Talk:Rich Burlew

Untitled

Someone put a stub for this article back up, and I seized the opportunity. Ig8887 11:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Health issues

No mention about his health issues? zzyss (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have a source for the information, feel free to add it. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Despite Rich mentioning, on numerous occasions, his health as a factor for OotS being delayed, it appears this aspect is being downplayed on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.250.178.63 (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Source it, then add it. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It is "downplayed" because it has rarely been anything more than indirectly mentioned, and the few times where it was direct topic specifics have still not been given. Frankly, there's nothing to state other than gossip and hearsay. There are quite a few reasons to not include such loose information, not the least of which being that it's not anybody's business. :P --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that it's "not anybody's business." Illnesses are notable things, and this illness also affects the release schedule of a notable work. I believe if there were a reference on the topic, it would belong in this article. 74.67.190.120 (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There are no references so the point of moot. Any details available would only be able to be gained through original research of the snooping and stalking kind. Hence it is pretty moot. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

On his blog, starting at the entry for 7/7/07 (scroll down a bit) Mr. Burlew states that he has changed the schedule of the comic from its original Monday/Wednesday/Friday format, and has cancelled numerous appearances at conventions, due to his illness. There it is, sourced, verified, and significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.225.251 (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There you go. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And if you feel the need to incorporate it, then feel free to do so. I don't find it noteworthy enough for inclusion; if for no other reason, I cannot think of a webcomic that has not had schedule changes due to personal-life/professional-life/various complications. Maybe my view on the matter is the minority. That's why I'm not removing any valid additions on the matter. I can see your viewpoint on the matter, and off the top of my head I can think of Poison Elves/Drew Hayes as a somewhat similar example; then again in the case of the late Mr. Hayes there was no forwarning and "dire consequences", where in this case there is mention without discussion and minor consequences. It appears, to me at least, to be a trivial matter deliberately not discussed by Mr. Burlew due to reasons of privacy and all-in-all not worthy of inclusion. You're free to do as you wish however, within the bounds of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoa. Since when are people on the internet thoughtful and respectful of other people's opinions? I do think Mr. Burlew's health is fairly important, but I don't really feel comfortable deciding the matter. I'll leave the info here in case somebody with a stronger opinion comes along. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.226.238 (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I think adding a headshot of Burlew would be beneficial to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egs1122 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do! 129.33.19.254 (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to but I don't know how to find one that's not copyrighted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egs1122 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The Order of the Stick

The proper title of the comic is "The Order of the Stick". It should not be shortened to just "Order of the Stick" (without the "The"), unless it is being quoted from a source that way. For example, if someone says "I think Order of the Stick is the best webcomic ever", then you quote it that way, but otherwise we should use "The Order of the Stick" in all instances. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

User keeps restoring OR section

There is a whole section of OR about minorities in Burlew's comic which only cites threads from his forum, which you can see in this archived version of the page. Both User:YITYNR and I have removed it for violating Wikipedia policies about original research, but an anonymous IP editor from Italy has reverted us each time with aggressive summaries like "it's the third time you do that and the third time i have to reverd: STOP REMOVING THIS SECTION. thanks." which also identify our edits as possible vandalism. Is it possible for an outside arbitrator to step in? The section is blatant original research based on the flimsiest self-published material of all, forum posts. The IP editor's comments are also troubling. Eladynnus (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

In the time between my last edit to the page and my posting this new section on the talk page, the section has been put up again! This time their summary reads "tired of you undoing my section, you are a hater check your privileges". Eladynnus (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

And now the user is restoring the section with edit summaries claiming that the issue has been discussed and been decided in his favor. He also deleted this section with a similar edit summary, apparently trying to hide the fact that they have not participated in any such discussion. Eladynnus (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Stop doing vandalism. The section is a legit recollection of posts by Rich Burlew himself. You're removing it without stating any valid reason and that's called "vandalism"

in my book. Please refrain removing my section again without providing a valid reason in order to do that. Thanks.

I did provide a reason - it's original research based exclusively on very weak and trivial self-published material, forum posts. Not only that, but some of these sources are of whole pages of posts, one of which doesn't even have any posts from Burlew in it.Eladynnus (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

As a third party, I agree with Eladynnus. Wikipedia can't just add everything that an author ever says about their own work. We use reliable secondary sources to decide what is and isn't worth including in an article, and especially when it comes to due weight this is important. If no online magazine or editorial has ever written about Burlew's use of minorities in his webcomic, there is apparently no general interest or impact to it, or so we as Wikipedia should conclude. ~Mable (chat) 14:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

All the references are original forum posts, not "some" and again, the fact it's "2vs1" against me doesn't prove that the section is useless. I'll restore it in the moment the page will become unprotected because you're deleting an entire section (which was visible for almost a year) just because your subjective opinion about the reliability of the source. Wikipedia isn't "You". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.30.41.252 (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

And, as a matter of fact, forum posts are being used as a source EVERYWHERE, even in this very page (albeit in another section), but on this specific occasion the user decided to remove it (becuase he doesn't like it, probably) and the fact you agree with him doesn't make the action correct. You should restore the section and maybe improve it, not deleting it because reasons. Again, i'll restore it in the moment i'll be able to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.30.41.252 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Well yeah, we should aim to minimize all this usage of primary sources on webcomic articles. That's how you can give due weight to topics. This isn't just the two of us talking, though: were basing this stance on guidelines on identifying reliable sources. Webcomic articles are sadly very behind on a lot of other WikiProjects... Either way, restoring the section in the Order of the Stick article while this article is still protected is just bad practice :s Decisions on Wikipedia are made through editor concensus, is the idea, so the objections of other editors can't be brushed away with a simple "Wikipedia isn't you". ~Mable (chat) 07:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The section was moved because, on a second thought, it was better to put it in the webcomic article rather on the author's page, not to get around this discussion. There were removed some parts of it (which, even if referenced with sources, they were bit ambiguous) and it appears it was welcomed positively by many verified users. It should be OK now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.30.107.22 (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the IP user added this same text to The Order of the Stick to get around this discussion. [1] 73.168.15.161 (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I pointed that out, yes. Another editor then brought it up on the talk page of that article; see Talk:The Order of the Stick. It may be useful to pick a single place to have this discussion from, though :p ~Mable (chat) 04:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep; might as well have it at the webcomic's article. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)