? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.125.57.33 (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Chill guys - Randall Moore is known to like messing with people's opinions of WikiPedia. Deal. 202.7.94.223 (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

in my truely held opinion, XKCD may or may not be used depending on the scarciy of the "in popular cultre" page. I think that its important for thes articles, ecpailly on things with great pop cultural signifiance to be allowed to intersect with pop culture whenever possible and relevent. Therefore, in accordance with this longstanding belief, i see no reason why XKCD cant be held with some regard on certain sparing pages such as this on. Not only is this a recently released sequential art form, it is mirrored by the aforementioned or heretoforementioned alluions to the other famous webcomic, PvP, indicating that this is a long-running tradition that can be given a small amount of weight Smith Jones (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC) -- A rational approach to the XKCD Question

Was XKCD really targetting papyrus?

From the alt text of the comic: "I secretly, deep in my guilty heart, like Papyrus and don't care if it's overused." It seems more like he's targeting those typographical purists who hate Papyrus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.146.54 (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering the PVP comic mentioned above which came out only a few weeks earlier and was openly mocking Papyrus, I assume Randall was poking fun at PVP. 69.105.172.180 (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think randal was targetting over used fonts as a whole compared to just Papyrus. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 08:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Who cares if he is targeting Papyrus or not. Get this shitty comic off my Wikipedias.  Grue  12:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please remain Civil. Your personal opinion of the quality of the comic has no baring on this discussion. -Verdatum (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright?

The article should make clear whether or not the Papyrus font is copyrighted/trademarked/whatever, or if it is free for anyone to use. --71.162.89.13 (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The question of copyright is a good one; but unfortunately a rather complicated one that effectively works out to be beyond the scope of this article. There is lots of discussion of the intellectual property rights related to typefaces online (e.g. [2]). I can't think of a good succinct way to work this issue into the article, but if someone else could, I'd welcome it. -Verdatum (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

xkcd again

I included the xkcd reference as notable and was reverted with the following explanation:

rv xkcd - We already have the actual creator of the typeface quoted as considering it "overused"; we don't need "an unrelated webcomic also agreed with this".

Though the original creator may have more of a "proper" claim of judgment on a font's use, xkcd has a much more notable claim of judgment, and notability is the name of the game, not propriety.--Loodog (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

precisely. I am allowing your edit to procede as stated, Loodog under th terms of WP:N Smith Jones (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to read WP:N more carefully. "Notability" is Not Content. Although the XKCD comic is a primary source (which is to be avoided), it's at least verifiable, and I have no interest in contributing to an edit war. I say a brief mention does nothing to harm the article. -Verdatum (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is true. Content is not limited by notability and so this is an issue that would fall under WP:WEIGHT's "treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Significance is just notability within a given subject.--Loodog (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the xkcd sentence supposed to be saying? "Randall Munroe has also noticed that Papyrus is overused" or "the overuse is so well-known that Randall Munroe made a joke about it once"? The former seems redundant when we already have Costello saying the same thing (and I assume you aren't actually arguing that we should drop the Costello interview); the latter is a bit of a leap from a primary source. --McGeddon (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Read above. Monroe's homage to Papyrus's overuse is more notable than Costello's complaint.--Loodog (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this argument (also, ya always gotta be careful with that "notable" word, it's a loaded word in WP discussions). It may be more well known now, but that's largely due to novelty. A statement from the creator is more authoritative than a one-off joke.

But I think it's beside the point. I see no reason why we can't include both facts. I still rather like my edit stating the fact that (to paraphrase) "the overuse has been lampooned in media such as [blah] [blah] and xkcd." Even if it should be supported by a secondary source. -Verdatum (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

See above about difference between authoritativeness/properness and notability. There's a reason we cite the BBC about Numa Numa over Gary Brolsma's personal webpage.

Actually, now that everyone is bringing it up, the Costello interview is from a blog less notable than xkcd that probably fails the WP:RS test, and so strictly speaking, shouldn't be mentioned at all. But given the nature of this article, I think it's FINE to keep it.--Loodog (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC: encyclopedic value of xkcd reference

I feel that this is not something that will not be easily resolved (seeing that it has been the subject of a few revert wars and it doesn't appear the consensus has been or will be reached), and as such I have added it to RfC to get a more neutral point of view on the subject. - Super Sam ^{ultra quick reply} 11:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Could you summarize the debate for us outsiders, or link to the competing versions, or something? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Summary of my argument: (1) who is more notable (xkcd) has more importance than who has more of a proper claim (Papyrus' creator). (2) The "interview" with the creator probably fails WP:RS anyway, but given that this article is a stub, I see no urgent need to remove it.--Loodog (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what can be said other than Papyrus was mentioned in XKCD. Who cares. CapitalElll (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Read what's written in the article.--Loodog (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I admit, i don't get the joke. Explaining it is OR. CapitalElll (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That's backwards: if you read the xkcd and didn't get the joke, this article would explain it to you, which was the case for me.--Loodog (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Beyond the trivial "xkcd mentioned the overuse of Papyrus once", the only facts we can draw here are that Munroe says (in the rollover text) that he "doesn't care" if Papyrus is overused, and the slightly WP:OR observation that it's common knowledge that most "typography geeks" dislike the font for some reason (presumably overuse, but possibly aesthetics as well).

The former doesn't add anything to the article; the latter gives some sense of how widely disliked the font is, but it'd be better to quote a reliable source that actually puts that into some context. --McGeddon (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. As xkcd (and the Costello interview) is a primary source, a secondary source would be preferable to supplement it, but I don't know how easy that would be to find. As this article is a stub, I see no reason to be particularly austere with the few sources we have.--Loodog (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I must come down strongly on the side of those who wish the xkcd reference removed. xkcd is neither the only nor the first webcomic to make fun of Papyrus (see http://www.pvponline.com/2009/05/11/the-font-snob/), and how a webcomic's making a joke at Papyrus' expense enriches this page is beyond me. One does not include Calvin & Hobbes strips as a reference on the page about snowmen, nor do you cite a specific monologue by Jay Leno on a page about the Monica Lewinsky debacle. Finally, citing sources such as this is clearly original research (e.g, Papyrus is often mocked in the media (see xkcd, pvponline, some blog, ...)). Fans should not be allowed to conflate their perceived significance with the significance to the general readership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.30.24.173 (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

1. "Not the first webcomic". Actually, I'd include that one too as it's also notable enough for a WP entry.

2. "One does not include Calvin & Hobbes strips as a reference on the page about snowmen, nor do you cite a specific monologue by Jay Leno on a page about the Monica Lewinsky debacle." Neither of those is remotely as obscure as a typeface. In the list of things notable about snowmen, Calvin and Hobbes does not rank high. (Besides, Calvin and Hobbes is mentioned.) And Monica and Bill are national news. Not to mention that this reeks of Other stuff exists.--Loodog (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

3. "citing sources such as this is clearly original research" Citing a source is not WP:OR.

4. "conflate their perceived significance with the significance to the general readership." This is a good point, though within the world of people who actually know what "Papyrus", correct me if I'm wrong, but this is well-known to be perceived as overused.--Loodog (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying that citing a source is OR. Claiming that the source mocks the overuse of Papyrus where it only mentions Papyrus is OR. CapitalElll (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional point on notability of xkcd: it's the 4th hit in a google search for "papyrus". As for your comment about OR, the alt-text, "I secretly, deep in my guilty heart, like Papyrus and don't care if it's overused. [Cue hate mail in beautifully-kerned Helvetica.]" very explicitly states the (OR) subtext of the comic.--Loodog (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well a google search for xkcd should not be mentioned in the papyrus article turns up THOUSANDS of hits. Checkmate, now king me. Just because you're gay for XKCD doesn't mean it should permeate through every article. CapitalElll (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks. They are against policy and they don't help your argument. -Verdatum (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is PvP's making of this same joke not worthy of mention, while xkcd's is? Neither should be there in my opinion, but is xkcd a more meaningful citation because it is higher up on google's ranking? That is a pretty ridiculous criterion for significance in an encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.30.24.173 (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to ban xkcd fanboys, just like we did with Church of Scientology. Their constant vandalism of Wikipedia articles is getting tiresome.  Grue  16:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think if vandalism is getting to you, you should consider a break. Vandalism is a constant. It's also constantly fixed. People making edits that they believe improves the article is not vandalism. You're also welcome to fork Wikipedia, and admin it in whatever oppressive way you like. -Verdatum (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm already an admin, and I will take whatever measures necessary so that this ridiculousness will not pass.  Grue  08:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"Why is PvP's making of this same joke not worthy of mention, while xkcd's is? " "Actually, I'd include that one too as it's also notable enough for a WP entry." I think it should be included. What are other people's opinions?--Loodog (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a brief mention of "the typeface has been the target of jokes in webcomics such as xkcd and pvp" is fine. I agree however, as mentioned above, explaining the joke, or worse using the comics as a source to explain the joke is unwelcome OR. -Verdatum (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's do it.--Loodog (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that it Papyrus was the target of a joke is OR. I would support something of the form "the typeface has been mentioned in webcomics such as xkcd and pvp" CapitalElll (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I have implemented this change.--Loodog (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That's fine as a safe, WP:OR-free interpretation of a primary source, but that some people have "mentioned" Papyrus doesn't really add anything to the article (irrespective of notability; "Barack Obama has mentioned Papyrus" would also be a bit meaningless by itself). You can click through to see the jokes, but for the reader who chooses not to (or cannot) do that, it's not a very enlightening sentence. --McGeddon (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Take a look. I've summarized their messages in (what I hope is) an non-OR way.--Loodog (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the references. They don't add anything new to the article. Being mentioned in a webcomic is not something that should be in an encyclopedia. It has been estabilished hundreds of times before, and even the webcomic in question made fun of it.  Grue  08:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's trivia and, as most users above have said, doesn't add anything to the article. Loodog, so far most editors in good standing who have commented here are against including it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Papyrus EF and the illustration

The article currently states,

Elsner & Flake publishes Papyrus EF Alternatives. Its differences include a shorter, sharper capital P, a capital E with a top bar longer than the middle bar, and a swash A.

However, the illustration currently accompanying the article shows capital E with, yes, a top bar longer than the middle bar. AIUI, the image purports to show what regular, standard Papyrus looks like (with an E that has a longer top bar than middle bar), but Papyrus EF, not shown, is different (because its E has a longer top bar than middle bar).

Can somebody clarify this? I know absolutely diddly about fonts, beyond the difference between serif and sans-serif. I have no idea what a swash A is. Up until a few minutes ago, I knew diddly about the Papyrus typeface (I came here because of xkcd :-) ). Thanks. JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to miss, but the infobox says "Shown here: Papyrus EF Alternatives" at the bottom. I don't know why we haven't got a picture of the original Papyrus font there. --McGeddon (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, how blind of me. Pardon my nerviness. Makes sense now. And I'll guess then that Linotype/ITC won't license such an illustration, while Elsner & Flake did. Or no editor at WP can figure out how to legally show the offerings from those companies. ITC's image would be marvy. Possibly we could make a couple of custom samples using Linotype's server, such as this one or even this one. Unfortunately the whole CC/GDFL fair-use arrangement is over my head. JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Same here, when it comes to fonts. The folk at WikiProject Typography could probably put you straight. --McGeddon (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Updated References

So I added a few references to the site which it badly needed and did add a section on other related material similar to Comic Sans site. Probably should do a bit more about the history of the font ownership the difference in the different types but that would have to come later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiNC (talk • contribs) 13:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

used incorrectly?

"Papyrus is often criticized by graphic designers and others for being overused or used incorrectly in various media"

I'll (mostly) ignore the detail that "in media" is redundant when talking about something that requires a medium to exist. But I am at a loss to understand how a typeface—especially a relatively simple one—can be used incorrectly (outside of, perhap, layout problems). It's a bit like saying that a certain person's handwriting style is appropriate only for certain contexts. If this is meant to describe something less absurd, someone please clarify.
—überRegenbogen (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Firefly logo

Papyrus is not used in the Firefly logo (although it is in the Serenity logo). This is easy enough to check, just compare the fonts, they don't look anything alike. The mention of Firefly should be removed. 118.209.35.155 (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't "just compare the fonts"; I'm not a typeface expert in the first place, which is why we need sources for this stuff, and in the second place, I don't have any of these logos in front of me. I've never seen the show nor the film, so I'm clueless, apart from what guidance I can get here.

So, please clarify this for me: does the logo of the ship use Papyrus? Or only the logo of the film (titles)? I've changed it in the article so that it's still the ship's logo which uses it, but only in the film and not the show. However, that sounds a bit odd, and again, I have no idea about these things. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I took a glance at the Serenity logo, and it's really not the same. The "E", for example, has a longer center bar than the upper bar, where the reverse is true in Papyrus. It may be a very similar font, but it's not actually Papyrus. 108.85.81.56 (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)