Talk:Papyrus

Papyrus: The Font?

This article fails to mention the modern "Papyrus" font. If HTML is allowed here, let me show you Papyrus: This is the font Papyrus. Papyrus is a great font. AaBbCcDdEeFfGgHhIiJjKkLlMmNnOoPpQqRrSsTtUuVvWwXxYyZz - Wabty

Older Comments

Isn't papyrus made of the pith of the plant?

Em Dash

I see you (Hajor) have accepted that the correct form here is the m-dash and not the dash. My own personal preference is to include spaces on each side of the m-dash as you have done. I point out, that while we both agree it looks much better, it is generally correct. I've just had to learn to live with an m-dash crowded into the text, as silly as that appears. But I'll not change your edit - Marshman 18:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that. But, it's not that I accepted that the em dash is correct and the en dash wrong (I've read too many Penguins for that) – it was the offering of a compromise solution that generally enjoys acceptance among both the tight-em and the loose-en churches. It's a silly issue, a minor one, but quite contentious. Have you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)? Basically, it's a call for tolerance and mutual acceptance on this point, so we can get on with writing articles. Oh – and that was a good copyedit you did, too! Do you think it'd be useful to pipe-link "sedge" to Cyperaceae? –Hajor 19:53, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I guess I'm now in the "tight-em" camp, despite a life-long preference for loose-en, then later loose-em. Anyway, I'm not do-or-die about it. I was editing this page, saw the "incorrect" dash %) and changed it. Then I saw the history where Wetman had come through. And sure, I'll make that link now. Seems worthwhile. Also, there are some huge (to 15 ft) wild papyrus in the marsh where I work. I have some pictures, but all have a friend in them whose permission I do not yet have to post. I'll ask her or get some new shots for the article. - Marshman 16:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Photo

The photo on the front of the page has a blank white page blocking the papyrus, and that seems a little disturbing. Should the picture be removed? Sycthos ^Talk 22:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can replace it with any photo from the gallery [1]. Don't just remove it.-- Ypacaraí 02:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This site is a good 8/10, only thing is the white square in the picture of papyrus its very annoying so can you move it please?

Picture changed -- IanUK

I took that pic. The white is an overexposed information board. Luckily I had a closeup of the board so I've pasted it over the top of the board and reuploaded the pic. It's now back on the article. (You might need to do a Ctrl-F5 to see the new version) - Adrian Pingstone 12:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. There are now two pics up. Should the one I put there be removed now that the old one is corrected? -- IanUK 21:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the one at the top of the article is a close up on the leaves but my pic is an overall view. So we need both of them, please - Adrian Pingstone 17:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did papyrus become extinct in Egypt?

Does the writer know why papyrus became extinct in Egypt? It is mentioned only in passing, but it seems a most extraordinary fact. NaySay 03:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It did not become extinct, it just now very infrequent, based upon anthropenic changes to its growing environment and from over use... Stevenmitchell (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little aside... Where we use velum for degree certificates, Egypt uses papyrus!

Picture of papyrus plant

I changed the subtitle of the first picture (upper right) which had the same text in the subtitle as the second picture ("Papyrus plant Cyperus papyrus at Kew Gardens, London"), to the text which appears under the original picture in the picture gallery: "Papyrus plant growing in a garden, Australia". In any case, it certainly does not show Cyperus papyrus, so the old subtitle was wrong anyway.

Papyrus is also a small city off the Egyptian Coast?

Re: the change added by user 209.165.179.214 that added "Papyrus is also a small city off the Egyptian Coast?" - I have reverted your change for because I cannot find a reference to sucha city in a cursory search of Google. Also, if such a city does exist (perhaps it is spelled differently), that would be a separate article and should be referenced from the disambiguation page (not from this page). If the city exist and there is no page for it, feel free to start a new article. Tcncv (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Papyrus in Florida

Should we mention that Papyrus is an invasive plant in Florida and causes problems there?76.97.245.5 (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article really only deals with the material produced from the plant. See Cyperus papyrus, the article for the plant itself, where there is a short mention of it as an invasive plant in Florida. Maedin\^talk 13:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

okay

Typography usage (xkcd)

I came to this page from http://xkcd.com/590/ wondering if anyone wants add a section in main article on usage of papyrus in typography.

Painting

Article understates papyrus production; it is still available from a number of art catalogues including Daniel Smith. Some of my paintings have been done on it, such as my gouache on papyrus The Blizzard (http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs992.snc4/76496_10150298837015232_837005231_15926729_6524168_n.jpg). --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this make sense?

The following sentence in paragraph 3 of the History section doesn't make sense to me:

 Papyrus was documented as in use as late as the 12th century in the Byzantine Empire, but examples have survived.

Shouldn't it say:

 Papyrus was documented as in use as late as the 12th century in the Byzantine Empire, but no examples have survived.

Since it's an unsourced claim, we don't really know for sure... There's a citation-needed-tag from April 2010. I'm going to hunt around a little, see if I can confirm the info; if I can't, I'm going to remove it. Richigi (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, found reference almost immediately. Article text fixed and cited. Text about "examples" has been removed since I did not find reference to that, one way or the other. Richigi (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a vague recollection about the wording of that passage being changed at some point, but it probably doesn't matter. Anything that's tagged for two and a half years and makes no sense deserves the chop, so I'd say you made the right call. Rivertorch (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]