Talk:New Paper

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 22:02, 11 October 2007 by WP CEO (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search


Anything Else?

If anyone wants to correct my horrible grammer or ad more info, please do, and take a better screenshot, and thanks to Jay who created this page. I am also going to remove the stub marker, this is about all we know about the new paper.--~ SlipStream 11:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


The colours look a bit off at the bottom, is that normal for new printers? 16:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Hagurumon 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Shy Paper?

I think New Paper didn't go Preeow because it was too shy and needs some introducing. Whaddya think?

This would be better suited for the Forum. --DorianGray 20:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge with The Paper?

Should the new paper really have it's own page? I think it should it be merged with The Paper. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 02:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should wait for the next sbemail to see what happens. Loafing 02:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it's majorly premature to be having this discussion. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 03:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
If we have separate articles for Tangerine Dreams and The Cheat's iMac (2006) then these should not be merged. Bad Bad Guy 02:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
If the nEW Paper sticks around, we need to keep both Papers seperate. They're entirely different objects, so they need their own articles. Besides, The Paper's article is quite long as it is. I don't think it should be extended any more. No merge.The Chort 11:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
So can we remove the template? Homsar44withpie 01:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

wait tell next sbemail and then we make a decision Slipknot6477 16:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the inkjet printer is going to stick around. No Merge Super!SantanaDuper!
That's absolute speculation, however. That fact is unknown to us, which is why I suggest suspending debate on this until after another email comes out. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 22:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
NEVER merge this article with The Paper, New Paper is an individual, and it acts severly diffrently than The Paper, plus for being the person who sent the e-mail the paper, it would be forgeting that the paper e-mail never existed. Please don't forget it! Wi2K Talk-Favorites-173 21:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The Future

I am wondering, how long is this article going to be called New Paper, how many emails need to pass until it becomes 'The Paper' and Papes becomes 'Old Paper'. Probably quite a few, since that one has been around 173 emails and this one has managed one :P --~ SlipStream 11:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It'll be called "New Paper" as long as Strong Bad does the same, like he did at the end of the paper. If SB starts calling it The Paper, then we'll shuffle the pages. --phlip TC 12:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
When should we remove the "appearances" section? There's none at all for the original The Paper. Bad Bad Guy 04:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Probably fairly soon, since it looks like it is a regular feature (though, how long will Strong Bad will abuse it is anybody's guess). At very least, creating a filmography might not be a bad idea before too much further (it has not crossed the 3 appearance threshold). wbwolf (t | ed) 17:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
That's 4 emails now. Is that what you meant by "crossing the 3 appearance threshold?" Bad Bad Guy 00:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


Why does New Paper get one while the old The Paper does not? Should the New Paper Filmography be deleted? Bad Bad Guy 00:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree If the Old Papes dosn't why should the New Paper? Numa Numa!! (T*C)
Agree I should've checked if The Paper had a filmography before going ahead with the suggestions above. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 00:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Gone'd it is. Loafing 00:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that we've offed the filmography, should we be even listing the appearances of New Paper? I would think that a mention of the foreshadowing and the official debut in the article should be enough. Otherwise, we run into the same problem that the filmography was created to solve, a long list of emails. wbwolf (t | ed) 04:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The structure of this article will probably eventually be like The PaperLoafing 04:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You know...

I was thinking and, if the new paper is running out of ink, wouldn't the top of the paper be lighter and different colors instead of the bottom, because the new paper wouldn't be gaining ink as it prints out? A possible goof/remark/fun fact?--Kanjiro talk 02:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 03:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
So...--Kanjiro talk 03:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
So it should be mentioned somewhere on the page. I was not acting so that you would do it. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 03:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
How do you think i should word it?--Kanjiro talk 22:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Well? --Kanjiro talk 14:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Just word it out. If there's anything wrong with it our horde of gnomes will take care of it. If some told you what to write, then he or she would have wrote it themselves. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 14:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, how do we know it's running out of ink? Could it just be a really cool fade effect? SuperfieldCreditUnion

Running Joke

Not counting it's inception in the paper, there have now been 4 times in a row where Strong Bad has commented on the new paper's poor performance. This has never happened in the past with new characters or new computers. Should we officially label this as a running gag or something like that? It almost seems like it's leading up to something, like DNA evidence.--.Johnny Jupiter! talk cont 02:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It has very strong similarities to the DNA evidence gag. --DorianGray 05:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it is certainly noticeable. Strong Bad even comments on it. But I don't believe that it should have its own article. It's something inherently linked to the New Paper, and should be a section in this article. Loafing 05:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


I was watching original, and I noticed that the New Paper seems to be printing in landscape format, or it sliced the page off half way through... --NightDaemon 19:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Time and space-transcending

Seems like the New Paper hasn't managed to pull off everything that the Old Paper has. We haven't yet seen it anywhere except above the Lappy. Even when emails (like pizza joint) end elsewhere. TTEchidna 01:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You haven't waited to see the very end of mini-golf (where New Paper really does appear above the couch), have you? --Charlie Jr. 00:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, right. Forgot about that one... TTEchidna 09:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No problems?

The article states that "From pizza joint onward, New Paper has managed to print itself out without any problems, setbacks, or criticisms". This is not entirely true, as it in web comics came down twice, the first time being, from my point of view, odd and out-of-place. I think this should be mentioned in the article. --WP CEO 21:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. That one was emphasising the joke that comics where readers generate the content are "a copout", which is essentially what Strong Bad Email is. New Paper showed the email address to emphasise this point. --DorianGray 21:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, of course! I guess I am a bit on the slow side.. --WP CEO 22:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools