Talk:The Order of the Stick/Archive 1

Archive 1

Quotes

Do we really need the quotes? If people want to see the jokes, they can follow the link and check out the comic itself. I think this section should be removed since it has no factual relevence. At minimum, it should be moved to wikiquote.--JiFish 20:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

In addition these quotes will be continually added to as the series goes on, bloating the article. Plus, the text doesn't do justice to the jokes. :) I think the quotes section should be replaced with some links to comics that have relevance to the article. (Like Penny Arcade.) My first post has been up for four days and nobody has replied to it. I can only assume this means nobody has any objections. I will remove this section if nobody objects in a day or so. --JiFish 22:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• How about using Wikiquote? The template is: {{Wikiquote}}

Adding direct links to a couple of good examples of the typical OOTS comic seems a very good idea. I'd do it myself, but the website seems to be down atm.. MMad 01:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Published Collection(s)?

"While it is principally published on the web, several collections have been published as books." Isn't there only one published collection? I may have missed the supposed second, but I don't think so. :) --User:Jenmoa 00:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

No, only one book. --JiFish 11:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Two books, actually. Dungeon Crawlin' Fools, and On the Origins of the PCs. -- BRC

Third book's been announced on the site. 84.70.213.75 13:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers

Does anyone else think rather than using spoiler tags on the Characters section, we should attempt to remove as many spoilers as possible? After all, we don't have to spoil the plot to describe the characters. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:44, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to summarize the characters briefly as they were at the beginning of the comic (with no spoilers) and then fork the bulk of the character text to a seperate page marked with spoilers? 171.72.5.226 20:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Lanky Bugger

I've removed some of the more blatant spoilers from the main page's Characters section. The spoilers can be included on the individual character pages with appropriate tags. Jefepato 03:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this contract WP:SPOIL at least a bit? (That is, the use of spoiler tags, not trimming down individual character entries -- those definitely are supposed to be short and have been getting long lately.) --GargoyleMT 13:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor char lawyers

I'm not sure that the lawyer that Belkar hired was one of the named lawyers. Does someone have a confirmation of this? --Syrthiss 21:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It might be better if we don't name the lawyers at all. "Lawyers" should surfice. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the lawyer that shows up [1] looks the same as one of the previous lawyers ([2] and [3]), so I assumed they were the same guy. --Pentasyllabic 23:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a statement that all lawyers look the same...--Azathar 04:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

There are only two lawyers in the land. The third is Celia.

Elan's Intelligence

Elan has "OK Intelligence"? You're kidding, right? Elan is as dumb as a box; that's been established. This needs to be changed. Calion

Fixed. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Elan's Alignment

I've altered the information on the main page to list Elan as being either Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. Elan is described in the character write-up in No Cure For The Paladin Blues as possessing "inherent goodness", which I consider good enough to confirm him as being of good alignment. Bards cannot be lawful - I think Haley even states that at one point, making Elan either Neutral Good or Chaotic Good for the time being. Any extrapolation from his mother's alignment or Nale's would seem to be too close to the dreaded Original Research to include. --Tailkinker 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comic 445 http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0445.html proves he's chaotic good.Stu42 22:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yup, it sure does. Integrating that into the article - thanks! Timmccloud 13:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • In the OOTS board game, His character card lists him as 'Foolish Good' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.137.48 (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Belkar vs Miko

In the upcoming combat that is sure to happen, who do you think will win? I'm rooting for Belkar.--Azathar 17:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages aren't forums. --Pentasyllabic 17:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Denial of Service Attack

The Order of the Stick page has been the target of a Denial of Service attack or some such lately. People haven't been able to access the page. Does this have any relevance to the comic?

I wouldn't say so, a lot of comics and website have down time, it's not really noteable. If it goes on for a while longer (say another couple of weeks), or it esculates into an issue (the author complains about it and takes action)- but not quite yet.--Oppolo 05:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Haley's cryptogram

Has anyone figured out the cryptogram that Haley is speaking in? If so I think it should be added to this page.Unklelemmy 21:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's different in each strip. Lots of people are posting translations, usually within an hour of a given strip going up. You can find them on the official message board for OotS, ENWorld, the newsgroup rec.games.frp.dnd, and probably other places as well. PurplePlatypus 22:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This thread on the official forums has all the translations. Phlip 01:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Confusing line

I just took out

Durkon's spells and abilities show him to be at least level 11.

from Elan's paragraph. Either this line has the wrong name in it or it was put into the wrong paragraph, and I don't know which. Bryan 05:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it was in reference to Durkon's ability to use multiple fifth level spells per day (shown once or twice, and explicity asserted by Belkar in the latest strip as I write this). I put a similar sentence into Durkon's section last night. PurplePlatypus 22:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I just modified it to suggest that Durkon is level 12 - In order to cast Raise Dead three times at level 11 he would need a Charisma of 20, and no Charisma boosting item has ever been mentioned. Azezel 16:52 02 MArch 2006 (UTC)

It's Wisdom, not Charisma, and it's conceivable that Durkon has a wisdom-boosting item. Just because they haven't mentioned it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Plus, level 11 characters have had two ability boosts.

Avoid specific stats/levels

Speculation about characters' exact levels, feats, and stats should probably be avoided, unless there are direct statements about them in the strips. See http://www.giantitp.com/FAQ.html#faq6a - Burlew purposely keeps these things fuzzy so as not to restrict his storytelling. Key line: "As a rule of thumb, I tend to think of them as being around 7th-9th level or so". Zompist 19:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We aren't speculating: we're going through things that are either expressly written (i.e. Belkar is CE alignment, or that Belkar and Vaarsuvius are the same level), or can be conclusively shown to be accurate (i.e. if V can cast x amount of spells per day of this spell level, he MUST be at least level Y).⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, these things are speculative, unless they're either mentioned in the strip or in statements from Burlew (e.g. Belkar's alignment). Deductions from the rules aren't conclusive. One reason is because they might contradict other things Burlew has said (e.g. his statement about character levels above); another is that the campaign the strip represents might have house rules (this possibility was explicitly mentioned in one strip); yet another is that characters' statements may not be entirely reliable. We know for instance, that a statement by a character about V's gender is just that character's opinion. Maybe Belkar's wrong about how many spells Durkon can cast. Zompist 19:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, drawing conclusions in this way probably violates the WP:NOR rule. Stick to facts. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Branch off a separate article for the characters

As is the case with many webcomic articles, the character section is crufting up with trivia and excessive plot detail. Consider forking off to Characters of the Order of the Stick or something like that, which could contain the detail, and then streamlining the character section here to just the basics. For examples of other webcomics that have done this, see:

• Sluggy Freelance: Characters of Sluggy Freelance
• Schlock Mercenary: Schlock Mercenary characters
• Megatokyo: Main characters of Megatokyo and Minor characters of Megatokyo
• 8-Bit Theater: Characters of 8-Bit Theater
• Bob and George: Characters of Bob and George
• User Friendly: User Friendly characters

It's not the most elegant solution, but the end result is a sleaker main article. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I have added a {{splitsection}} tag. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the section is getting absurdly long, and I doubt there's any hope of keeping people from making it exhaustive. Zompist 20:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. The main article is being cluttered up with minor characters. While these are important to the plot, etc, they aren't necessary to be in the main article overviewing the series itself, nor is the detail therein. Keep the main article down to brief overviews of the Order itself, and put everybody else, and more expanded descriptions in a seperate article.

Agreed. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done it. The character page was the easy part; I just plopped the whole thing in there and was done with it. Writing a brief, spoiler free summary for each of the primary characters on the main page, however, was really tough. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 02:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well done, though. It's hard to summarize a character in a line, but those are really good. Zompist 18:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Lets keep the character section on the main page to the members of The Order of the Stick proper. They're the only ones who have been in every story line, after all. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 04:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity

I've changed the characters section of the wiki to reflect the fact that Durkon possesses the Girdle, not Roy. Comic 249 clearly shows Roy leaving the belt with Durkon. The implication, obviously, is that Roy doesn't want it and coupling that with Durkon's question about whether or not Roy wants to keep the belt suggests Durkon still has it in his care.

171.72.5.226 20:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Lanky Bugger

Tundra

Someone just said that, because there's a tundra in the far north, this is an indication that OotS takes place in the Forgotten Realms.

The mind boggles...

Needless to say, I reverted it, seeing that this was either trolling or a good-faith but singularly ill-considered edit. PurplePlatypus 02:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Rich Burlew Article?

"Rich Burlew" redirects to this page, which means that there is no Rich Burlew article, right? Someone should correct that, and I'd be inclined to take a crack at it, but I'd like to make sure I'm not duplicating anyone's efforts or contradicting some policy decision that Rich Burlew should redirect here. Any thoughts? RolandStJude 23:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's been done, and was deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Burlew. That doesn't mean you can't do it, but it won't be given much leeway. Basically, it has to start off as a shining example of all that's good in bio articles, or it will probably just get reverted back to the redirect. You might want to see if you can put something together on Comixpedia, and then move it over here when it's polished. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 01:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

He's got published work (although that article needs to be edited) as a game designer, completely seperate from Order of the Stick. I don't think he'd have trouble surviving AfD a second time. --Starwed 11:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw someone started a new stub for Rich Burlew, and I jumped in..I had a few references that I had found when adding third-party ref's to this article that weren't of use here, but made for good writing for a biography. Ig8887 12:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thog is a half-orc, not goblin

Per Rich Burlow himself [4] (search for "Reply #7" from "The Giant") Thog is a half-orc, not a goblin. Characters of the Order of the Stick got it right. Alan De Smet | Talk 00:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Giant in the Playground

"Giant in the Playground" redirects to Order of the Stick. Since the Giant in the Playground page has a lot of non OotS media, shouldn't it rate its own page? 208.165.251.16 17:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I may have to agree. Especially now that there's another comic being hosted on the site. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

alignments

i added in roy and belkar's alignments, as i feel they're unanbiguous, either by direct statement from the author, or in-strip refferences (roy's admited to being LG).

please dont start a revision war; arguments go here:--Dak 15:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Cultural references

OOTS is rich on cultural references, so I was wondering whether it'd make sense to list them all in an extra article? For example, in strip 388, Elan and Thog meet the PC party from Final Fantasy VI and in 390, Julio Scoundrél refers to Elan as his padawan. :) The only trick is to avoid too much OR if we decide to pull it off. %) --Koveras ^☭ 14:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea, but my main concern is that there are an awful lot of them and many of them are fleeting, to say the least (like the padawan reference), so we're getting dangerously close to the indiscriminate knowledge problem. For now, I would suggest that any really significant references, those that are more than a single phrase or one-panel joke (like, for example, Warthog's School or the Final Fantasy characters showing up) could be referenced within the relevant articles rather than actually providing a specific list of them, and the quick references probably aren't necessary. --Tailkinker 18:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research

In addition to not having references, the tagged section makes claims that could be considered non-factual deductions regarding the source material, as well as being written with a bit of in universe perspective. It needs cleanup, i kan reed 14:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed your original research tag - if you had followed the character name links to their individual character pages, you would see paragraphs upon paragraphs of referenced source material that substatiates the claims. It's not OR. It's also kind of silly to have a link to a page AND a reference mark to the same page, just to make it look like it has valid references. Timmccloud 03:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for being curt, but that is utter nonsense. The assertion, for example, that Belkar is the group's id represents psychological interpretation not referencing an actual psychologist, nor stated by the creator. This is the very definition of Original research, and is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is no place for personal liteary analysis. Rather than engaging in an edit war, I'll wait a day or two for a reply before I replace the tag. With regard to your assertion that it's silly, it is completely appropriate to notify readers of all kinds of innappropriate content. Being unverified is one thing, being one (or a group) of editor's analysis of a situation is another, both tags are needed. i kan reed 04:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that - the phrase is certainly completely unnecessary for Belkar's description. Consider it gone. The rest of the descriptions seem accurate to the portrayal of the characters in the webcomic. What else do you consider problematic? --Tailkinker 07:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Other examples in this short section: "Playing close to type" on Durkon. The assertion that Elan survives mainly on luck. Definetly the assertion of Haley's "Heart of gold". These statements all represent things that editors want to beleive is true. I understand that editors want summaries to be elegant and beautiful, but an encyclopedia calls for dry and factual statements sometimes. i kan reed 16:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Well, I'd certainly say that Durkon is portrayed as being reasonably close to a stereotypical fantasy dwarf, so I would say that "playing close to type" is a not-inaccurate description in his case. I would agree that the suggestion that Elan survives on luck is flawed - he seems to go through life relying on his considerable charm more than anything else. Haley has shown an altruistic side on occasion - agreeing to assist in the rescue of the mud farmer from the ogres when there was no profit in it for her, for example. Whether this necessarily qualifies her for the "heart of gold" description is questionable, but I think that her altruistic streak is worthy of mention at least. --Tailkinker 18:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not saying these things are wrong or incorrect, just that they are original research that don't represent the view of an authority on the subject. i kan reed 18:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the individual articles for the characters, and I can't find the sections you are referring to. Belkar's alignment is the only one that has any citations. I think if the alignments are removed where they don't meet WP:V, and some descriptions are rephrased so they're WP:NPOV, the section will be better. --GargoyleMT 15:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been a tremendous amount of excellent editing now done to these short descriptions, all of it improving the article. Your specific issues have been addressed. Has your original research issue been resolved? Timmccloud 00:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's now on par with the rest of the article, which is no GA canidate, but hopefully we'll get it there. i kan reed 00:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added an original research tag to Fictional World, on the paragraph about the world's ethnic diversity. The terms "black" and "white" have specific meanings in this context, corresponding to "African" and "Caucasian," respectively. All we know about the characters' races is that some have light skin, and some have dark skin. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Roy (or anyone else) is "black" as Western society defines it, nor is the term used anywhere in the comic. If there is a reference, please cite it. Otherwise, the paragraph should be removed. Gitman00 17:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I've changed the wording to exactly what we know: That Roy has dark skin, while others have light, and no one differentiates between the two. That should make it not OR anymore. I still think it's worth mentioning, because obviously the author chose to portray it that way and does so consistently; in any group of humans, there's always a variety of skin colors. But I wrapped it more in information about the different regions. I wanted to cite "On the Origin of PCs" for reference to the Western Continent (Haley talks about it on page 10) but I'm new to this and I haven't figured out book citations yet.BadIdea 19:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work. If you want a book citation, wrap <ref></ref> (since there's a <references/> tag at the bottom of the article) around a Template:Cite book reference ({{cite book |arguments}}). Preview may not do much good, but it may not hurt either. --GargoyleMT 23:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Good?

It's never been explicitly stated in-comic, but consensus on the forums and (I think) the Class Levels and Geekery thread is that Durkon is Lawful. Should it be changed to Lawful or at least listed as unknown?JeffKo427 15:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Everything in the article should be verifiable with reliable sources. This overlaps at least somewhat with the discussion of the "Original Research" tag one section up. --GargoyleMT 15:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is something that needs to be addressed, particularly, as you say, with regard to the point above about original research. The article currently gives precise alignments for five out of the six members of the Order, but, as you say, Durkon's alignment has never been explicitly stated, so it most certainly shouldn't be listed as if it had been. So, of the six members of the Order, whose alignments do we know for absolute certainty? Namely either through the subject being directly addressed in the comic, or through statements by Rich Burlew?

We know that Belkar is Chaotic Evil, courtesy of Mr Burlew. Roy refers to being lawful in issue 162, which would seem to be good enough to put him down for Lawful Good. We know that Elan's mother is Chaotic Good and that his direct opposite, Nale, is Lawful Evil - is that enough to definitively peg Elan as Chaotic Good as well? Has there been anything more definite? Should we put "Chaotic Good" with a 'probably' or an 'almost certainly' qualifier? I don't recall anything off the top of my head about Haley's alignment, other than she's not evil and can't, by definition, be Lawful. She would seem to be an unknown, like Vaarsuvius. And Durkon, while I personally agree with the forum consensus that he's almost certainly Lawful Good, remains unspecified as well.

Haley states that she is 'Chaotic Good (ish)' during her period of aphasia. You can check through the link under Haley's cryptograms further up the talk page. Oni no Akuma 08:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is, however, more than likely that I've missed something somewhere along the line that will allow us to narrow things down. Can anyone else remember anything useful? --Tailkinker 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think only direct statement in the comic or by Mr. Burlew are "good enough". Synthesizing information about Elan's family to arrive at an alignment does constitute WP:OR, by my reading of the guideline. Wikipedia is intended to be a repository of facts (or "verifiable content") established elsewhere; "almost certainly" or "probably" are words that may very well denote material that doesn't belong... --GargoyleMT 17:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Slightly unrelated note--I've linked all the alignments to the DnD alignments page, just in case anyone with absolutely no knowledge of either DnD or OotS stumbles across this article.JeffKo427 19:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Reading the On the Origin of PCs book, Durkon's high priest describes Durkon thusly. "He so Lawful, if I command him ta stay away until I send fer him, he will". That would seem like a pretty definitive statement from a character who knows Durkon very well. Good enough to narrow his alignment down to Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral? (Let's face it, he's Lawful Good, but we need something definitive on the Good part). --Tailkinker 17:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been stated by the Giant that all party members are Good, save Belkar, though I don't know exactly where. Given the quote you list, I think that's at least good enough to list his alignment as "probably Lawful Good." Thoughts? Walther Atkinson 20:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You could say "Good", if you can find the citation you were looking for. (I'm not sure how useful this partial information is, though.) Everything on WP is supposed to be verifiable, mentioned explicitly elsewhere. Synthesizing information is "original research", which is inherently non-verifiable. The word "probably" has no place in any WP article (with some exceptions, of course). --GargoyleMT 16:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot

It seems to me that the article is missing a Plot section--a crtical part of any fictional work's article. Is there a reason that one has not been created, or is there one and I just haven't noticed it? +JeffKo427 10:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the odder webcomic articles - the plot is spread out across the character pages, as opposed to a central location. So you are right, there is no single "plot" spoiler, there is about 6 of them... Timmccloud 13:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Erfworld

Since both GiantITP and Rich Burlew redirect here, I thought this would be a reasonable place to have a discussion about Erfworld. Is there a reason to not create an Erfworld wiki page? I have heard that one has been created multiple times, and then deleted. Was the page just not stellar enough? If so, why didn't some wiki gardeners come along and make it so? I'm sure there are other reasons, and if you (especially the deleters) could list them here, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --BonnySwan 00:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say hold off on creating the article. I don't think Erfworld would pass WP:WEB all on its own quite yet. i kan reed 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So I guess Rich Burlew/GiantITP doesn't count as an online publisher, then? (I know it's not my job to cite all the "notability" references, I'm just curious.) But I think I see your point; is one of the problems that Erfworld is just not established enough as a comic yet? (Trying to increase communication between the page creators and the page deleters, here.) --BonnySwan 04:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly a pro at this, but it seems to me that Erfworld is worthy of mention. The creators are experienced from other comics (e.g. Partially Clips), a LiveJournal community of supporters already exists and the strip has the support of The Giant In The Playground, whose webtraffic surpasses marvel.com. It seems notable enough to me that if I heard someone mention it I would be disapointed in wikipedia if it didn't answer my questions. Obviously that's hardly an official argument consistent with the wiki guidlines (I suck), but I would argue that if a full article isn't warranted then some kind of reference is still needed. Perhaps a stub article? Or a subheading within the Giant_in_the_playground or Partially_Clips articles? Such a preliminary reference could then be expanded as notoriety grows. anyway that's my 2 cents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathan Usmar (talk • contribs) 12:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Launch Date?

Just wondering, when exactly was OOTS made? 2003 is not very specific... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.114.161 (talk • contribs) 11:18, February 27, 2007

30th September, 2003 (or possibly 29th, depending on timezones). [5] --Phlip 01:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that should go in the infobox then. I'll update it. Gitman00 17:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the character articles seem to basically just recollect the series' entire plot

Wouldn't it be more efficent to have a seperate article for a plot summery (or better yet just a short summery on the main article) and focus the bios on the character's traits rather than their role in the plot?--Bisected8 19:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really - the character articles only detail those parts of the plot that deal specifically with that character; this is in keeping with character articles generally. It makes a lot more sense to give character histories in their articles, rather than requiring somebody wanting to know about the history of a particular character to wade through a long plot summary to pick out those bits pertaining to that character. --Tailkinker 22:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

But if someone wanted to know the history of a character in that much detail they copuld just read the strip.--Bisected8 12:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone is reading the article, they probably want a quick summary-style. Wikipedia articles are there so that you don't have to do your own research (i.e., read the comic). 67.42.238.48 02:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly--Bisected8 11:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be SOME form of plot summary, however brief, in the main article. Right now, you could read the entire thing without knowing that it starts out in a dungeon with the OOTS trying to kill Xykon. For all that article says, the plot could involve the OOTS and Xykon competing in an worldwide scavenger hunt on rocket-powerd canoes. Which would be an awesome comic, but is not the comic that we're discussing. Even a one paragraph summary would do. Ig8887 08:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Crayon Effects

I have to disagree with a recent edit removing the mentioning of "crayoning" effects. It is extensive in the print versions of oots that are not part of the online comic, and I direct anyone interested to the bullet points in the middle of this page of the Stick: Start of Darkness. So this will become a reoccuring thematic element in the comic, and deserves the paragraph that I have re-established. Timmccloud 22:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Archiving request

This page needs a good archiving - 35kb of talk is too much - anyone up to the job? Timmccloud 22:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Category

I'm a little confused - why have we suddenly gone from having an Order of the Stick category, which could neatly include everything, to having an Order of the Stick Characters category, which excludes the main page itself and the locations page?

Unless there's a really good reason why somebody did this, I'm going to change it back. --Tailkinker 14:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If a category disappears, the easiest way to find out what happened to it is to go to its page and use the "What links here" link in the toolbox on the left side. The category was up for discussion on April 30th, and they decided to delete it: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 30#Category:Order of the Stick. --GargoyleMT 12:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay, fair enough - ta muchly. Missed that discussion somewhere along the lines. In that case, surely the new category is equally inappropriate and should be eliminated? --Tailkinker 16:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I suppose so. The core argument is that the OotS articles are all interlinked enough that navigating them doesn't require a category. And that argument would seem to hold regardless... but I'm just some guy, ya know? --GargoyleMT 13:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, well, we've got a precedent that the Order doesn't need its own category at all, we've got good interlinking and we've got the template that lists everything anyway. Ergo, the Order of the Stick Characters category is redundant and can be safely gotten rid of. --Tailkinker 14:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Monstrous Skin Colors

It's stated in the "Fictional Worlds" section that "Some 'monstrous' species have variation between races, such as between the dark green goblins and the orange hobgoblins; others, like the uniformly orange kobolds, do not." As stated on the Hobgoblin (Dungeons & Dragons) page, they are goblinoids, but separate from goblins, much as bugbears are. Since there are no "hobkobolds", or any other variation of kobold present in the OotS comic, it's logical that kobolds have a uniform skin color. As hobgoblins are distinctly different from goblins, and skin color is clearly being used to show this difference in the comic, it seems inaccurate to equate them with the variations among human and demihuman races. Unless someone objects I'm going to remove the "monstrous species" portion of this section. -Atamasama 16:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comic #501 shows us that the previous assumption in the fictional worlds section--that all Southern people have the same skin color--is flat-out wrong, as we see several Southern nations that Hinjo visited that have darker skin. I revised the language. Ig8887 01:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Publications and Games

OK, so just delete my contribution to Publications and Games, even though it CLEARLY states that these are coming out in Fall right here: http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=23501&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0. I'm just gonna go put them back. Unless, of course, someone wants to be an annoying ass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XIIIStruggle (talk • contribs) 09:16, June 23, 2007

Added your link as the citation for the book's release date. Ig8887 07:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Supercollider: A Webcomics Mash-Up

The publications section is missing The Order of the Stick's inclusion in the one-off webcomic collaboration for San Diego Comic-Con 2006 that was Supercollider: A Webcomics Mash-Up.

For details of the product, see http://www.inksandwich.com/news/p2_articleid/83

Also see The Giant In The Park (giantitp.com) News page of 9-Jul-2006 for OOTS-specific info about the product at http://www.giantitp.com/index2.html

For details of the not-so-successful sales outcome, see http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10151&p=854071

--J-- (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability and sourcing concerns

First off, let me be perfectly clear -- I love The Order of the Stick. It's a great strip.

However, something I've noticed while browsing the related articles is that there are zero reliable third-party sources to establish notability. As can be seen here and here, those are significant concerns that often lead to deletion.

Can we find some reliable third-party sources to add to this article and the character articles?

-- Powers ^T 00:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This article mentions that it was published in Dragon Magazine, a print publication that is certainly notable as the first and longest-running roleplaying publication ever. It also mentions several awards the comic has won, as well as the ISBNs of published books. I'm not sure what else there would be, other than reviews from other sites/magazines. Ig8887 01:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Reviews in magazines would be the best possible choice because it would help assign cultural relevance rather than just having plot summary as the article is now. i kan reed 02:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Would linking to the website version of an article from a print source qualify? I can find reviews from The Onion, Time Magazine, and Comic Buyer's Guide (all print magazines), but I can't figure out which print issues they would have appeared in (and I strongly suspect the Time.com blurb is only on their website). Their online versions are readily available, though. I'll try to write up a section using these either way, and if it's not sufficient, maybe someone else can track down the print issue numbers.Ig8887 06:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added a Critical Reaction and Awards paragraph, with lots o' links to sources online, print, and online-but-from-a-print-publication. I also added a line early in the article about its ranking in the top 10 most read webcomics, according to a survey (that includes Alexa rankings).Ig8887 09:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

History of the Comic's Schedule?

It seems to me that a whole paragraph detailing what the comic's schedule was at various points in time is pretty pointless. The current schedule, "Three a week without warning", is listed in the info box and referenced to GITP's news site. What the schedule used to be, complete with vague mentions of Rich's health problems with no real information, isn't that important. I deleted the paragraph. Ig8887 09:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Three a week" is the nominal schedule, but one a week is closer to the reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.67.23.49 (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, that would be Original Research, now, wouldn't it? I mean, unless a reliable source had compiled an average of comic updates over X period of time and so on. The listed schedule is three-a-week on average, that's what should stay in the article. Ig8887 (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Since I just added a History section, this bit of history now has a place to reside. Thus, I've restored it (though in a less POV manner, I hope). --Ig8887 (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fictional World to Locations article?

Maybe I'm going overboard, but the last three paragraphs under "Fictional World" seem like they belong in the Locations article, rather than on the main page. The first two paragraphs describe the nature of the comic, while the last three describe the nature of the planet on which the comic takes place. Anyone agree we should move them and make the Locations article a more comprehensive, "World of OOTS" article? Ig8887 07:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting to Good Article status

OK, so I've been editing this article heavily for a while now, adding a ton of references and real-world context. I'd like to ask anyone else who still monitors this article what else would be needed, in their opinion, to try for Good Article status? I requested an assessment over a month ago from WikiProject Comics, and haven't heard back yet. The only thing that jumps out at me is a plot synopsis, which I probably will add soon (but hesitate for fear of it being too long). Are there any other glaring omissions? --Ig8887 (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've submitted this article for a peer-review from the WikiComics Project; the discussion is here. If this doesn't result in some comments, I'll relist it on the main peer review page. --Ig8887 (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

SYNOPSIS

I'll do that. Give me a day or so.... -doomender —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doomender (talk • contribs) 23:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I came here to post my attempt at it before I saw this! Well, if you have anything essential that I've missed, I've managed to whittle it down to only five paragraphs. I really, REALLY think it should not get much longer than that, because a lot of fiction articles get crap for having too long of a plot section, but I think some recitation of the plot is necessary for the article to be complete. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh. You've got it pretty good. Nicely done. Doomender (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

durkon-good?good!

durkon is cleary good. why? in strip 11 ( http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html ) he hit be 'Unholy blight' spell, and become somwhat unclear. the spell ( http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/unholyBlight.htm ) causes it to be sickened for sometime. durkon get sick=he is good!and we know he lawful, so...

             a.r.koffil  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.37 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 

While I agree that Durkon s certainly Good, it is impossible to know for sure in that panel if he has been sickened, or merely struck by damage. Therefore, anything short of an open declaration of alignment by the character themselves is considered Original Research here. Durkon has never (to my knowledge) declared his alignment. --Ig8887 (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

thor's Alignment is good-he had some archon or angel as his servants (strip 40, 485 say that they good). we saw people Unconscious from nonlethal damage, and this not same. but Roy get sick after he learn he know les from elan in somewhat, and this seen same. sorry on the english

                    a.r.koffil  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.36 (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 

That's still Original Research. Drawing conclusions based on images that imply something without stating it is practically the definition of OR. Thor's alignment doesn't matter, because in D&D, clerics can have different alignments than their gods, and whether art "seems" the same or not is not conclusive. This is an encyclopedia, we need to stick to verifiable facts, not conjecture, or the whole thing becomes worthless. --Ig8887 (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Character Pictures

I think we need pictures for the main characters. Agree/disagree? Doomender (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, each character has their own article, which has a picture. Adding all of those in here would be quite a clutter, and the banner at the top already illustrates them (and the thumbnailed strip shows Miko). I'm not sure how much value is added by inserting an additional 10 images to one section. But if someone thinks they can do it without disrupting the flow of the page, go for it. A picture of Xykon and Redcloak and the Monster in the Darkness together could be appropriate for the Antagonists section. --Ig8887 (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Fancomic Links

To the editor who added the links to fancomics: I don't see any benefit to this article served by calling out the names and links to two barely-related comics that are themselves clearly non-notable. It smacks of advertising by trying to slip URLs into an article on a popular comic. I'll grant you that the avatar/fancomic phenomenon is unique enough to OOTS to bear mentioning, but there are many such fancomics, and probably more to come. When one of them manages to establish itself as notable, maybe we can mention that it began as a fancomic for OOTS.

As far as mentioning the server delays, I don't see how that is particularly encyclopedic. It may or may not be true on any given day, there's no real citation we can make for it, and Burlew may buy a new server tomorrow for all we know. It's MAY be a characteristic of the GiantITP website, but hardly a defining characteristic of the fictional work Order of the Stick, which is what this article is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ig8887 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Plot synopsis

I have tried to shorten the synopsis on the page, as the original version was unnecessarily detailed for the most part. It turns out it's pretty hard to shorten the synopsis and still keep it readable...my best suggestion is that we divide it up into parts. Does anyone have any ideas for what might be a good way of determining where to make the subdivisions? In the early stages of the comic there was a sort of non-canon wrap-up after the end of a "chapter," but that hasn't happened in a very long time, so it's difficult to settle on a natural way to break up the plot. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 22:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• It could be broken up the way it is in the books: 1-120 = Dungeon Crawlin' Fools, 121-301 = No Cure for the Paladin Blues, 302-484 = War and XPs, 484 - present = "Current story". However, there's not much point with the synopsis as it stands now; the entire first book is covered in five sentences. While I understand that there's a trend towards slashing plot synopses, the current version has been so butchered as to be practically useless for understanding the actual plot. Also, it's tagged for references...what possible references could there be besides the strip itself? I had this same argument when I brought the article to Peer Review (link at the top of this page): There's no possible reference for the plot other than the work itself. For that matter, I have no idea what the tag at the top of the page is referencing; how can an article that is 2/3rds out-of-universe still have too much in-universe material? Only the Plot Synopsis and Characters can possibly count as in-universe. Ig8887 (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that way of breaking it up (the way it is in books) is the best way to go. As for the length of the coverage of the first book, I think that's fine; plot-wise, a lot less happened in the first book than the others—it was mostly just setting things up. As for the "butchering" of the synopsis, the original summary was so long and unnecessarily detailed that I tried to trim it down to leave in only things critical to the main plot (so, for example, the encounter with the Linear Guild in book one wasn't mentioned, because it didn't really change the plot; likewise, the encounter with them in Cliffport is practically glossed over, since it seems to have no long-term effect on the party's goals at the time; if later in the story those things turn out to be relevant to the plot, they can be added back in). We can disagree over how much is necessary to understand the plot—I personally thought I had left enough in—but the fact is, if this plot section gets much longer, it will probably have to be made into its own article, with a one-paragraph synopsis in this article

As for referencing, I have been advised in the past (during GA reviews and stuff like that) to vigorously cite things even in the plot summary (so, for example, if a sentence says "And Roy throws Xyklon into the gate," then there would be a footnote pointing to that strip); in plot summaries it seems permissible to include large numbers of primary sources, since you're not trying to "prove" claims so much as just link the reader to the strip in which that event actually happened, if the reader wants to see for himself. Of course, different reviewers and admins probably have different opinions on these things, so maybe the people in the peer review for this didn't think the plot summary needed sourcing; I'm just putting what I'm used to in there.

• As Imention below, I don't think this is the purpose of citations in Wikipedia, as laid out in WP:CITE. I do not think they are there so readers can check things out for themselves, they are there to stem disputes over what is accurate. A single citation for the entire plot of each of the books will suffice for that purpose; more than that is needlessly inflating the page's already enormous number of citations. If a sentence says "And Roy throws Xykon into the gate," that is not controversial or likely to be challenged; it is plain and indisputable to anyone who has read the comic. Therefore, it should not get a citation of any sort.

At the very most, such a citation would be voluntary, not "needed". If you want to go through and place such cites, I won't delete them, but going through and tagging everything "citation needed" implies that they are strictly required for the article to stand, and that is not the case. Don't confuse "would be nice" with "required by Wikipedia standards". --Ig8887 (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As for the in-universe tag, I have moved that to the Characters section. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 12:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Explaining the tag

Can the editor who tagged this article explain exactly what they find lacking in it? Specifically, what "general cleanup" is needed? I followed the link that the tag generates, and I didn't see any of those problems here. And where is there "original research"? And, while we're at it, what is wrong with the citations? I went through and reformatted all of them in accordance with comments given at peer review some time ago. Also, as mentioned above, how much out-of-universe material is required in order for it to not be dubbed "primarily" in-universe? --Ig8887 (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about all of the tags, but OR is there because many sections have no sources but OOTS comics. That's fine for plot (if there were sources in that section at all), but at least two sections of analysis (the section on D&D commentary, and the section on the geography and afterlife of the OOTS world) cite almost exclusively OOTS comics, meaning that everything in there is some user's analysis of the comics. It would be much better if someone could cite reviews that mention those same things.

I have done some cleanup of the Characters section to deal with the in-universe thing; that section still has problems, I think, but as it's the only section that has in-universe problems I will move the tag from the top of the article to that section. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 12:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As for the citations, I don't see any major problems, except that the citations of the published books should probably be rewritten using a {{cite}} template or at least filled in with information on publisher, year, and location, as is standard for book citations. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 17:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• You've put "citation needed" on almost every single sentence in the first two paragraphs of the "Fictional World" section. According to WP:CITE, a citation is required for, "quotes, most images, information about living persons and anything that is likely to be challenged." Do you actually think every single one of those statements is so controversial as to be challenged? They are plainly apparent to anyone reading even a few comics. The purpose of a citation is not to provide a handy link to the occurrence of something within the text, it's to back up claims that someone might dispute. No one is going to dispute every instance of reference to the sort of things that happen in OOTS. It's a waste of time, energy, and space to link every single event in the comic. Further, it will encourage people to claim that the article is supported mostly by first party sources when in fact those sources do not really need to be mentioned at all.

Now, as far as the shortened footnotes, those ARE standard. Again, see WP:CITE, bullet point #3: "Shortened footnote: By placing the citation in the list and naming only the author, year and page number in a footnote." It was done to keep the Citation list from being a million pages long, and it makes the article less cluttered. --Ig8887 (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you make a pretty good point about the citations, and I won't have any problems if you want to remove that tag now (as long as there aren't missing citations in other parts of the article, too). As for the shortened footnotes, that's fine, I wasn't aware of that standard, but now that you pointed it out to me, I don't have any objections to the way the footnotes are formatted. I do remember being a little surprised tos ee that all the footnotes to comics were formatted using {{cite journal}}, but hey, it works, and it's consistent throughout the article, so that seems fine to me. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 14:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the "citation style" and "cleanup tags," as we reached an agreement on that issue several weeks ago but never took the tags down. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Belkar is chaotic evil

I changed it and added a link to http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0230.html where he explicitly says that he is chaotic.--Stu42 (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that looks good. I was reverting before because the earlier ref didn't say chaotic; with this ref there as well, it should be fine. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Belkar's Alignment

If Belkar was evil, wouldn't Miko recently have figured it out, even with Belkar using his lead shield to hide from Miko.... Just a thought--Azathar 04:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The entire point of that lead-sheet is that he can hide from Miko's Detect Evil Spell. Why would he want to hide from it if he wasn't evil? Miko isn't stupid, she is highly suspicious that Belkar is evil, that's why she has cast "Detect Evil" on him more than once. Thank goodness for that lead-sheet. Belkar's evil alignment is well established. Just take a look at the Giant in the Playground discussion boards. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:54, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I don't tend to read discussion boards, takes way too much time to sort thru them, and remind me too much of usenet. Plus, boards aren't cannon. I'd still say chaotic neutral (with evil tendencies), but that is my opinion.--Azathar 15:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

After reading the following forum Why is the ranger evil? I'm still not convinced, but, I am not going to start and edit war over it, and will leave it alone, though I still think CN is more appropriate.--Azathar 16:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Rich himself has stated that Belkar is evil.

Cool, can you provide a link to that, so I can add it as a reference? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Belkar is only Chaotic, as in the original D&D rules.... LOL--Azathar 07:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I assume by the "LOL" that you aren't being serious. Belkar is Chaotic-Evil Period. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the LOL means I was not being serious, BUT, technically, he is Chaotic ______, as it hasn't been said yet in the comics that he is actually evil. But, I agree, I now think he is Evil, just wonder when Rich will admit it in the strips.--Azathar 01:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Probabily at the same time as confirming V's gender. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed! :)--Azathar 16:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

id say hes evil, baised upon this[6], but thats just me

Reiterated over and over, here[7]'s the author declaring Belkar is CE. -KiloByte 20:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Although his alignment was once in dispute, it has since been confirmed by the creator of the strip both through explicit statement ([2]) and through events in the comic itself ([3] and [4]) that Belkar is chaotic evil.

Huh? "Once" when? I'm surprised this is an issue at all. Hasn't it been clear beyond all doubt that Belkar is evil way back since strip 11? --Maggu 15:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough, the GiTP forums were once rampant with "Belkar is Chaotic Good" topics and they still crop up with readers aware of the Giant's statement that Belkar is Chaotic Evil. 171.72.5.226 20:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Lanky Bugger

As fun as this topic may be to talk about, there are forums for it, and this isn't one of them. As lanky bugger said, yes, there have been no less than 10 forum topics popping up to discuss it, so use those.

This sure is one of them, since it directly affects the wording of the article... --Maggu 08:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not well-aquinted with D&D alignments. However, it is obvious that Belkar likes to kill and torment things. He also has a tremendous thirst for vengeance. In that sense he is evil. He does not, however, care if what he torments and kills is good or evil so he is not evil in an ideological sense. Most of the things he kills are certainly evil.

Belkar is discribed as a psychopath in the article. Sometimes the word psychopath is sloppily used as if it was essentially synonimous with serial killer (it isn't, most psychopaths aren't even murderers). In that sense, the word would indeed be an adequate discription of Belkar. It is clearly erroneous to discribe Belkar as a psychopath in the clinical meaning of the word as defined in PCL-R Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). Belkar is not charming, he has not a particularly inflated sense of self-worth, he is no more prone to boredom than the rest of the party, he lies often but lies to achieve a goal and not as a pathological liar, he is manipulative and has no sense of remorse, his emotions are deep (albeit a bit binary as V recently pointed out) as opposed to a psychopath's shallow affect, he is not particularly economically parasitic, he does have poor behavioural control but is not particularly promiscuous. He is capable of long-term planning, is only impulsive when it comes to anger, he is irresponsible and is not criminally versatile (he sticks to murder, assault, torture and abuse). Psychologically it is much more adequate to say that he is a murderous sadist. Therefore it is a rather unhappy that the text on Belkar actually links to an article that describes psychopathy in the clinical sense. The linked article describes something Belkar is not. Therefore I suggest the link and/or the word psychopath is changed.

Sensemaker

I changed his description to "an erratic and vicious, yet lovable killer" which is accurate I believe.--Something unpredictable 08:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. The above debate should be entered into evidence in the "Alignment As A Concept Is Full of Crap" case.  RGTraynor  18:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Has no one here recently read the strip? I would find the strip where it says that Belkar is CE, but I'm at school and it's blocked. But anyway. It's stated clearly when Roy is being examined by the fairy-lady (whatever she was) as to whether he can enter the LG afterlife. Remember that? And do you also remember that something like 5 strips were dedicated to how Roy's biggest negative mark on his record was being associated with Belkar? The fairy thing quite clearly states that Belkar is CE. Someone, PLEASE, look this up! BaboonOfTheYard (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Celia

Should their be a page for Celia? She is an important character, more important then Hinjo, and possibly Miko, who both have pages. Epass (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to argue against her having her own page, but she's definitely less important than Hinjo or Miko. As of today, Miko has been in the comic 68 times, and Hinjo 56 times; Celia trails them with only 33 appearances. But if you think you can write an entire article based on what little we know about her, go for it. Likewise, I'm considering adding a blurb on both Hinjo and Celia to the main article's character list, when I get time. --Ig8887 (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of appearances doesn't really determine how important a character is. But there's no doubt that Hinjo and Miko are way moe important than Celia at the moment. Only in the last few strips has Celia become really that important, whereas Miko was an important villain and Hinjo definitely had more of an effect than Celia.BaboonOfTheYard (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, Celia is the love interest for one member of the Order, and was involved in his death (by means of the medallion that couldn't be broken). That makes her a more important character than an antagonist or a sidekick in my book. Diego (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

True, but Shojo gave the Order their main quest, and almost entirely started the main plot. Miko killed Shojo and destroyed the Azure City gate. I think both of those are more important than Celia's contribution. BaboonOfTheYard (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Tags

I reverted the removal of several cleanup tags by 71.175.201.26. Here is my rationale (coped from that IP's talk page):

The IP is mine, I did not realize I had been logged out before editing. --Ig8887 (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the cleanup tags that you removed. Here's why.

• As for OR, you claim that there has been "no indication yet of what is OR within the article," but actually there has been a discussion at #Explaining the tag explaining just that.

Yeah, I have looked at that discussion. I still don't see what is OR. The only cites in the Fictional World and Commentary sections that point to OOTS sources are simple pointers to the strip where it happens (which you seem to insist on for the plot, but not here?) or statements that that the author made himself about his intentions. --Ig8887 (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• As for self-published, the link you gave in defense of the sources (WP:SELF) is not the policy on self-published sources; what you probably meant to link to was WP:SPS; incidentally, WP:SPS doesn't back up your claim that "self-published sources are valid sources about themselves."

They are both policies, and you are being willfully obtuse if you are making the claim that because he owns his own publishing company, somehow his compilations are not verifiable sources about what happens in his compilations. WP:SELF DOES apply, because frankly, we shouldn't need ANY citation for the basic plot of a book. It is self-evident from reading it. Citations are only needed for disputable content, something you seem to not understand. --Ig8887 (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I mean WP:SELFQUEST. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• As for references in the plot section, your addition of inline references to the very end of each subsection doesn't qualify as referencing. It's basically the same as adding a book to the end of an article without giving inline citations; you added a reference to the end of each section but didn't give inline citations to the specific events. Ideally, there should be an inline citation to the specific comic number for every event described in the plot section. This is standard practice in comics articles; see Gunnerkrigg Court for an example.

There is no consensus or WP policy on that. The Gunnerkrigg Court article is one that you yourself have edited heavily, and is not the norm for works of fiction. It is not a GA or FA, and has not been peer reviewed. A brief survey of fiction articles will show that such footnoting is NOT commonplace. See these FA articles: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Uncle Tom's Cabin, just to name a few. In short, you're the only one who thinks that. --Ig8887 (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't unilaterally remove cleanup tags without checking out the discussion first. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not unilateral; I gave you over a month to come up with a better rationale for those tags, or for you or anyone else to fix your perceived problems. You seem unable to do so, so I removed them. I do apologize for not being logged in when I did so. --Ig8887 (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with WP:SELF. Have you even read it? WP:SELF is about referring to Wikipedia within the Wikipedia project; I don't know why you keep bringing it up here, as it's irrelevant.

I mis-linked, I meant WP:SELFQUEST. I trust my point will now be more clear. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As for citations within Fictional World (and Commentary on role-playing games), the reason I've asked for citations there is because the article currently is attempting to make novel conclusions about the world of OOTS based on evidence from comics; it's trying to extrapolate ideas. All we can do in Wikipedia is report on what's already been noted (in reviews or similar articles). That's different than the reason for which citations are required in Plot. Citations in Plot aren't for verifying potentially controversial information; they're to point the reader to a plot event, so that if a reader is reading along and reads "And then Roy killed the lich" he can find the exact strip where it happened if he wants. There's a difference between giving a reference so the reader can find the strip in question, and giving a reference as an example/evidence in favor of a novel conclusion we are trying to draw about the OOTS world. The second use of references constitutes OR. I'll repeat what I said two sections above: "OR is there because many sections have no sources but OOTS comics. That's fine for plot (if there were sources in that section at all), but at least two sections of analysis (the section on D&D commentary, and the section on the geography and afterlife of the OOTS world) cite almost exclusively OOTS comics, meaning that everything in there is some user's analysis of the comics. It would be much better if someone could cite reviews that mention those same things."

Thank you, this is a much more cogent explanation than simply "Those links are to a primary source". I will do what I can about this, then. However, I believe that the OR tags should be moved to THOSE SECTIONS, rather than the article as a whole, to make it clear what the issue is.--Ig8887 (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As for referencing within the Plot section, the reason I pointed out the GC article is...well, first of all, it is GA, which I'm not sure how you missed; that and Megatokyo are the only webcomic articles that have made GA or FA. The other reason that I pointed it out to you is that the reason I put citations within the plot section there was that I was recommended to do so by numerous reviewers who also happen to be extremely prolific and respected contributors, including User:Skomorokh and User:Mattisse.—Politizer ^talk/_contribs

I missed it because I didn't go to the article in question, as I have read it before. I was still under the impression that Megatokyo was the only GA/FA webcomic. That was my mistake. Congratulations on getting GA. However, this article has ALSO been peer-reviewed, and it did not get the same comment. In fact, one user recommended I remove all refs to the primary source in the plot and characters sections because it made the article appear to have less valid cites than it actually had; I told him that I was leaving them because OOTS fans like to argue about minutiae and it seemed easier than having an edit war over Roy's alignment. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I still maintain that if you think such cites are needed in the plot, add them yourself. It would have taken less time than arguing about it, and I've already stated that I wouldn't remove them if they were there. Megatokyo still doesn't have them (I looked this time!), and that's an FA, so they are not strictly needed. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(re: Megatokyo) True, although to be honest Megatokyo is one of the worst FAs I've seen; it was promoted over 2 years ago and if it were a FAC now I doubt it would make it. Concerns have been raised about its plot section before (although not concerns specifically about the sourcing), I just happen to be not interested enough or knowledgeable about Megatokyo to fix them (which is kind of the same boat I'm in with OOTS, which is why my solution has been to just put a tag on for now, as I know I'm not going to be able to get myself to spend the time cleaning everything up so the best I can do is alert future editors as to what problems need to be addressed). —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but that's just your opinion. The fact is that we have exactly two precedents for webcomics, GC and Megatokyo. One cites every plot point, one does not. The one that does not is an FA, the one that does is only a GA. But even if we throw that out, look at all other forms of literature, of which there are dozens of FA's. None of them reference exact page numbers where things happen in their plot synopses. It's not a WP standard, it's just a personal preference of yours. And hey, that's fine, but it doesn't mean there's something wrong with the article as it stands. And if there's nothing wrong, it shouldn't be tagged as if it is. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As for your last statement, are you implying that you can remove tags if no one "fix[es] the perceived problems"? My understanding was that tags are to be left until a problem is fixed...not left up for a few days and then taken down when the problems are still there. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm implying that if the problem doesn't exist, it shouldn't be tagged as if it does. The key word was "perceived", as in you perceived them, but they were not actually there. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you would be able to explain your reasoning, but if you were not, then it was a specious tagging and needed to be removed. I now agree on the OR tag for the Commentary section, but not the whole article. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This discussion has been included in the Input Requested section of the WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons main page so that another person who knows more about OotS than I do might see it. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, look at the text of the self-publshed tag you just added:

Specifically, this part: "A self-published source may normally only be cited as a primary source about the author or source itself and not as an authority." That is exactly what I am talking about when I mention WP:SELFQUEST. The OOTS books are self-published primary sources about themselves and the author, which is exactly what IS allowed. The text of the tag itself disagrees with you! Can we please agree to remove tags that specifically state that the usage for which they were added is allowed??? --Ig8887 (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Without going through and picking out all the examples of what I find to be questionable use of SPS in these sections, I will point out that first example that stuck out at me when I opened the page just now: "The Order of the Stick also examines the more general themes inherent in playing roleplaying games, exploring how the rules of the game would influence events were they real," sourced to two comics. That's exactly the way we're not supposed to use primary sources; judgments/evaluation about the style or themes of the work should only be taken from third-party reviews or things like that.

If memory serves, this is a sentence that had a source that was attacked at peer review; I think the cite was removed because it was from a webcomic review blog that was deemed not reliable. I will see about rewording it. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's another example, from Fictional world: "A significant portion of the humor of the strip is based on the characters being aware of the game rules which govern their lives—they discuss their hit points and class levels,[76] call themselves "PCs" and other characters "NPCs,"[citation needed] stop in the middle of combat to check their "to hit" modifiers,[citation needed] and even get "role-playing bonuses" for fabricating involved or tragic backstories.[77]" Again, multiple examples of OOTS comics being brought together to make some novel/evaluative conclusion about the themes of the comic. It may be a fairly obvious conclusion to most of us, but it should still be sourced to a third-party review rather than being our own conclusion garnered from several comics; as Wikipedia editors, we don't have the right to put two and two together like that, we only have the right to report on how other people put two and two together. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In that sense, the problem with those two sections is a bit of a fuzzy area in between OR and SPS, which is why I've included both of the tags...the problem is probably more one of OR than of SPS, but I think both are relevant. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Those SPSs aren't being used to directly support the synthesis, they are just providing the source of when the event happened. So I would have labeled the broad statement OR but left the SPSs as they were because they were primary sources about themselves. In other words, whether or not they discuss their hit points and class levels is not OR, it's a sourced statement to a primary source SPS, and thus is valid. The introduction to that point IS an OR, and should be what's tagged. Therefore, I don't really think the SPSs are the problem. --Ig8887 (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Before I go an add something objectionable, what do you think about text from the books' Prefaces, all of which were written by notable people other than Burlew? On one hand, they are clearly published by the author, but on the other, they were written by someone else. If one of the preface authors discusses the strips' qualities, is that a valid source for asserting those qualities? --Ig8887 (talk) 04:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that would be a perfect solution. I don't have the books so I don't know what's in them, but if they're by third-person writers like you say, then even though they were invited by Burlew I think their commentary will still be reliable, and you can probably find good citations there for everything in the sections that we've been talking about. Just make sure that when you write up the footnotes for it, you give the actual author (I don't know exactly which template you plan on using, but something so that it turns out like: Last, First (year). "Introduction." War and XPs (or other). ed. Rich Burlew.). Great suggestion. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look later, then. All three preface authors have their own Wiki articles, with Scott Kurtz and Patrick Rothfuss being fairly notable and James Wyatt being significantly less so. --Ig8887 (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Examining OR in the Commentary section

OK, since we have an agreement that there may be OR in this sections, I would like help on deciding exactly which statements are OR so that they can be fixed. In the Commentary section, the third paragraph seems solid; every sentence except the introductory one is attributed to the commentary, which actually discusses the authors intention. The fourth paragraph seems similarly OK: first an intro sentence, followed by three sentences that state facts (note that one of those 3 Dragon comics specifically calls it "a thinly-veiled allegory" in the first panel, so it's not a novel synthesis). The final sentence provides examples of the reaction as cites. So my question is, which sentences in the first two paragraphs are seen as being OR? Thanks. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can go through and tag them with . —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be simul-editing at cross-purposes, since you answered this question above as I was typing it... However, I appreciate it. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(update) It's pretty hard to identify individual problem sentences in the Commentary section (I'll go look at the Fictional World section next). It's more just a general trend within the section; I can't identify many single sentences that I can say outright are terrible (in fact, a lot of the individual sentences are similar to content in the GA I wrote, and I didn't get burned at stake for that), but it seems to just be mostly the large amount of that sort of synthesis that's objectionable. Someone has obviously done some excellent work here analyzing the comics and finding themes and stuff like that...unfortunately, it's the kind of work that should have been published somewhere else and then cited here, rather than first posted here. Anyway, I'll have to look at it a bit more. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll choose to take that as a mixed compliment, since I was the one who wrote that section in the first place...in the days before I knew that "OR" stood for anything other than "operating room". --Ig8887 (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I don't mean it in a bad way at all; the first edit I ever made to Wikipedia was adding a ton of OR to the Lolcat article (I basically went through icanhascheezburger.com and listed all the sentence structures I discovered). I think we've all done non-Wikipedian stuff when we were first starting out. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have rewritten the first paragraph in Commentary drawing exclusively on the sources that were already being used in the article. As it turns out, almost every person who has reviewed OOTS has made the same synthesis! I didn't bother linking the exact strip where the things happen, because I figured a secondary source mention of something trumps a primary source link. I'm having a little more trouble with the second paragraph, but I'm working on it. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You know what? I'm axing that entire second paragraph. I can't find support for it, and I just reread it and thought, "Does this really need to be in here?" I don't think it does. Given that change, do you think the new Commentary section satisfies your OR and SPS concerns? --Ig8887 (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your edits. The second paragraph was mostly a long list of examples and a lot of them were things that only happened in one or two strips; if you find mention of them in the secondary sources you're using then it would be fine to put them back in, but as of now I don't think the article's any worse off. And I agree that giving the secondary source refs in the first paragraph precludes the need for links to individual strips. Good work, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Great! Then as long as you don't object, I'll remove the OR/SPS tags from that section, and leave them on the Fictional World section. --Ig8887 (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't think this will be a bad thing for OOTS. The individual character articles have essentially no sourcing at all...not even primary source cites. A complete re-write from a real world perspective would be welcome, as far as I'm concerned. Since the new guideline makes it clear that Burlew's author commentary would count as a valid source, I think they CAN be rewritten, but it remains to be seen if anyone will. I know for my part, I have no interest in anything but the main OOTS article. In the end, the character articles will need to Evolve or Die. --Ig8887 (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree...I have been disgusted by the character articles for a long time but there are so many of them, each with so many problems, that I'm not really ready to try to tackle any of them...it's just too big of a task. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's basically the pokemon thing still going, always gonna be like this unless there's a major shift one way or the other towards 'serious encyclopedia' or 'random collection of information'. I take the same approach you hint at: ignore the articles in question cos the hastle from fans ain't worth it. 92.1.85.51 (talk) 08:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ref tag

I'm readding the tag, the previous discussion appears to be on a different point (OR, which I agree with to some extent anyways). Self refernces are allowed, (although not to extrapolate your own ideas as this page does, but that's besides the point), but they're meant to be merely for stating basic uncontroversial facts in addition to RSes. They shouldn't be used as the basis for an article....this article is almost entirely based upon referencing the subject.

In the first 50 references, only two aren't to oots, one of those is broken, and the other is a blog, which is only used to ref something which is already referenced to OOTS. An article should not be based upon sourcing itself, this one is. There do appear to be a few semi-decent sources used for minor things, so I'll probably try to sort it out a bit myself at some point. I'm gonna have a look at removing some of the broken/unreliable sources (excluding the OOTs ones themselves) now.92.1.87.170 (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If a link to a reliable source is broken, don't remove it, go to the Web Archive and relink it there. That's what the "Retrieved on..." tags are for. Web pages don't become unreliable just because they are no longer active, anymore than a magazine becomes unreliable because it stops publishing. --Ig8887 (talk)

Eh, I've left most of them even though I reckon they should mostly go, dont' wanna get into arguments before it's sorted out better...92.1.87.170 (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your removal of the last couple refs. If you want to do a more in-depth cleanup, you may want to shoot a message to User:Ig8887, who's more familiar with this article than I am and has done a lot of work on it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I'm sure he'll see this talk section and not mindlessly revert, don't need to get a greenlight from him. Thanks for quick reply though.92.1.87.170 (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean you needed a greenlight from him, I was just saying he might be able to help you with going through things since he's already familiar with a lot of the issues in the article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing about most of the citations to OOTS: They aren't needed at all. That is to say, there are about 50 references just in the Characters section, but none of them are strictly necessary because they all refer to things that are self-evident upon reading the work. However, OOTS has a large and contentious fanbase, and people have a tendency to come and challenge things like, say, Roy's alignement (which is stated overtly in about a dozen comics or more). Therefore, the first-party references prevent disruptive challenges to facts that are laid out in the work being described; because this is a webcomic rather than a novel, we can easily link the exact page where something happens. But the fact is, a character's alignment or class or what have you does not need to be referenced at all, because it is not in dispute.

In other words, don't look at the References section and think, "Hey, 50% of these are first party, therefore the article hasn't been properly cited to third-party sources!" Think instead, "Everything that actually NEEDS to be cited to third-party sources is so cited, and then there are a big pile of extraneous first-party cites tacked on top of them." Could they be deleted? I suppose, but they aren't actually hurting the article. There's no Wikipedia procedure demanding the removal of unnecessary citations, to my knowledge (if there is, feel free to show me). And if there is a statement that you really think absolutely MUST be supported by a third-party source before we can repeat it here, then go ahead and remove the first-party cite and add a "citation needed" tag there. But I really don't think that we need a third-party to confirm that, say, Durkon has used lightning from time to time.

Also, you might want to see the discussion I had last year, above, with an editor who wants to add a first-party citation to every single plot point within the Plot Summary section. So clearly, there's no consensus on how many unnecessary-but-potentially-helpful first-party cites are too many. Ig8887 (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(actually, that editor was me; I have just changed my username since then. Sorry about the confusion.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, another option for dealing with the tons of primary footnotes is to group them. This was done a few months ago at Final Fantasy VIII, a featured article (the story notes are in Notes, and the rest in References), and I thought it looked nice and did the same thing in Gunnerkrigg Court. This article might also benefit from that sort of thing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that does look good, and would certainly deflect much of the criticism in question. If they're not citations at all, then there can't be too many citations. Many of the first-party cites are simply glorified "No, seriously, don't remove this, it actually happened!" notes anyway. And the cites to Burlew's commentary should stand due to being a self-published source about the author himself and his thought process. The only bad news is, that's a lot of work to convert them all, and I know I don't currently have the time to invest in it. Any volunteers? --Ig8887 (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Right now, I'm going to simply move all non-commentary cites to the comic itself in the Characters section to a Note section, without altering them. Shouldn't take too much work. --Ig8887 (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that is fine; I don't think there's any need to change the content of the refs, it should be fine just to add group="note" or something like that to all of them. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, done. As of right now, there are no references to first-party sources in the article except for Introductions/Author Commentary, which would pass muster as a legitimate use of first party sources; I've added the words "Introduction" and "Author Commentary" on these anyway, though to emphasize the point. All other refs have been converted to story notes. Now, those notes still need a good working over, but at least we can put the idea that the article is built entirely on references to the comics behind us. --Ig8887 (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I ask that while we're figuring this out, can no one remove any of the first-party cites temporarily, please? They will be helpful for whoever needs to slog through 632 comics looking for notes to replace the cites. --Ig8887 (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Since I have converted all inappropriate first-party refs to Story Notes, there are none left in the article and, as a result, no need for the tags complaining about them. I've removed said tags. --Ig8887 (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems like you misunderstood the reasoning behind the tag on my part, but no worries, I'm gonna have a go at fixing it now. It wasn't that there are a lot of ciets to the comic (I figured why that was), but that excluding self sources, the article essentially isn't sourced properly....proper sources are only used for very minor points that can't be found in self sources, rather than the other way around as it should be. Also, lot of the sources are crap anyway. 92.1.85.51 (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone is reverting my removal of unsuitable refs again, although they seem to be using old archived versions of links I'd removed as broken, the links I'd removed as being some random guys blogs are still gonna have to go. I'll leave them to it for now and come back in a few days again to see what they've salvaged/not and see about fitting the intro to a source or two 92.1.85.51 (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary images?

Regarding these edits, in which an IP editor removed (for the second time, I think) some images...I have to say I actually agree with his/her rationale. These particular pages are exceptions to the norm for OOTS, and are not illustrative of "typical" strips; a typical strip is already illustrated with File:OOTS1withbkgd.png. And this article already has lots of fair use images, probably too many...I am sure that if this ever went to FAC, or even GAN, one of the first comments would be that we need to cut back on the fair-use images, and I imagine these two would be some of the first candidates for removal. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm kind of neutral on the topic. I think that having one of them in would be nice, just because it illustrates a different style even if it isn't used much, but I understand completely your concerns regarding having to many fair-use images. I just wanted such a change, which makes the article look quite a bit different, to be discussed here, at least a little, before it was done. –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I deleted them because I felt that the comics serve no point. Next to the article talking about Geography and the afterlife is a comic with no point other than to show panel layouts; and next to the article talking about the reactions is a comic with no point but to again show an abnormal panel layout. Not only do they serve no point, but the subtexts are just plain wrong. Burlew does not "sometimes use nontraditional panel layouts to convey movement." He almost always uses straight-forward square and rectangular panels; and OOTS does not "include panoramic scenes and large-scale battles." It has one large-scale battle and again, almost all of it is in straight-forward square panels. Even if these statements were true, plenty of other comics use these techniques as well, and the few examples in OOTS are not in anyway noteworthy. These comics serve no purpose and should stay deleted. 128.119.177.30 (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good; thanks for discussing it here. I just wanted to make sure that there was consensus before such a change was made to the article. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

All of the OOTS character pages are AFD

Just a heads up gang - all of the character pages have been nominated for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roy_Greenhilt for details. Please keep the comments clean, the intelligence up, and a neutral point of view to the process. That helps your cause. Please keep the flames down, please do not create multiple accounts to perform sockpuppetry, please do not go on other websites to plead your case and bring in new editors who don't understand wikipedia consensus, please do not troll userspace for people who might agree solely with your point of view. All of these things are severely frowned upon, and can cause any good that comes out of the AFD to be ignored and cause a less than desirable outcome. A good AFD can immensely improve our articles, and a bad one can cause lingering issues for everyone involved. Timmccloud (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

GAN

This is probably going to need a lot more refs to become a GA... there are still uncited paragraphs. Just my 2 cp... unfortunately I don't have enough time right now to work on this myself. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I already contacted the nominator this morning asking him to withdraw. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay; I hadn't noticed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The GAC require that the article "... provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;" I believe everything in the article that falls into one of those categories is cited. Powers ^T 13:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The nominator has not withdrawn it, but did give me permission to fail it if I reviewed it (diff). I can't review it since I've edited it a lot, but I can withdraw the nomination on my own, which would be no different than speedy-failing it. I should note that, while the GAN guidelines don't require nominators to be major contributors, I do still think the major contributors should be the ones nominating (since many GA reviews require lots of editing and rewriting while they are ongoing) or should at least be consulted before nomination—and in this case, the four biggest contributors to the article (Ig8887, Drilnoth, Human.v2.0, and myself) were not consulted, and at least two of them don't want the article at GAN. That being said, I'm going to withdraw it, and also start a discussion at WT:GAN about whether this bit of wording in the GA nomination process should be changed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm one of "the biggest contributers" here... I mainly just revert the additions of more plot when it isn't needed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I do, too :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Having been through some 20 GANs (with varying levels of participation on my part), most of them successful, I'll say that this one is not likely to pass without a bunch of work. That's no reason not to nominate it, but do we have at least one contributor who's going to be willing to put in the work needed? BOZ (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

All I did was nominate it, no work required by anyone. Powers ^T 16:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Not immediately, no... but once somebody starts reviewing it, a lot of work will be needed. I can more or less guarantee you that. I actually wouldn't be surprised if the reviewer quick-failed this (I would). Put some more work into citing sources, copy editing, and an out-of-universe perspective, and then I'd say that you could give it another go. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that noms with little to no chance of passing take away much-needed reviewer time and resources away from the already-backlogged GAN page and the noms that are more in need of review. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

discussion from WT:GAN#Can non-contributors to an article_nominate it for GAN?

I moved this discussion here from the link above because it was more relevant to this particular article than the discussion there. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

So what, because I don't have the time to intensely work on any individual article, now I shouldn't be able to identify a good article when I come across one? GA is supposed to be less rigorous than FA. A GAN in no way "require"s lots of work on the part of anyone except maybe the reviewer. I don't know where you got that notion; it was certainly not my intent. I nominated the article because I think it's good and at least appears to meet the GAC. I feel like I've been attacked for no reason. Powers ^T 14:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you, I just don't think the article should have been nominated. Nowhere in anything I posted did I say I don't like you or anything. It was an honest misunderstanding because of the way the GA rules are written, which is why I'm suggesting a change. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(addendum) Also, as for how much work a GAN requires on the part of the nominator...I don't know who's been reviewing your articles, but 6 of my 7 GAs required a lot of work during the review: [8][9][10][11][12][13] 14:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I said I feel like I've been attacked because you almost immediately asked me to withdraw my nomination (implying that it was a bad idea), and then went ahead and reverted my nomination, thus making clear your opinion of my opinion. I'd like to know the basis on which you can withdraw someone else's nomination, by the way. Powers ^T 14:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I did it immediately because it came up on my watchlist, and it was a bad idea. I didn't "revert" your nomination without discussion, there is a whole thread on it. As for how I can withdraw someone else's nomination, it's because I have worked on the article more than you have, and at least 50% of the article's main contributors don't want it at GAN.

Please move this discussion of yours to the article talk page, rather than here. If you want to discuss that particular article, that is the appropriate place to do it. Here I was trying to suggest a change to the GA process, and I don't want my suggestion to get buried under this argument. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

3 per month is the average.

Each time a comic is released a forum post is created by the author within a few minutes. By checking the post times of those posts dates for each comic can be accurately derived. The comic has had 12 updates since December 1st. At best this is 4 per month if March is not included, so "approximately 3 times per month" is accurate. At the current rate of decline of updates expect this comic to die off by the end of next year. Where the comic not as popular as it was it would have already died off. I made the original edit to underscore how much the update rate has slacked off - that a comic that once saw 3 regular weekly updates went to 3 per week at random, then to at random as was stated by the author in the citation. However I believe the audience deserves to be informed as to exactly how rarely this comic is now updated - checking the site more than once a month is pointless.

And at the current rate of comic release the next book in the series won't be released until 2015. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.98.49 (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The author has been upfront all along that his schedule is frequently sporadic due to illness, and over the past month, 2-3 updates a week has been the norm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.31.2 (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well its not died off by the end of the year. That much is certain. Francis Davey (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That's in bad taste. I can't post why because it'd be a violation of WP:BLP(even on the talk page), but try to find another phrasing. i kan reed (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. I misread what the anonymous author said in 2010 and thought he claimed it would have died off by the end of 2010 (actually he seems to be implying 2011). It appears to be going strong and there's absolutely no sign of the steady decline he implied. I can't see why that should be in bad taste. Francis Davey (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the updates have slowed to every two weeks. People keep editing this out with the euphemism "random updates" as the only indication, as though I am somehow defaming Mr. Burlew, when in fact I am simply pointing out the objective, verifiable truth -- that the comic's updates have slowed to one every two weeks. It is a fact, people, deal with it. And quit removing it, please, because it is true and it is not an attack on Mr. Burlew, who is ill served by the censoring of anything relating to the update schedule of the comic as though it were some sort of taboo. Blue Bulldog (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal observation/calculation of the rate is probably original research. Also, it's trivial to have a precise amount (or note a change in it); a general statement is all that's required. DP76764 (Talk) 03:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Nevertheless, per the policy WP:OR, we can't just report our personal observations, even if they appear to be correct. The most recent source we have states that there is no fixed schedule, and until a more recent source comes about that is the information we report. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So, how about date stamps on releases indicating they're 10 days apart? That's as verifiable as anything else stated in this article, because there are no scholarly papers on OotS -- all of the information in this article is based directly on the comic itself. Just because you don't like the reality of the lengthening span between releases doesn't mean it isn't objectively and verifiably true. Blue Bulldog (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Putting the pieces together like that is almost exactly the definition of original research. The exact frequency of updates is still irrelevant as well; we don't need a precise number, just a general statement. It's not a matter of whether people like or dislike something, it's a matter of properly sourcing material. DP76764 (Talk) 14:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding up the number of comics published in a certain period of time sounds like the type of routine calculation that is NOT original research. "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age ..." I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "From this date to that date, X number of comics were published." Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, don't forget the rest of the sentence there: "...provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." Since that math is unsourced, it would remain WP:OR. We should stick with whatever assessments can be sourced (like the current one). DP76764 (Talk) 15:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't "forget" the rest of the sentence -- I guess I was taking for granted that we all agreed we could use self-published sources (the web comic's web site) as a source here. "That math" doesn't have to be sourced, because WE CAN DO ROUTINE CALCULATIONS. If a reliable source gives a date of birth, we can calculate a person's age. If a reliable source lists the albums a band released in a decade, we can count them up and give a number even if the source does not do the math for us. And, if a reliable source gives the date two comics are published, we can calculate the time between them. "X number of comics were published from one date to another" is a routine calculation, provided no one is arguing that this web comic's web site is an unreliable source for the comics it publishes. Rangoondispenser (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough on the math, but that still doesn't mean we need to have a precise chronology of frequency rates. Especially when that would remove a well sourced statement, from the author himself, that directly addresses the topic. (see below) DP76764 (Talk) 16:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Even if it's true, I don't think it's necessary to give an exact rate as you are suggesting, when we already have a source from the author himself saying there is no fixed schedule (which is still true, as far as I can tell). rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we agree now that counting the number of comics published over a period of time is an acceptable routine calculation that is not considered unacceptable original research. So the question then is whether it's better to say something like just "Burlew publishes the comic on an irregular schedule" or something more specific like "Burlew publishes the comic on an irregular schedule, publishing X comics in some time frame." I prefer the more specific version because "an irregular schedule" could be anything. It's just more informative to tell readers whether it's once a week, once a year, once a month. Rangoondispenser (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Will people please stop vandalizing this page by placing the completely false statement that the comic updates once a week on this page, when it is demonstrably once a month -- and will soon be longer than a month -- between postings? Saying that it is currently once a week is as inaccurate as stating that the Rocky Mountains are only one inch high. Just because you don't want it to be that way is not an excuse to vandalize the page. Thank you. Blue Bulldog (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's make this change

Where the article says, "Currently the comic appears on a random schedule due to the author's ongoing health concerns.", let's change it to: "Since summer 2007, the comic has been published on an irregular schedule due to the author's ongoing health concerns. It appears roughly weekly, with six comics published in the seven weeks between April 27 and June 8, 2011. [14] [15] Rangoondispenser (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a need to introduce language that's just going to need to be updated every few months with new calculations, when we can just say "the comic appears on an irregular schedule" and be done with it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Because the phrase "an irregular schedule" is virtually meaningless without further information. That could describe an artist who updates their webcomic roughly once a decade, or an artist who updates everyday but at irregular times. Unless Burlew deviates from "roughly weekly," I see no need to ever change this wording. Even if editing this article "every few months" were required, surely the combined effort of wikipedia editors could accomplish such a minor task as editing an article every few months. How about we add this improved wording, and then if it needs to be updated in a few months, we update it? Rangoondispenser (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Your update examples are dubious you realize? (*cough*strawman*cough*) I think adding "roughly weekly" (and just that) to the current phrasing would be adequate. Simpler is better; no need to complicate this unnecessarily. DP76764 (Talk) 19:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I have no idea what you mean by "dubious ... cough ... strawman" with asterisks. If you think you are trying to make an important point, please try to do so more clearly. But, yes, it does appear we have a consensus for "Since summer 2007, the comic has been published on an irregular schedule due to the author's ongoing health concerns. It appears roughly weekly." Rangoondispenser (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's current a month, with no news from the author. There is no factual basis for stating that it is updated "roughly weekly" because it is NOT. It was in the past, but it is no longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Bulldog (talk • contribs) 01:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus for "Burlew posts new comics roughly once a week"

• Looking for more editors to contribute to consensus for the proper phrasing of the statement being discussed. 108.69.80.43 (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

To Summarize: I thought this was settled, but it appears at least one editor would like to have further discussion? To recap, Blue Bulldog expressed a desire to include more specific information about this comics' schedule based upon calculating its update frequency. [16] I suggested adding "It appears roughly weekly" based upon counting the number of comics recently published, and pointed to WP:CALC for an explanation of why consensus on wikipedia is that these type of routine calculation is not original research. Dp76764 initially was hesitant to perform such calculation, but after discussion agreed with adding this. [17]. Rjanag said they "don't see a need to introduce language that's just going to need to be updated every few months with new calculations." [18] I explained that unless Burlew deviates from "roughly weekly" there is no need to ever change this wording, and that if editing this article "every few months" were required, surely the combined effort of wikipedia editors could accomplish such a minor task.[19] Based on this consensus, I changed "Roughly 2 strips per week" "on a random schedule" in the article to the far more accurate "Updates roughly once per week" "on an irregular schedule". [20] This portion of the article was stable for about a week until an anonymous IP editor removed it with the summary "Uncited. Plus, I think if we counted we'd find it's even less than that these days."[21] I restored the information with a cite as requested here[22], however Rjanag removed it with the summary "at the talk page you have been told repeatedly and by numerous editors not to include your personal calculations. you can't just ignore the consensus there and add what you want anyway."[23] Rangoondispenser (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see, of the five editors invloved Rjanag is the only one who has a problem with performing this routine calculation, so it appears Rjanag is the one ignoring the consensus both on this talk page as well as at WP:CALC . I thought this was settled. What is your problem Rjanag with this exactly again? Rangoondispenser (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is a very bad idea to start trying to post a rolling average of the posting frequency on this page. First, it is original research but more seriously, the infobox's posting frequency is a guide that suggests how often it will be posted. What we actually know is that Rich's posting is, and has been for a long time, highly irregular. If anything variances have increased. There's a long gap at present, maybe there'll be a flurry of updates later. There is also - and you may not have thought about this - an NPOV point, which is, on what objective basis do you select a period to take a rolling average? In periods when posting frequency is rising or falling you either under- or over-estimate in that way systematically. The reliable, verifiable, information we have as to future schedule is that there isn't one. If you can find (or create) a reliable site that keeps track of past posting frequency, that is entirely reasonable to put in the body of the article. There isn't such a site, so why not start one? Francis Davey (talk) 08:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

And, as a post script, I wouldn't know how to calculate how frequently he has been posting. If you say so, I have no way of checking. That's why we need cited authority for the point. Francis Davey (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

How to calculate update frequency: Agreeing with the suggestion of one of the anonymous editors and Blue Bulldog, I simply referenced the posting dates provided by Burlew on his site. If Burlew says on his own site, and we all agree that we can use his site as a reliable source, that OOTS #789 is posted on 04-27-2011 [24] and OOTS #794 is posted 06-08-2011 [25], then it is a routine calculation (you can actually count it on your fingers!) to determine that Burlew has published six comics (OOTS #789, #790, #791, #792, #793 and #794) in the roughly seven weeks (weeks beginning April 24, May 1, May 8, May 15, May 22, May 29 and June 5) between those dates. Per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations (and I'd say, common sense), we don't need "cited authority" to do such simple math for us. Can we agree on this now, Francis? Rangoondispenser (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe now would be a good time to request an RFC to determine consensus on how to handle this? 108.69.80.43 (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with just adding "Updates roughly once a week" (in addition to the referenced statement that there is no regular schedule). In your edit, however, you included a detailed description of your personal calculation, which for reasons reiterated several times above is unnecessary. It's a randomly-picked time period with no inherent meaning (why seven weeks rather than eight, and why those seven weeks in particular) and no necessarily representative of anything. There's no point adding something like that, which would need to be updated all the time ("suddenly, in the most recent 7-week period he posted five comics instead of six!") and which has no inherent meaning. It's not necessary at all. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I guess I'm fine with just "updates roughly once a week" with no specific explanation of where that comes from, which is what I originally added (see here [26]). I later added an explanation of where that estimate came from in a reference (not in the body of the article) here [27] after an anonymous editor removed "roughly once a week" saying it was unreferenced.[28] Since your only problem Rjanag was with what was in the reference, I'll restore the version that says "updates roughly once a week" with no reference, and direct anonymous editor to this discussion here if they ask for a reference again. Good? Rangoondispenser (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the only editor who has objected to your edits, and you really should wait for consensus to be explicitly reached here rather than continuing to make disputed edits every time you've thought of a wording that you think will be ok. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

So, you're good? Rangoondispenser (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

First point: this has not reached a consensus as far as I can see. I would hope to see a reasonably wide group of us saying "this is fine" before this could be described as a consensus. Thank you for explaining where you got your figures from (I had no idea). They exactly illustrate the problem. Its 4 July today. The last post was on 6 June. That's nearly a month between posts. The post before that was after an 11 day delay (i.e. longer than the proposed "weekly" figure). As it happens Rich posted quite quickly between 792 and 793 which brings the average down. If I were to edit the page and give the posting frequency as "roughly monthly" (taking into account the last delay) or 1/23 days (about every three weeks) taking into account the last 2 posts, why would that be obviously wrong? Why is a 6 week average the "right" one? I am sure you could come to a wide variety of frequencies by judiciously picking your base-line. 6 weeks is rather short for a long-run average, and the variance is so high its pretty meaningless anyway, so, no, your edit really doesn't make a lot of sense. Francis Davey (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm just looking to be as accurate as possible. If you think something like Burlew "updates roughly once a week for stretches, but often goes for a month without updates" is more accurate, and can provide sources as I have done here, then I for on would be fine with that. As far as consensus for the current version that reflects the change I've made from "roughly 2 strips per week" to "roughly once a week", 173.14.98.49 wanted "3 per month" (that's roughly weekly to me),[29] Blue Bulldog wanted "they're 10 days apart" (that's roughly weekly to me),[30] Dp76764 says they think adding "roughly weekly" is adequate,[31] Rjanag says they don't have a problem with just adding "Updates roughly once a week",[32] and "roughly once a week" also seems ok to me, and is a vast improvement over "roughly 2 strips per week." Rangoondispenser (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"Roughly once a week" is now completely false as well. It is approaching the one month mark rapidly, and there is no evidence that it will be updated at any point in the future, either. I suggest "updates appear to be in abeyance" is the most accurate statement covering the situation. Blue Bulldog (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A single data point does not make a schedule. A single delay does not warrant a violation of WP:OR by assuming that updates "appear" to be in abeyance. The schedule is irregular. We have a source for that. An irregular schedule can mean no updates for a week, a month, or more. That's all that needs to be said, and it's all that can be said to be in compliance with Wikipedia policies. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, and simple enough. 108.69.80.43 (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The recent attempts to suggest a weekly update schedule in a period where updates have been anything but well illustrates the folly of giving anything specific. We have a source for there being no schedule and there is nothing to suggest it is wrong. Francis Davey (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What was your thought Francis (and everyone else) on something like "irregular schedule due to the author's ongoing health concerns" combined with something like "updates roughly once a week for stretches, but can go for a month without updates"? It's accurate to me, it can be referenced to Burlew's specific update schedule, it is not original research because it is based on routine calculations, and it seems consistent with what we do for other webcomics with irregular update schedules. For what it's worth, I looked around at other irregularly updated webcomics and for Octopus Pie we've said "updated every few months", for Dresden Codak we've said "Updates every few weeks/months", for Eric Monster Millikin we've said "Weekly" even though it rarely is, for The Perry Bible Fellowship we've said "infrequently updated ... Updated in 2010", for MS Paint Adventures we've said "Generally updated multiple times daily, except surrounding animations." So, it seems that trying to strike a balance between the general (using words like "every few" "infrequently" "generally") as well as specific (roughly what? Multiple times a day? Weekly? Every week or month or so?) is the norm in this situation. Rangoondispenser (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those examples. Remember, though, just because other articles make use of weasel words doesn't mean this one should. Those articles should be corrected rather than spread their faults to this article. Adding fuzzy qualifications ("roughly", "can go for a month") to a simple sourced declaration that the schedule is irregular doesn't really add value, IMO. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to give Burlew's whole life story. Just saying "no regular schedule" is accurate, sourced, and tells the reader what they need to know. There's no need to explain why. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's see if this is a good compromise that we can all agree on. Since (I think?) we are all in agreement that we can use how Burlew describes his update schedule on his site, and since Burlew says on his site things like "OOTS will not update at all for the next three weeks" (8/8/2009) and "I only produced one comic last week, so now I have posted four this week" (10/14/2007). So, based on Burlew's own statements on his own website, we can say something like "the comic has been published on an irregular schedule due to the author's ongoing health concerns; for example, sometimes there will be multiple comics per week, other times there will be weeks between updates." Is that a good compromise between those who want a more specific description of the update schedule and those who are very worried about sourcing? Rangoondispenser (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No, and you clearly don't understand the arguments numerous editors have been making. First of all, taking a few random data points (one almost four years old) and trying to use them to form a conclusion about the comic's general update schedule is WP:OR. Secondly, this level of detail is entirely unnecessary; all the necessary information is contributed by saying "the comic has no regular schedule", and your extra detail doesn't add anything of value. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not WP:OR to quote Burlew saying that he sometimes takes three weeks off. That's instead what we call "sourcing." I must say, you don't seem to be approaching this conversation with a spirit of collaboration and compromise. But you don't own this article, so let's hear what some others have to say. Rangoondispenser (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You didn't produce any source quoting Burlew as saying he "sometimes takes three weeks off". You pointed out one time (two years ago) when he took three weeks off.

And I never acted like I own the article. Multiple editors in this thread have told you the same things I am telling you now. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Look, I'm not even proposing what I would personally want to put in this article if I were writing it by myself, I'm trying to propose a compromise between the multiple editors who are disagreeing on how to describe this update schedule. So yes, you and some editors have expressed reservations about being more specific, and have expressed those reservations in terms of sourcing. Other editors have expressed a desire to be more specific. I have listened to all sides and am suggesting a compromise. Since we all seem to be fine with using Burlew's own descriptions of his irregular update schedule, I have suggested a compromise that is more specific but uses only Burlew's own descriptions as a source. Anyway, you don't seem to be too interested in considering the viewpoints of others or working on a compromise, so let's hear from some other editors who actually want to work together. Rangoondispenser (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I didn't read very much of this and know nothing about the comic, but (with my limited understanding of the situation) here's how I would handle this: "Burlew releases new comics on an irregular schedule, but in 20XX (most recent year), the comic was updated approximately Y times per (week/month/etc)." --Jp07 (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It's unnecessary detail, and it would be incorrect. Rich Burlew's post on his home page as of a few days ago makes this abundantly clear. In his words, the comic is on "a random schedule". Therefore, it is meaningless to calculate some frequency per week or per month, for random events. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Jp07's proposal seems the most sensible approach so far, given that many editors don't think that's unnecessary detail. A simple average of comics per month is supported per WP:CALC. Diego (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is a current year average a sensible summary statistic? It would mean the result would be much more stable towards the end of the calendar year and potentially volatile at its start. At least a one-year rolling average would be less random. Who is going to have responsibility for keeping this up to date? What is more that is not the "schedule". It may be notable information to add somewhere in the body, but a schedule speaks to intention not to history. A train timetable tells me what is supposed to happen not what did happen in the past. So there is a semantic problem with it. Final question: why the obsession with putting something other than the author's straighforward statement that there is no schedule? If historical information is interesting, then add it, but don't pass it off as something it isn't. Francis Davey (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting because it gives a sense of the current expected interval between updates, which can be useful to readers interested in following the comic. That's why the infobox supports a frequency tag, but its standard format is not enough in this case to convey the intended meaning. Diego (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Just throwing out there: If anyone wants to take a more long term look at Burlew's irregular schedule, the 400th "Order of the Stick" was on 1/12/2007 -- about four and a half years ago -- and the latest is #796. That works out to about 88 a year or about 7 a month. Also, if we want to describe the irregular schedule by noting that sometimes there are not updates for weeks at a time, Burlew says "I might post once a day, once a week, or once a month, depending on my ability to work" (7/10/2011), "OTS will not update at all for the next three weeks" (8/8/2009), "Taking three weeks off was very good for me" (10/14/2007), etc. So I think we can say 1) This comic has an irregular update schedule, 2) Sometimes there are not updates for weeks at a time, 3) There have been about X updates over the last Y months and/or years. Rangoondispenser (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:IINFO. This is Wikipedia, not OOTSstatspedia. There's no need for a detailed analysis of the comic's update schedule when we already have a clear and accurate source saying there is no schedule. rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You say there's no need for that information, at least three other editors say there is, and many others say it depends on the wording and content to be included. Are you willing to work towards building consensus? I like the suggestion to include further Burlew quotes describing the schedule. That way the infobox can be a kept the simple "No regular schedule" but readers wanting more information can get details from the article body. Diego (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think extra details about the schedule are really that important, since it is inconsistent. However, perhaps something like "updated on a sometimes weekly, sometimes monthly basis" would work. But I don't think mentioning how many comics have come out in certain time periods is really critical to the subject of the article. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Kickstarter new comics

Ok, now that we have documented the Kickstarter "minor event", shouldn't we say that Burlew has committed to create up to nine new stories as a result of the several goals met at the reprint drive? (as reported by a third party here). The updates give details of the themes and background of each story, and three of them will be for characters chosen by backers as part of a premium pledge. Definitely think this merits more than a single line after all. Or are upcoming new stories not important to "a reader's understanding of the topic"? Diego (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

My sarcasm detector is going through the roof! Anyway, committing to create a few more stories might be worth one line, but anything more than that at this point would likely violate WP:CRYSTAL. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That's OK, one detaileded sentence will be proper due weight. There's some detailed material being confirmed by the author, which makes it better than just speculation (per Crystal "Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products" and "It is appropriate to report discussion ... whether some development will occur"). My sarcasm came when an event that is clearly having a big impact on the OOTS creator Rich Burlew and his comic project was dismissed as a press release, when independent commentators are providing coverage about its implications. Due weight is about providing proper coverage, no more than its objective importance would require but certainly not less. Diego (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Kickstarter reprint drive

Given that the fundraising drive on Kickstarter to reprint the currently out of print compilation books is on pace to be one of the most successful such drives ever, I'm thinking it merits a mention in this article. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? DP76764 (Talk) 16:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The IP is probably referring to this addition, which I reverted (my reasons are in the edit summary there). rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are some reliable sources on the topic: [33], [34]. It is receiving media attention. Powers ^T 02:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If there's enough coverage in reliable media then I guess it might warrant a single sentence (e.g., "the Kickstarter fundraiser for OOTS set whatever Kickstart record"). Certainly not the press-release-y detail that was in the edit I reverted. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Why the revert? It was made after this very discussion, and the section was explicitly written to avoid "press-releasy" by only including verifiable facts and "whatever Kickstart record" was reached; it's not my fault that it reached more than one record. What would you deem acceptable, and why in the world it should be a single sentence if there is more that one verifiable fact? Diego (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

PS - also note that Kickstarter is a reliable source about itself, so there's nothing "press-releasy". Diego (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to whether the source was reliable or the information neutral; what I meant by "press-releasy" was that move than a brief sentence would be giving undue weight to non-encyclopedic information that is not essential to a reader's understanding of the topic. I'm a fan of OOTS, too, but this is not an "event".

Also, please don't edit war, as you did here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I just thought that edit warring was a single editor reverting several times the same content from several other editors and that WP:EW doesn't mention 'status quo'. Don't worry, I won't add the section until there's some consensus. You're right about the "event" tag; I wasn't aware that it was meant for "a hundred or more editors". But I think that this was given due weight, that it's appropriate under the Publications section and that it provides encyclopedic information essential to understanding the level of support provided by OOTS followers. Now that we have measured our sticks, and given that we already have a third opinion (by the original poster, that seemed to find that level of detail relevant), what's the next step in dispute resolution? And I restate my question: if there are several records reached by this funding drive, how do we document them? Diego (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• An entire subsection for this minor event (definitely not "essential to understanding" anything about the comic) is, by far, undue weight. Mention it? Yes, absolutely. But it doesn't deserve more than a sentence or two in an existing section. $0.02 DP76764 (Talk) 16:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Then this would be acceptable with two sentences directly under Publications? How about this:

On Jan. 22nd, 2012, Burlew launched a Kickstarter campaign to get The Order of the Stick: War and XPs back into print, which eventually raised enough money to reprint the whole book series. The drive was the most funded creative work in Kickstarter up to that point getting more than ten times the original goal.

(fact-reference, fact-reference, fact-reference, fact-reference.)Diego (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable distillation of the event. The only nit I would continue to pick would be for more variety of 3rd party sources, if possible. DP76764 (Talk) 17:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This is what Google News can find: [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] (some of them in German). Diego (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that we have rough consensus (three green lights and an acceptance with a caveat about size) I've reinstated the content to the Publications section, including the additional non-german references. Diego (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Burlew is maintaining a list of media mentions here. Could be a useful meta-reference for this article. Powers ^T 00:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

References

Inaccurate plot

Rjanag, your version of the plot depicts an inaccurate description of the story. First, only Vaarsuvius (and his familiar bird) knows that the Draketooth clan is dead because of Familicide, not the whole order. Second, Vaarsuvius already knew that the spell killed all who are descended from the black dragon; what s/he discovers is that it also killed people without any dragon blood. It's true that it's too soon to tell how this will be relevant to the overall story, but that's one more reason to get the details right. Diego (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I got the idea that Draketooth had somehow been distantly related to the black Dragon. Jokem (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The distinction between who exactly realized the problem is, for now, exactly the kind of minute detail that does not belong in a plot synopsis. It might be relevant if V's trying to keep the information secret becomes a major plot point, but we are not a crystal ball. That's why, as I said in my edit summary, it's really too early to be adding t his information anyway; if you can't accept a summary-style edit but insist on going into unnecessary detail that you don't even know is relevant yet, then it's better just not to include this information at all, which is what the editing instructions say.

The distinction between dragons descended from the black dragon and all descended from the black dragon (even without dragon blood) is also precisely the kind of minute detail that does not belong in a plot synopsis. And your assertion that V "discovers" the spell also killed non-dragons is your own personal reading. There is nothing in the comic to suggest that V didn't expect the spell to behave this way; to the contrary, V knew that it would kill every creature related from the dragon. V didn't expect the spell not to kill non-dragons; s/he simply didn't stop to think about that consequence (note that the latest strip, #843, is called Lack of Foresight).

Finally, your edit to the plot was not really an improvement; in addition to being unnecessarily long, it also left out the fact that the Draketooths are descended from the black dragon. Keep in mind that the plot summary is supposed to be accessible to people who didn't read the comic; our readers shouldn't have to figure out this important detail on their own.

In summary: we don't yet have enough information to know whether the fine-grained distinctions you pointed out are important for the plot, so they should not be included. One way to accomplish this is to allow a brief and less detailed summary; another way is to not try to summarize the very latest strip, and remove this addition entirely for now. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. I don't think that a difference of 42 characters and 8 words makes my version too long, but that's a minor contention. The main thing is that we can't tell wether the "second-degree bloodline" detail will be relevant, but we certainly shouldn't imply that the whole order has found about the Familicide spell. Diego (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

At this point, anything after the Order left the Empire of Blood is probably excessive detail, since we simply do not yet know how anything will fit into the larger narrative. Powers ^T 20:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

==

Too much fictional content

@Diego Moya: I'm adding refimprove, in-universe, and bloated plot tags because the article lends undue weight to the plot and universe of the webcomic. The article has a fairly sized "characters" section covered entirely by primary sources, a fairly sized "fictional world" section entirely sourced by primary sources, and notably a particularly long "plot" section, which is almost entirely original research. The article is simply giving undue weight to the plot of the webcomic. Can you show me a few reliable sources that go into depth like this about the plot of The Order of the Stick? Has any reliable source ever discussed what happens in Blood Runs in the Family? I'd love to trim all the non-notable original research out myself, but I haven't read the webcomic and would have difficulty judging what aspects are most important.

With regards to "We have TV series articles where one chapter gets more description": I agree. we should get rid of a lot of those too, unless the plot of specific episodes get discussed in detail by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a fan wiki, and therefore is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The plot details is what this website is created for. ~Mable (chat) 08:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

If your concerns are with the other sections, why do you put the tags in the Plot one? This section is consistent with the MOS:PLOT guidelines, and in fact is an example of the real-world perspective. The amount of plot included is a fairly summarized exposition of the main events in each book, and contains little to no details of each event. It serves its encyclopedic purpose of letting readers know what each book is about, without incurring on the indiscriminate amount of detail that a fan site would present; in fact, there have been extended discussions at this page to keep it as tight as possible; huge amounts of detail have already been trimmed out, and what you see is the very minimum required to describe the series of plot twists in a multi-year, 1000+ strips-long work. If you haven't read it, you are not qualified to judge how much the work has been summarized, and how relevant to the primary plot are the events included in the current plot section. I assure you that each of the events described in the current plot document story arcs that span dozens of strips, and several of them have been developing through the six books and are still open; you wouldn't understand this work's storyline without them, except if you transformed the current detail into a bland generic "group of heroes fight monsters and bad guys, trying to save the world" archetype. You won't find an exercise of contention like The Order travels to Wooden Forest, where they slay a black dragon and loot its hoard in order to retrieve a rare "starmetal" to repair Roy's broken sword elsewhere; each of this sentence's achieved goals has major repercussions later in the story, and the multiple steps and roundabouts that the characters take to accomplish them have been removed from this plot description.

You seem to misunderstand the way plot sections work; it is expected that they are written from primary sources, and the community is OK with that, as long as the full article shows a balanced view of the relevance of the work; which IMO the Commentary, Reaction and Publication sections achieve. If you think other articles also have too much plot detail, the problem may be that your standards aren't aligned with those of the community. I quote the relevant part of the guideline (emphasis mine):

The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible. If a plot summary includes a direct quote from the work, this must be cited using inline citations per WP:QUOTE. Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing. Otherwise, using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.

Last but not least, if you still wish to add tags to the article, please place the real date when you have created them, rather than recycling tags from years-old discussions.

Diego (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I've always been particularly opposed to forming a habit of using primary sources for plot summaries (see my essay, for example), but sure, I'll get off your back about this. I don't believe that the article as it is now is a good representation of how the reliable sources discuss the topic, but it is definitely miles ahead of plenty of other webcomic articles. Don't get me wrong, I do think that the plot section here is better summarized and presented than in many other articles (*cough*), but I'm just of the school of thought that an encyclopedia article doesn't need to present an outline of a long-running plot at all. ~Mable (chat) 11:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Narrative

http://comicsalliance.com/order-of-the-stick-rich-burlew-review/ A major theme in the comic, reviewed Diego (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Also, several high profile sources discussing the significance of the Kickstarter campaign. The Reactions section should be explained with these. Diego (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/comic-riffs/post/new-kickstarter-record-order-of-the-stick-webcomic-creator-rich-burlew-cites-huge-geeky-safety-net-in-12m-donation-campaign/2012/02/21/gIQAbMJSRR_blog.html

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/feb/22/author-raises-1m-self-publish-webcomic

https://web.archive.org/web/20130920113757/http://www.askmen.com/top_10/entertainment/10-kickstarter-success-stories_8.html

Oh, these look amazing! I may look through a few of them myself and add them to the article, though I don't usually enjoy putting much effort in well-established articles. Either way, awesome job :) ~Mable (chat) 22:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Original research about minorities controversy

151.30.95.230, the problem with your edits at the "Representation of minorities" section is that sentences like "generated some controversy among long time readers" are interpretations that need a reference to an independent source, i.e. some third-party publisher making that point. The forums themselves can only be used for direct quotations of the author attributed to himself.

You can see that I've left the parts that describe how the Giant talks about his reasons for depicting minorities in that way. That kind of statements of an author about himself can be sourced by a link to the author's own website (as long as it doesn't constitute a majority of the article's content); but content referring to other people (like your description of what constitutes a "controversy" with other posters) can't use the blog itself as a reference; it needs independent, third-party sources. Diego (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

This content has been under discussion over at Talk:Rich Burlew#User keeps restoring OR section recently as well. ~Mable (chat) 15:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

After the last edit by the IP user, I think the small section is acceptable. It is written now so that it only uses expressions of the author about himself. Diego (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm worried about the whole section seems to be sourced to forum posts. Has no reliable source commented on this issue? It seems undue weight to have a section on something that has never been referred to in an news article or book. ~Mable (chat) 15:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

That's true of the whole Fictional world section where this is placed. At least this way the section gets the much needed real world perspective to the otherwise in-universe section, so the addition is definitely an improvement. As I said, WP:SELFSOURCE allows the inclusion of the forum as a reference for author claims that he deems important. Diego (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I have pointed out the article's original research issues in the past. I hope at some point this article's in-universe content and original research could be trimmed to more reasonable proportions ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 18:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Diego on this one and yeah, the section could use some trimming as Marble said but why keeping deleting it, it doesn't do any harm as it is. It can be improved, for sure, but it's not something made up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.30.107.22 (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Aggressive IP editor

The IP editor who wrote a "Representation of minorities" section in the Rich Burlew article and then moved it here has been using deceptive and rude edit summaries when restoring his section. At the end of July, the Burlew page was temporarily locked for unregistered users, and the IP editor did not participate in the talk page discussion. Instead, he restored the section and removed a tag with the following summaries:

• Well, i'm happy we came to a conclusion that the section, being a collection of post by Rich Burlew himself, is fine.
• I had just removed the part about my section, we concurred it's fine now so the talk is useless.

and called me a "hater":

• tired of you undoing my section, you are a hater check your privileges

He also removed the talk page section I created to discuss it:

• Removed OR section as we concurred it's a legit collection of Rich Burlew posts.

He has continued to do this here on the OotS page, with edits suggesting that the consensus is in favor of retaining the section and that there is more than one IP editor participating in the discussion:

• I concur with Amatulic, PeterTheForth and Diego: this section is based on a recollection of original posts by Rich Burlew himself. In this case, primary sources are more than acceptable. (both PeterTheForth and Diego Moya have removed the section) <- This is a lie. Diego Moya removed the first version of my section but then he agreed to leave my second one. He even said it on this very talk page.
• And, basing on the talk section (and the edit history), it appears many of us are fine with this section. If it's a matter of votes we are clearly "winning". Besides, what harm can this section do?
• I concur with Amatulic and the IP posters on this one. WP:PRIMARY explains it all. That's the point we were trying to convey after all. Section is legit, it stays here.

It's very difficult to engage with someone like this in a constructive way. Eladynnus (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not particularly used to these kinds of situations, but have you brought the issue up at one of these pages? I believe we may need some form of moderator or otherwise more experienced editors. ~Mable (chat) 10:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll read this carefully before editing the article again.Eladynnus (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

You're not being constructive deleting an entire section just because you don't like it and then trying to find justifications even after people supported the fact primary sources are acceptable and i've even added official book commentary to improve the section. Also, some of those edit summaries were made by someone on my ip range but it was not me. And, at last, if you like making random arguments I could point that, at your talk page*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eladynnus#WARNING.21_Your_insults_on_my_talk_page, you are not new to this practice of wild editing and going into fights with wikipedia users. You need to moderate yourself and stop insulting others/acting as if you're some kind of authority. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.30.108.20 (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, there are more ip editors like " Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.195.59 (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)" on this very talk page. I'm not making anything up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.30.108.20 (talk)

I've reported this IP editor to the edit warring noticeboard. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth is edit warring; totally bypassing any kind of discussion about "Representation of Minorities" section.

I have no interest of opening an incident about this guy but his behaviour is highly destructive and i'll be forced to do it. He's blatantly ignoring concerns from me and Diego Moya about Eladynnus sandbox version about the section. It appears he's starting to engage an edit warring with edit summaries like " Section is entirely WP:OR, based on forum posts and nothing else. No reason to keep.".

What was the purpose of reaching a consensus if you decide to engage edit warring and deleting the entire section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talk • contribs) 12:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Meelanasah (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Characters of The Order of the Stick

It looks like this character article was split from the main article about... 10 years ago. It is currently PROD. Should we merge anything from there to here? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Not much, if anything, should be merged. The Wikia is that way. Grayfell (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I have one sincere question for the people who make "move the content to a fan site" arguments in delete discussions. How are we expected to do that, if the attribution information required to legally reuse the content is subsequently deleted from Wikipedia? Diego (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I admit that came off rude, and I'm sorry about that. I'm frustrated by the amount of time spent on gaming related content, but the pages themselves are valuable, and do deserve to be preserved in a more appropriate place. I don't mean to dismiss the work that's been put into them.

That's a good question, and I wish I understood the transwiki process better. Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion specifically mentions restoring deleted pages to be "used elsewhere". I believe page history and attribution can be copied to other Wikis (I've never actively edited the "Military Wikia", for example, but I'm listed as a contributor). Grayfell (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't think of copying the attribution info to the target site before deleting it here. That solves the technicality I was concerned with. Diego (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Are there any objections to a merging? I'm okay with doing it myself, but having never merged an article before I'm unsure that I'd be able to do it as competently as another. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The Characters of The Order of the Stick was the result of a multi-way discussion, where multiple stand-alone articles were merged into that single article, which was then deemed notable enough; I think moving beyond that previous consensus would require a more publicized discussion. Diego (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Diego Moya: Should I start an RfC? There's a notice at Characters of The Order of the Stick that has been there for a while- is there anything else I could do to attract attention? I feel like an RfC would be going too far for this issue. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

What is the problem that you're trying to solve, that can't be fixed by editing the list article directly? Diego (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe that there are sufficient sources solely about those characters to justify a separate article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

List articles typically don't need independent sources about each entry, only that the ensemble of characters is discussed as a notable topic by RSs as a whole; the venerable article List of Dilbert characters would be the equivalent to this OoTS list. I've been adding references about the reception of those characters to Characters of The Order of the Stick, and I think there are more to find and include there.

We might try to tightening the inclusion criteria in the list instead, to remove some less relevant entries, although I can't think of which direction to take. Diego (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

That reads a bit to me as a WP:OTHERSTUFF kind of argument. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

If you prefer, I can quote the WP:LISTN guideline that says "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group". Or the exact line of the guideline that quotes the List of Dilbert characters as a valid example, where you'll find the criteria that makes it acceptable. Diego (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's definitely an improvement Diego, thank you! 65.126.152.254 (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Gosh. No, you're right, I'm wrong. Sorry. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Representation of minorities

This is regarding this edit, whith this improved version being contested. If this had been established by secondary sources as significant, primary sources would be appropriate for filling in the details, but that's not the case. As I said in my edit summary, I think Burlew's effort to include minorities is an interesting point, but just it's one of many aspects of story-writing that goes into this webcomic. Even including this content at non-neutral, as it's giving undue weight to one aspect of the story and highlighting only part of Burlew's assessment. I wouldn't be totally surprised if there are reliable, independent sources talking about this, but maybe not. I would like to see them, if they exists. Vaarsuvius gender identity has gone from being a tired running joke to just being part of a more well-rounded the character's identity, which seems like one of several noteworthy developments, but my assessment of that or of popularity among fans isn't verifiable. Using the author's forum posts to factually explain his position is a problem, because it never establishes why this is being explained. I think the article is already longer than its independent coverage justifies (per MOS:PLOT), so using forum posts (reliable or not) is expanding the article even further outside of neutral territory. Grayfell (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

A full review of the whole article may be in order, but meanwhile an edit like this which singles out just one part of a section makes little sense, when the rest of the article is similarly sourced. As I explained above the content is an improvement for the in-universe "world" section, and it's actually better sourced than other section such as the board game one. Due weight is not merely about "do independent sources exist?", it also needs to take into account the whole structure. With the current state of the article, that section is not unduly prominent. If/when we expand the article with the available third party coverage we may need to reconsider this section's length and placement, but meanwhile it does more good than harm. Diego (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The forum posts might provide a very useful source for the author of the work's opinions on the subject, if for example a secondary source had reported on it. No secondary source has reported on it. We should not be creating sections for everything the author says about the webcomic on the webcomic's forum. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't get why you started a new section on this talk page (there's one above this one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.30.107.22 (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you people at least stop with the edit warring? There is no deadline, so let's just reach somekind of concensus and edit the article after that. It doesn't really matter that Greyfell started a new section; they probably just didn't notice there was already a section on this. Othar than that, I seem to agree with Grayfell, in that we need secondary sources in order to write it as a separate section. As shown above and in the article itself, there should be plenty of sources to fill the article with verified content, so that we don't have to use primary sources. ~Mable (chat) 12:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I reviewed the talk page, but somehow glossed over that section, this belongs there, sorry. That said, my point remains. As I said, the article is too long considering sources. That the proposed section would also be too long doesn't meant that it's an improvement. It's not the worst thing in the world, but it's a step in the wrong direction. We can't assume there is independent coverage, and we can't assume we know what that hypothetical coverage would be about. We need to build the article based on existing, known sources, and most of those should be secondary. Grayfell (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It being too long (which is kinda subjective) doesn't excuse arbitrarily and wholly deleting the entry though. I think it's important to acknowledge the author's stance on the matter given how he's made a definite effort in pushing it both in-comic and outside the forums as well. Since it influences the webcomic as a whole and brings about a much needed real-life side of things I believe it definitely has a place on the page. Also the author himself has acknowledged -and thus validated- the existance of some "less than warm" reception to this inclusion (writingwise), so that shouldn't be wholly ignored either. All in all I don't like how the entry's been appearing and disappearing due to (apparent) personal biases and warring war. I don't know who's been deleting it but I feel that did a bigger disservice than just a possible overexaggerated lenght. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.195.59 (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Where has he pushed it outside the forums? Grayfell (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

This is all original research -_- This is exactly the kind of reason why I rarely ever use primary sources... ~Mable (chat) 21:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources are considered reliable sources for describing what an author says about himself or his work. Secondary sources are not appropriate for quoting authors directly; the author himself is the best source for quotations and the author's own personal views. Primary sources are never to be used for original research, but rather for stating what the author said. The material removed, which was cited to the author's own words, provide encyclopedically valid information about this webcomic. It doesn't matter if the author wrote the words in a book, was interviewed by a newspaper, or posted them in a blog or forum; in all cases those are primary sources (including interviews) and are appropriate for the narrow purpose of providing encyclopedic information about the author's views. The author's views and statements are relevant, and appropriate to document in this article. Secondary sources aren't needed for that purpose. Secondary sources are required for any interpretation of what the primary source says.

Simply being cited to a primary source isn't a valid reason to remove content. It matters what is being cited. If it's original research, then yes, remove it. If it's author statements, then removal should be based on other editorial considerations, not the sources cited. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Deciding whether to include this content or not is a matter of judgement, which is something we should use independent sources for. Exceptions are routine details, which this isn't, or responses to issues raised by other sources, which this also isn't. I don't think anyone is saying the posts are blanket reliable, so that's a distraction. Grayfell (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflict - Secondary sources are necessary to establish what due weight is for any idea or aspect covered in an article. Otherwise, how do you know which statements of an author are worthy of inclusion and which aren't? Picking statements from forum posts or from an autobiography based on what seems like proper information for an encyclopedia is basically just original research. Interviews are in a different position because they were published by a secondary party, giving a proper reason to believe that what is written in the interview is worth noting for a good understanding of the topic, of "notable", if you will. ~Mable (chat) 22:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

This isn't just any random internet forum we're talking about, it's the author's own chosen place to appear publicly and express his stance/thoughts on matters. It has all the validity if not of an interview of at least an official public statement, and should be treated with such dignity and importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.195.59 (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Burlew's forum posts are not the equivalent of an "interview," since that would indicate third party interest in this aspect of OotS.Eladynnus (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I checked the page and nobody said they are "equivalent of an interview", whose entry are you addressing here? Anyway to get back on topic, regardless of the context in which they were delivered those are official statements from the author that provide encyclopedically valid information about this webcomic, so they have all the reasons to stay here. I stand by what Amatulic said.

I concur with the above IP poster (amd Amatulic): nobody said they are an equivalent of an interview, but not only that's his official forum, those (about minorities) are statements which he's fine being recorded, as he stated in a specific thread where users are keeping tracks of what he writes/says about the whole aspects of the comic (); also, that's not the only time primary sources are being used in this article for similar purposes. It appears you're trying to find reasons to have the section deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.30.113.78 (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Nah, I would personally like to see basically all content that is referenced only by primary sources to be replaced by content referenced by secondary sources. You have no idea how much it pains me to refers to pages of the webcomic in order to summarize the story 36 times. As I described in an essay a while back, it makes me wonder if the level of detail of the plot section isn't completely undue. I'm just too lazy to put in the effort to actually fix it all. Plus, it doesn't help that I haven't read the webcomic, and may intend to do so at some point in the future. Thing is, I don't see why the issue has to be made worse. ~Mable (chat) 13:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I am indeed trying to have the section deleted. There isn't any third party coverage of this topic, just the creator posting his thoughts on his forum, which are not inherently notable - imagine if Burlew made several posts about the color symbolism or stats of the protagonists' armor. That wouldn't be included, either. You are right that this and other articles inappropriately using self-published or specious sources, but that doesn't justify including *more* like it, especially not such a large section which violates Wikipedia's policy on original research as well as verifiable sources. Eladynnus (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

What original research? What sources aren't verifiable? Third-party coverage of what an author says about himself or his works isn't necessary, and has never been necessary, for inclusion of encyclopedically relevant content, and there is no policy or guideline prohibiting this. We have Wikipedia:Primary sources, which describes how primary sources can be used, and this article is compliant with that policy. That policy also suggests that the webcomic itself would be the primary source and Burlew's commentary about it is a secondary source — and the most reliable secondary source imaginable because he created the primary source. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right Amatulic, that's exactly the point. You conveyed it a much better, though. Fact is, the section is legit in the way the soruce are being used in a way that is compliant to wikipedia rules. I'm kindly asking stop deleting the section without any actual reasons. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.30.108.20 (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

On a second thought I must add that yeah, the section, while being totally legit, could use some secondary sources as well, and I'll try to improve it as soon as I can. Does the author's commentary on the books based on the webcomic counts as secondary source? The only problem is that I do not know how to reference it properly being new to wikipedia. Those are books which can't be read online so i can't "link" the source.

The very first sentence of the primary sources policy says that articles should be based on secondary sources, putting tertiary and primary sources on a lower tier. It also says that the former two types of sources are necessary to establish notability, and that even primary sources must be "reputably published", which forum posts are not. You are also misreading the policy when it defines secondary sources. When it refers to "an author", it doesn't necessarily mean the author of the work being discussed, and everything else written about primary sources on Wikipedia (such as the rubric at WP:USEPRIMARY) says that authors writing about their own works are inherently primary. Eladynnus (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting the rules. Also, i've just said that i can reference the section with secondary sources TOO. The commentary about minorities has been made by Rich Burlew himself not only on his official forum but also on the books that are printed about the webcomic. I just do not know how to reference those commentaries, the books are not aviabile online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.30.108.20 (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I've seen how book are references so i went to add secondary sources in order to improve the section. If you want to help me improve it (because there's always room for improvement) you're welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.30.108.20 (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

A book published by Burlew himself still does not meet the standard set by WP:SELFPUBLISH. Eladynnus (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It does; in fact, references from official book commentary are used all over this article. How come an official commentary from a printed book can't be used as WP:SELFPUBLISH. Read the article again and stop deleting the section basing on your own made up rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.30.108.20 (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, to refer back to Eladynnus' earlier comment, this book is more "reputably published" than the forum posts, so that makes it "better", but it's still just a self-published source. It's again putting undue weight on the claims of the author. ~Mable (chat) 10:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I still don't get why you're saying it. Books were used in this very article before, but all of a sudden it's not ok anymore? I find your argument very weak, I think that even if i found some kind of official third party statement (and i don't think that's impossible) you would find reasons to delete this section just because reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.30.108.20 (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, if there was a secondary source about this, that would be amazing. I find it pretty interesting content, so I would personally love to see it included. My opinion on what an article should or shouldn't have is irrelevant, though, as I just follow the sources. As for "Books were used in this very article before, but all of a sudden it's not ok anymore?" – I was not around when this article was created. I have never had any influence over the evolution of this article. I have, however, spent time with edit practices as they are now, having been in contact with some GA and FA reviews, etc, and would like to think I have at least an idea of the kind of direction Wikipedia articles should take >.> Point is, I don't think a status quo is necessarily optimal. ~Mable (chat) 10:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I really appreciate the fact Diego Moya is trying to reach a compromise instead of blindly deleting the whole section but I don't get the point of having a butchered version of it; was the length of the section an issue? If so, I could redo the article in order to be a little shorter but maintain a bit more information (especially the ones from the book). My answer is not meant to fuel any type of controversy but, again, I don't get the point of shortening it. I thought the issue there was the reliability of the sources (which, I think, are estabilished to be at least acceptable). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.30.108.20 (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

When due weight is raised as a concert of some editors, as is the case here, length definitely matters. Sources about oneself are allowed as reliable, but WP:Neutrality suggest using primary sources with care. In this case consensus policy recommends a middle ground position, which may be a short version (one of two sentences long) that allow readers to know the existence of the described point, and explain its essence without including details; readers who want to know more can read the reference. Note that this is often done even with secondary references if someone complains about their weight in the article. Diego (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Revised version of section

I heavily edited the section, after reviewing the cited sources carefully. I rearranged things, corrected spelling and grammar, consolidated a duplicate reference, tried to make the sentences more fairly represent the sourcing (the original section came across as rather preachy, in my opinion). It's also more concise. Now, hopefully, it just states facts neutrally. Hopefully this new presentation of this material will be more satisfactory to everyone. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I've expanded a little rewriting the short part about the official commentary on Blood Runs in the Family. What do you think? It's too lengthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.220.4.45 (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there any difference between this and the older version of the section? You seem to have restored half of what Amatulic removed without making any changes except for some rewording. Do you understand why he removed them? Eladynnus (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Basing on the last revision by Amatulic and the explanation Diego Moya gave me about the careful use of Primary Sources it seemed to me that a "middle ground" position is the best practice in this case. As I've asked i'm trying to figure out if this new version is too lengthy, so I'm following the discussion awaiting for more specific advices. If it's too long i'll try to cut it, but I'd like to leave, somehow, the section based on his official commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.220.4.45 (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, remember that i'm not native speaker, so i fully expect some rearrangements of the section. I've tried to be more concise but the big part is the literal quote from the book, I think. Suggestions are welcome.

So, they decided to block the article in the right moment i was adding a comic reference. What a shame. It appears i really need to make an account right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.48.224.135 (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

A new account will need to be autoconfirmed before you can edit a semi-protected page, so whether or not you create an account you will need to use this page to work towards a consensus in the meantime. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

And that was exactly what i was doing until the page was protected: using this page to reach consensus. Nothing has really changed except the fact that a really shallow moderator (EdJohnston) has decided to close the matter claiming that i'm a "Ip-hopping edit warrior" by ignoring the ones who infringed the 3RR rules PeterTheFourth and Eladynnus see [40][41][42][43][44][45]). Oh well, it's the internet. Probably some form of double standard and nothing new :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.48.224.135 (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You were not trying to build any consensus, you were reverting the section back to what it was before Amtulic tried to pare it down (editors can compare the IP editor and Amtulic's new versions here with the original version). Eladynnus (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a blatant lie. I've left the improvements that Amatulic did (formatting, grammar and shortening of my section) and then i've restored just the bit about official commentary, adding that if he wanted he could delete it in it's entirely. I'm just asking for help by experienced users while trying to leave something of what i've originally researched and added. By experienced users i'm not including you, because it's clear that you're here just to show hostility and toxic behavior towards me. If Amatulic or the others wants the sections to go away while providing valid reasons as they did before I won't complain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.30.11.13 (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, now that the IP editor cannot edit, hopefully there'll be no more disruption. My question is: Why do we need this section? My argument against inclusion is: It's sourced entirely to forum posts by the author, with no secondary coverage. If forum posts are impetus for creating sections, then the article would become entirely too bloated. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a short note, only that specific IP has been banned; the editor himself already has a new IP and has been going meta by edit warring on the page for complaining about edit warring (1, 2, 3, which has led to the page being protected.

As for the section: most of the primary sources I've seen on the page are used for straight facts, like the age of the characters and plot summaries. There are, however, some passages that should be removed (OR in the description of Redcloak, for example), but these are flaws in the article that should be removed, not used to justify other problems. Wikipedia's policy on primary sources stresses caution and conservatism when it comes to sources like this. WP:SELFPUB does say that self-published material can be used when the subject is the on who has written the material, but the section fails to meet some of the requirements: the posts themselves and the section are rather preachy and self-serving, they contain quotes and responses to non-notable forum posters, and most importantly, they and the book are still the *only* sources of information. There is also the fact that there has been no independent coverage of it, which is the very definition of non-notable. Eladynnus (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted the section to Amatulic's version, but still support removing it for the reasons I gave above. Eladynnus (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The compromise version is well summarized, but the sources are still a big problem. I would prefer removing it, but balancing it against the other issues with the article, it doesn't seem like a priority. Expanding a bit beyond direct plot summaries is a positive goal, and this helps with that. While this and other sections would really benefit from better, independent sources, that applies to much of the article, and this section is brief enough that it's hard to see it as a big deal. I will say that this doesn't make a lot of sense in the 'Fictional world' section. If consensus is to keep it, it should be elsewhere, such as the 'History' section. Grayfell (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd much prefer removing it and cutting back elsewhere similarly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the sources in the section I summarized as a big problem. An author's own statements about his work are still relevant, regardless of the medium in which they are made, and regardless of to whom he was answering. I tried to be careful to stick to neutral facts and remove the previous preachy tone. I still maintain that the primary source is the comic strip itself, and anyone's comments or reviews about it are secondary sources — and that "anyone" includes the author himself, whose only distinction from other secondary sources is that he isn't an independent secondary source. But there should be no question about his notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a big improvement over the first draft. He's a primary source about himself, and that this is about his work seems like a technicality here. The only reason we're even considering his opinion at all is because he's the authority on his own perspective and motives, which is what the section is about. The problem is not with the accuracy of the posts. Deciding to including this content at all, and deciding how much to include, was subjective. I'm guessing someone read it in the forums and thought it was interesting enough to add. Totally understandable, and sometimes unavoidable in editing Wikipedia, but that's not really how we should be building articles, so it's still a problem. Grayfell (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

But this is exactly how we always have written articles. Some editor founds some content in a reliable source, writes a summary and adds it to the article at a place where it seems relevant and satisfies the overall balance of the previous text. If we had lotses and lotses of other content in the article sourced by independent third party sources you'd be right that this may have been given too much WP:WEIGHT, but this is clearly not the case here.

Unless you're claiming that WP:ABOUTSELF is no longer policy and authors are not reliable sources "in articles about themselves or their activities", I don't see the problem. Several editors acknowledge that the original extended section has been greatly improved and trimmed down, and several editors do not want to see it fully removed, so the current version looks exactly like the compromise solution that WP:CONSENSUS favors. Diego (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

'Several editors' would be grateful if you could list who you believe thinks that we require a section about the representation of minorities in this webcomic, sourced entirely to forum posts. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You can find them at the article history, restoring the removed content. Diego (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but one IP hopping editor does not 'several editors' make. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

You're not counting in Amatulic, plus myself when I trimmed the section down, but let in a significant portion of it. Diego (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for actually naming who you believe agrees with you (Amatulic) as I initially requested. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

How about merging the information into the rest of the history section? One of the cited posts (this one) is very vague, and connecting it with gender or anything except writing in general would be OR. The other post (here is the post, rather than the whole thread) has direct and specific statements about the comic, although I am still not comfortable with relying on it. You can see my proposal for what to do with this at User:Eladynnus/sandbox. Eladynnus (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I'm with Amatulic and Diego Moya on this one: being the author's own statements I don't see Amatulic's version of the summarized section as a problem and, also, I'd like to reintegrate, somehow, the direct quote from the author's commentary from the last book (which I personally own, by the way); it's the "best" source this section could actually use. I'm going to rewrite a bit of the part that Petertheforth removed trying to be more encyclopedic by adding a direct comic reference, so the statement could be reinforced, and trying to avoid expressions like "for example" which, as he correctly stated, are not encyclopedic. I'd probably reintegrate the direct quote from the book as I've said above, but I'll probably do that in a second moment (the original quote about Tarquin is a bit too long, so i need to try to summarize it by remaining neutral). I concur the original section was a bit preachy so it definitely needed some cleaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talk • contribs) 19:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

So, i've reintegrated the bit that Petertheforth deleted making it more encyclopedic and I think it should be fine. I'm a bit in doubt about my second edit, which is the reintegration of a digested version of the original Book part. I find the part about Tarquin character more interesting that the fact Burlew fears to write about minorities, but the former is too long and the latter can sound a bit preachy. Any suggestions about this one? I have no problem having this bit deleted but I find it basically the most reliable source about the matter, so I think it's really beneficial to the section (both the Tarquin part and the other one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talk • contribs) 19:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It's nice to see that you've finally gotten an account.Eladynnus (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this kind of behavior is not really costructive and not meant to reach any WP:CONSENSUS. Amatulic did a version that was fine with himself and Diego Moya but it wasn't for you and Petertheforth, therefore i think we should revert to THAT version, which you did, but then Peter deleted a bit of section because it was "not encyclopedical" (without any consent here, in the talk page). THEN you asked to remove the section entirely, merging it with the rest and leaving just a sentence. I think you're both trying to gradually remove the entire section without the actual consent of anyone. I do not think you're trying to reach a consensus at all, and this should be the focus on this discussion. So, the thing I'll made now is reverting the section to Amatulic version but with my two improvements (the "for example" expression avoided and the direct comic reference), and we can start discussing from there. I'd like to keep the direct quote from the book, but you gave no reasons for removing it. Could you elaborate? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.30.106.8 (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

And by the way, i did the above posts being logged out to prove that i do not intend to hide that i'm the original author of the section. My ban has expired and I've got all the reasons to write it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talk • contribs) 22:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

As i was saying in the post above this one, i'd like to reinstantiate somehow the bit about the official commentary from the book. I'd like to know if someone has any practical suggestion in order to do it or why we shouldn't. I'm fine with using direct statement of the author from the forum, as Amatulic is, but the book source could be considered "better". Maybe the part stating that Rich Burlew is afraid to "talk out of his ass" sounds preachy? But the part in which he describes Tarquin is really good, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talk • contribs) 22:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

As a show of good faith, Meelanasah, would you please self revert the changes you've made? It's difficult to have a constructive argument when one editor will continually revert until their preferred version is established. It would be a lot easier to believe you genuinely want to discuss the issue and you are not going to repeat the behaviour for which you were banned if you self reverted. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

That's what I've already done. I've reverted to Amatulic version and then i've changed the bit you considered "not encyclopedical" by trying to avoid expressions like "for example" and adding a direct reference do the comic. I've also discussed at lenght the change I want to propose right here but it appears you're trying to avoiding any compromise with myself, Amatulic or Diego Moya, so please abstain to acting like you're behaving in a correct way because it appears you aren't. Also, just out of curiosity, is this page referring to you? [attack link redacted] Quite interesting read ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talk • contribs) 22:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, I do not want my request to be lost in all this writing with you telling me I'm not discussing so I'll ask it again: what's your honest opinion about adding a reference to the direct commentary from the book? Do you own it? If so, maybe you could help me summarize the section better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talk • contribs) 22:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

So, i think we could actually get back to discuss about the article itself. I must say i'm pretty fine with the section being as it is but i'd really wish to add a bit from the official commentary from Blood runs in the Family. The two informations worth mentioning (in my opinion) are the part about Tarquin's character and the fact Rich is afraid to take stances without "talking out of his ass", because he is in a position of privilege. Do you have any suggestions in order to not making the section too long/preachy/inadequate to WP standards or do you think it's entirely a bad idea? If so, provide reasons please. Thanks Meelanasah (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why it is necessary to include that specific quote in the article. It's been a long time since I read through OotS and don't remember anything about Tarquin, why would he be mentioned here? I've included the book reference in a revision to my proposed edit at User:Eladynnus/sandbox. It is still based entirely on self-published and mostly ephemeral material. Eladynnus (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Because in his quote he states that Tarquin is written in a way that he represents a character who despises minorities. The exact quote is: "Tarquin is by no accident "a wealthy old straight white man losing his marbles over the fact that the tale he is experiencing doesn't focus on the other straight white man at the expense of the black man, the woman, the genderqueer person and the Latino guest star <...>"". It's definetly quite appropriate and fitting to the section and, also, the source is "better" than an unofficial forum post; also, the part which Rich describes how difficult he finds to write stories about minorities because he is not party of any is also fitting to the argument of the section (his exact quote is that he's afraid to "talk out of his ass", but i can avoid that). Could you explain why you think it's not necessary? If you just say that it's "not necessary" without providing actual reasons it appears to be a case of WP:BELONG. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talk • contribs) 20:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Tarquin being written to be bigoted should be put at his entry in The_Order_of_the_Stick#Antagonists; the subject of including minorities and a character's racism are not the same thing. Quotes that contain colloquialisms like "talking out of his ass" should probably be avoided if your own writing can say the same thing more clearly. I've edited my sandbox proposal to show what that would look like. Eladynnus (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia articles should be built primarily on secondary independent sources. Saying that you think it belongs, and why you think it belongs, is answering a question nobody is asking. You're saying it's appropriate because you believe it's appropriate, and that it's obvious. Well, no, it's not obvious. We're saying that Wikipedia should use outside sources to make that decision. What about all the other content he's written? This source mentions four regrets with about two sentences each. He spends more time in that post talking about how he likes to move forward and doesn't like to dwell on past strips, but that's not mentioned at all. Why only mention the latter two bullet points? What about all the other answers he's posted elsewhere? Why is this point being given time when the rest of his comments are not? If there were legitimately sourced criticism or praise of his handling of minority character from reliable sources, then maybe this could be included as a response, but even then it would risk WP:SYNTH and needs to be judged cautiously. Selecting brief quotes and comments from obscure sources to emphasize a point, even if it's an accurate one, is not neutral. Grayfell (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I've said that the section i'm proposing COULD belong to the section because they talk about the same arguments: it makes sense to explain Tarquin's bigotry and Rich Burlew's stance about talking about minorities in a section called "representation of minorities". Why only mentioning the latter two bullet points? Becausae the former two do not refer about minorities. They talk about the opening "in medias res" of the first strip and the "crappy art style" he used in the first strips. Amatulic did a good work trying to be neutral because all he did was reporting neutral facts about what the author stated. He did not cherry-picked the entries that are now in the section nor he had not take anything out of context. We have entire sections of the entire OotS article based on primary sources (likely, the character's page) because it couldn't be done other way. So, if we keep a small section about Rich Burlew's stance about minorities i really fail to see what's the issue bringing the quote from the book. Moving to the The_Order_of_the_Stick#Antagonists as Eladynnus is proposing is not a bad idea by itself and i'm actually considering it but that quote, from an official source (albeit written by the author), gives value of the section because it offers the author's POV about minorities through the explanation of a villain's development. Explaining why it belongs is the purpose of this discussion, otherwise talk pages wouldn't even exist. I'd be wrong if i've just said something along the lines of "hey, i think the section belongs here" without actually addressing any reason. Meelanasah (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Is any reliable, independent source indicating, in any way, that it is valuable to include Burlew's POV about minorities through the explanation of a villain's development? As I've already said, the due weight and sourcing problems with the rest of the article are problems to be solved, not excuses to include more. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

What's concerning to me is the idea that a subject can create information that we would have to include in an article just by posting about it on a blog or forum. Where does it end? We might be advised to use common sense, but we are arguing right here about whether or not we should include a substantial chunk of information (the original version of this section was five paragraphs long) that no one anywhere has covered. While I don't think Burlew is doing this, it's not unlikely that other content creators would take advantage of such a loophole. Eladynnus (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. Category:Articles with a promotional tone (containing 19,731 articles) is littered with that problem. That said, I'm also concerned the article suffers in overall quality and readability regardless of potential for future abuse. A brief article which only covers the important points with due weight is so much more valuable than a long article which also mixes in other details based on judgement calls from fans. This is especially true for a general-audience encyclopedia, which should be impartial and understandable to an unfamiliar reader. Specific details don't always serve that goal, because that requires far too much prior familiarity with the story to even make sense. They also make it harder to find and evaluate other information. At a certain point, they might as well just read the comic if they want to understand what's being said. Wikipedia isn't the place to promote the comic, though, so that becomes a failure on our part. Grayfell (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Rich Burlew's views about including minority groups in his webcomic hasn't escaped the notice of other publishers on the web, but admittedly they are all blogs. One of the more respectable pieces is Writing Possibilities, which devotes a couple of paragraphs to the topic in a larger article. A large and active blog on Tumblr devoted to webcomic reviews took note of the appearance of a gay character. I wouldn't call these citable sources, but the coverage demonstrates that this section we're discussing isn't random trivial or indiscriminate information, it's encyclopedically relevant material that was written about by secondary sources including the author himself (with the comic being the primary source), and has gotten more attention than Burlew's other postings or musings (which are rare enough as they are). I would prefer citing his books rather than forum postings, but either way, the topic is worthy of inclusion here, as it marks a significant turn in the development of this webcomic. It doesn't merit more than a handful of sentences, though. I felt that the extermely short 2-3 line paragraph I wrote earlier balanced WP:UNDUE with encyclopedic information. Just a mention is all we need. It may not even need its own subsection if it can be fit in somewhere else as a passing mention. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't strongly object to a few sentences. As I've said before, I don't think Burlew's own comments are WP:SECONDARY for his own motives and opinions, which is the heart of the section. How would this be substantially different from a diary or written letters recounting an event (the event being the writing of the story)? Those are the quintessential examples of primary sources, and this seems like the same thing. The existence of uncitable sources is hardly any better than nothing at all, but this is a good way to expand beyond mundane plot details. I suppose it's an improvement, but it's one that leaves the door open to a lot of problems. Grayfell (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Does my proposal here seem any better? I have yet to get any responses to it except from Meelanasah. Eladynnus (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that. It does look pretty good- I'd cut the 'written Hayley to be bisexual' part, especially if it's just sourced to a webstrip. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Done! Does Wikipedia have any style guides for citing posts on a forum? Eladynnus (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no earthly idea. Probably just cite web? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eladynnus: I like your version. Concise, to-the-point, no undue weight, no fluff. My only concern is that mentioning minority representation only in the lead section (as your sandbox seems to suggest) and not in the body doesn't align with WP:LEAD. 06:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eladynnus: Honestly it seems to have really few informations. My original section was too big and "preachy" but this does seem quite the opposite. It's not that I do not concur with your version but i find it really TOO MUCH concise. I'd rather leave the content as it is right now in the page (maybe merging it with other sections like you did instead of having a separate paragraph). Meelanasah (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The sandbox version looks fine, and I would use 'cite web'. It's a copy of the 'History' section, so I don't think LEAD applies here. Being concise is a good thing. The words "revealed" and "recent" make sense, but are red flags that we're trying too hard, so the proposal is better for style reasons, also. Grayfell (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

That shouldn't be a problem, i csn adjust style as you're suggesting but i do not think a three-rows paragraph has WP:HEIGHT issues. I don't see why we can't simply change 2 words instead of removing harmless and neutral information. So, what do you think if we adjust style accordingly and merge information with what Eladynnus proposed? It won't make a big of a section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talk • contribs) 08:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

So, peterthefourth started a new section without giving time to anyone to answer my last question. Does anyone have a suggestion about i've asked (merging the actual section with Eladynnus one and changing style accordingly for words like "revealed" and "recent" like Grafyell pointed out? Meelanasah (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hatted section

Section closed for not improving the article and being an epic failure to WP:AGF

(Amatulic) and (Diego Moya) i'm writing this because Petertheforth is trying to having me banned; after his last answer, instead of trying to discuss about the article in the talk page, he went to the page with the administrator who previously banned trying to manipulate him to having me banned AGAIN (for no actual reasons other than claiming i wish to start another edit warring, which i won't). I seriously hope that you'll help me reaching WP:CONSENSUS (as the main focus of this discussion should be) instead of having them remove the entire section without actually discussing it with you two and myself. Thanks. Outside observer here. I don't have any particular stake in this nor do I really care whether the entry exists in this or that form. However, I do not like the constant and reiterate attempts of either PeterTheFourth and Eladynnus to override people's consent here. Judging by the quality of the edits I saw in the past few days it appears clear from my point of view that without being able to outright delete the entry they're now trying (possibly under hidden partnership) to have it removed by slowly making disappear one sentence at a time. Which is, needless to say, just a different form of bypassing people's consensus. Before enforcing a change on the entry you're advised to discuss it here on the talk page, not the other way around, especially since one of you expressely stated his interest to see the entry disappear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.204.85 (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC) Are you sure you're not a sockpuppet? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC) No, and trying to bypass my arguments by attacking me personally isn't gonna work either. I stand by what I said, if you wish to address me address my words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.204.85 (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC) No, that's a legit concern. Your IP is from the same location (which apparently only has a few thousand English speakers), so it's very hard to accept that this is a coincidence. Grayfell (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC) Accept what you like, investigate as you wish, I've got nothing to hide. I'm no sockpuppet. I expect the next message to address what I said instead of going against who said it. Or no message at all, either is fine to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.204.85 (talk) 06:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC) So, i'm here. I can see why you're concerned about the sockpuppet thing being that ip from my same location but i can assure you whoever wrote the post above is not, by any chance, me. I'm surprised that Eladdynus, being so perceptive about writing styles and so on, doesn't notice that this user's english is noticeably better than mine ( :( ). Also, i know there are people from Milan who follows OotS; some of them i personally know. The important thing is that this person is acting indipendently as a legit user and i'll surely do anything necessary to prove it. My IP locations are 2 (my home/my workplace); his IP is on even a different range! Now, can we actually gete back to discuss about the article itself instead of trying to "frame" me? I'd really like Diego or Amatulic to show, otherwise i'm afraid this discussion will be one-sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talk • contribs) 07:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC) All I can really say is ducky goes quack quack. Using multiple IPs and/or accounts may or may not be a problem depending on the situation, but if the situation is you pretending to be more than one person - especially if you are trying to make it seem like other people are agreeing with you in a discussion - then that is a BIG problem and can result in your brand new account getting blocked long-term. Plenty of people on here thought they were pretty clever with that sort of thing until they got caught. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC) You know, the funny thing (for me, of course) is that i'm 100% sure that 93.33.204.85 isn't me (and that ip doesn't belong to neither of my ISP's from home/workplace). Seeing that you're trying so hard to "frame" me on no basis makes me happy, because in the moment someone will prove that user is not me you'll get punished, and i'll get a good laugh. Of course, the problem here is that there's probably not any sureproof way i can prove that we are different users (and if there is i'd like any administrator to let me know). Also, i've missed the part where i'm pretending to be more than one person. My account is this one (Meelanasah) and my 2 ip ranges are the one from which i'm posting now (which i've found to be a static IP, by the way, or at least it hasn't changed for a long while) and the one i'm using at home (dynamic, but it starts with 151). Again, let me remember you that all you write on wikipedia (even on the talk section) is permanent. If i were you i wouldn't feel so free to make defamatory accusations just because you're editing from an ip address. So, for the sake of syntesis, i'll recap the two "sides" on this matter 1) "PRO SECTION": Myself ((talk), (Amatulic), (Diego Moya) 2) "AGAINST SECTION": (Eladynnus), (PeterTheFourth) 3) NEUTRALS: 93.33.204.85 -> which is the IP Editor you're claiming to be me. I've read what he wrote and he doesn't strike me to be neither PRO or AGAINST the section, he just stated that (Eladynnus) and (PeterTheFourth are somehove trying to partially avoid consensus. (Grayfell -> He did an initial revert of my section while it was in his first form but, after Amatulic did his version, he didn't objected as far as i can remember. Correct me if i'm wrong Grayfell, i don't want to pretend you're on "PRO SECTION" side if you aren't. Now, for the last time, i'm kindly asking you to discuss about the section instead of trying to remove me from the discussion by doing false accusation. If i see this kind of behavior one more time I'll open an incident linking this discussion (which, if you are interested, is being already discussed here. I can guarantee you that in the moment someone will prove that i'm NOT that editor it won't be end well for you. A neutral third party who agrees with everything you say and makes the same arguments? Eladynnus (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC) I've missed the part where he agrees about the section; his/her exact quote is " I don't have any particular stake in this nor do I really care whether the entry exists in this or that form.". It appears to me the only thing he/she expressed is that he finds you and PeterTheFourth to bypassing consensus. Needless to say i agree wholly with this statement, because that' exactly the thing you're doing. Can't you see every bit of this discussion became "let's try to frame Meelanash instead of discussing about the section"? I'll be totally honest with you: i don't get you. We managed to reach a version which was ok-ish for everyone (which was Amatulic's version) but you keep trying to deleting it by avoiding any kind of civil discussion. I really wonder what your motivations could be, the section itself is harmless, at least. It has a preachy tone in it's initial incarnations but i think it's gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talk • contribs) 12:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC) He says that he doesn't care but then repeats the accusations and arguments you've made on this page while showing the same shaky grasp of Wikipedia policy. The only difference between you two is that that editor's English is better, and the preponderance of evidence indicates that you and he are the same person. No one is framing you, since that would require the fabrication of evidence. The record of your behavior on this and other pages is what led to your ban and the protection of two other pages. The only role I and others have played in those sanctions is calling attention to it. As for the edits themselves, there is no "we" when it comes to that section - you were banned in the middle of undoing Amtulic's version and your edits had to be reverted after you were gone. Eladynnus (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC) By the way, you should read WP:NOHARM. Eladynnus (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC) I'm still at my workplace; when i'll get back to home i'll gladly report you and the other ip editor for trying to claim something that is not actually true ( even if not knowing the appropriate policy i'm sure that this kind of behavior is punished ;) ). I'll probably have a good laugh because you ARE actually trying to fabricate the evidence. Same ip location is a good indicator of sockpuppetry, i concur, but it's not enough: even if 93.33.204.85 is stating that you and peter are not acting in a correct way (opinion that i find reasonable other people than me could have) he's not actually a part in this. As far as i can see, he made a single intervention claiming that, as an external viewer, he has no interest about the outcome of this. The fact that you're trying to frame me over a single intervention is quite hilarious, especially when i'll be able to prove that the user is not me :D Regarding the part of poor knowledge of the rules well, i'm new here, i don't spend my entire life trying to impose myself on Wikipedia with my "advanced knowledge of tricks and rules and manipulation" ;) And i've got no interest to become such a person: the only thing i have is my "common sense", something that, it appears, you're not used to, but.. hey! You can keep shielding yourself behind fabricated evidences and policies. I'm not guilty so i'll just report you in a fitting section. By the way, i was fine with Amatulic version and i'd have done the revert myself wasn't the page being protected: as you can see, my last current edit on this page is... guess what, reverting to Amatulic's version! see here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talk • contribs) 15:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC) I can hardly believe that this is still going on. And it's equally astounding to see how insistently Eladynnus is trying to get the entry's author banned (and thus the entry removed - his true goal) upon something he can neither prove nor is true. I can only hope that an objective, competent mod will put you in your place as this has nothing to do with improving Wikipedia and is just an act of warring war using rule-bashing. I'm making similar accusations as others because this is how you've been acting so far. More than one people can see the picture behind your actions. But as a little food for thought, let me ask you this: if you really believe that me and that other guy are the same person, why would *I* be the one who writes with the "better english"? I made something like 2-3 posts max during this whole discussion and didn't really vouch for the entry as much as I did for respecting people's consensus and Wikipedia. If we really were the same person (which isn't the case, let me repeat that) why would the "lesser, typo-prone, confused english" persona be my main spokesperson? Wouldn't it make sense to perorate my cause with my better english and only afterwards post a few "sockpuppet-bad-english" messages to feign majority? We are two different people, deal with it. As to Meelehwhatever stop replying with such long texts to everything that guys says, you just end up validating his accusations by giving him attention, which is what he wants: to take the discussion away from the entry itself and make it personal. We may be from the same country but we're not the same person, and as long as that remains no Wikipedia rule is being broken. There's nothing to hide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.38.42.238 (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Implementing Eladynuss's suggestion

Eladynnus, do you believe that your suggestion is ready for implementation, or would you like to alter it further? I would like to place it in the article in place of what is currently there. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not think we all agreed with his implementation, so please don't start a new section ignoring my answer and prooceding to alter the section without an actual consent. I'd like to put a revised section by merging the current article with the Eladynnus version (and changing some words as Grayfell suggested). I'd say we can start from this, not deleting the entire thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talk • contribs) 22:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, now that i think about it, how could the words "Revealed" and "Recent" be substituted, in this context? Suggestions? Meelanasah (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean 'everyone agrees with the proposal'. Please read WP:CON for an explanation of consensus, and WP:FILIBUSTER. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Consensus mean "consensus", not "I'll just edit the article from another user's wersione because i WP:LIKE it, ignoring other user's proposals/discussions". We are trying to reach a consensus but you started a new section blatantly ignoring the fact i was trying to accomodate Eladynnus edits with my section, proposing a merging (and altering some words). We were having a civil discussion until I've asked to everyone if we could do a merging by adjusting the style, continue from there and please abstaion to keep this distructive behavior. You have no authority about changing the version by your likings (again WP:LIKE is not a valid argument) and bypassing discussion by opening new sections. Meelanasah (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not suggest "changing some words", I said those words were a red flag that the entire section needed to be changed. WP:WTW is not just about substituting some words with synonyms, but is about addressing the underlying problem those words indicate. The shorter proposed version does this to my satisfaction. Making a new section is a perfectly reasonable way to move things forward, and calling that destructive and throwing around "WP:LIKE" accusations does absolutely nothing to build real consensus. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be destructive, but the thing here is that peter is not actually trying to reach any consensus but overriding my argument in it's entirety. By the way, you are very clear about the fact it's not just those "two words" but i'll just change the article a bit in order to give it a proper neutral and better form, let all me know if this is of for you but honestly, does the current *three rows paragraph* poses a big threat about WEIGHT issues? Meelanasah (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, i've adjusted the form in a more neutral way. Id' also like to integrate the section with the sentence about the book eladynnus wrote but then the section would become a bit big that i think we are all comfortable with. I'd like to reinforce my thought that removing the section in it's entirely it's not a good way to "move things forward". I'd be more prone to merging the section/adapting it. Meelanasah (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not enough of an improvement. Rearranging the wording solved nothing. "This strip"? Which is "this strip"? That doesn't really make sense, and from a practical stand-point it's too confusing. Worse, it doesn't address the underlying issue at all.

Phrasing it that way uses Wikipedia's voice to claim that Burlew was successful in compensating for the story's previous lack of diversity, which is an issue that's only raised in sources by Burlew himself. We can only say that he described it as a compensation for the problem as he saw it, or that it was an attempt at such a compensation. We cannot even imply that he succeeded. Was Bandana a success? Was it too-little-too-late? Was she included as blatant tokenism? Pandering? Those are all more or less valid critical interpretations, aren't they? Why are we only focusing on this one aspect of it? Why are we digging so deep, and bending over so far, just to give him that extra little bit of credit based only on what he's said about his own work? It's not neutral to approach a topic like this.

He wrote in 2015 that he regretted showing "insensitivity to gender issues" in older panels and was making an effort to improve that aspect of the comic is perfectly clear. It gives him credit for acknowledging past mistakes and trying to correct them (which I think he should be commended for, by the way) without providing a platform for self-promotion or fan favoritism. Grayfell (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

"this strip" refers to the strip i've added as a reference, propose a better word change if you wish. Regarding the fact if he was successful or not it's not inferred in any way. The exact quote from the section is "<cut>was obviously gay to compensate for such a character's absence". Maybe it's more correct using "to ATTEMPT to compensate", i'll make that correction now to see if it sounds better but, even as it is right now, there's no implication that he succedeed or any consideration you've exposed. Meelanasah (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

There are problems with the approach followed by Eladynuss in the sandbox. In particular, it doesn't make sense to remove all mentions to the publication in Dragon and Gygax magazines, which are sourced by reliable, independent references.

The article has a large amount of in-universe content in the Plot, Characters and Fictional World sections. Trimming down the parts that offer real-world information is problematic under WP:NOTPLOT. Diego (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Peter, Diego Moya was not referring at my section but at the entire article as you can see in his previous comment. Could you please avoid to misinterpret information in order to delete the section without providing actual reasons? Thanks Meelanasah (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Diego, i'm seriously not getting what' wrong with the actual version of the section aside "Eladynnus proposed a shorter version". If you decide to revert again to that section i won't object, but i do not get why you did that. There was not any actual consensus. There's a discussion during which peterthefourt changed the version to eladynnus without actually addressing any reason or answering to my questions. I do not think that's really correct for a 3 rows paragraph which i've adjusted many times to accomodate people's opinion about wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talk • contribs) 12:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, Diego, you even did a reword on my version see here so i don't get why, all of a sudde, you wish to delete it :) Meelanasah (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not agreeing with this version. I know that somehow the consensus became this "section with no actual information about the subject" and i can't edit again or i'll get blocked. Meelanasah (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, Diego, i do not wish to use edit summary to flame with you but as you probably noticed i'm not a native speaker. I know "my consensus" sounds ridiculous; what i meant was "my stance". Meelanasah (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for that remark. I knew I was stretching the rules when I made it as an edit comment, I just wanted to lighten the mood and not to be taken too serious (therefore the 'wink-wink' emoticon). Diego (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No offence taken, i know you're acting in good faith. Being new to wikipedia i just find sad and irritating that my stance was basically ignored. I know there is a consensus to be reached but i've tried to politely adapt my section and accomodating critics; my section was not not preachy, not lenghty, not anti-neutral, but the extreme eladynnus's edit managed to be the "consensus". As i've stated before, it's not that i do disagree with this version but it's just that basically contains no information. Meelanasah (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This latest entry feels extremely lackluster. The very initial one was something like 6+ lines if I remember right, which was indeed too long and verbose, I'm agreeing on that. Then it got reduced, which was correct. Then it got redacted by an user (Amatulic?) which I believe gave it the right lenght: something like 3 lines and a half which was consistent with similar entries above and conveyed the point with ease. Now... it's just a shell. What's an "outsider status"? I have no idea, and the entry does nothing to tell me. The previous one made everything clear to the average joe reader from first glance, this is just air. I don't know if I need an account to propose anything here, but personally I feel keeping the mere line "Burlew has used his webcomic as a vehicle to convey stances on social topics because he wishes his work to have impact beyond momentary distractions.[21] Burlew explained that he is attempting to compensate for past instances of "unintentional sexism and/or insensitivity to gender issues".[22]" and ending the entry at that (without the needless Bandana reference) worked perfectly, true balance between keeping it short AND keeping the message easy and clear. This is just too lackluster.93.33.206.34 (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That's actually a valid point. I do not like that even the bit about Bandana is being removed but at least we could make the remaining bit of the section a bit more self-explanatory. Same lenght, same content, better form. I'm not sure if i can edit the article again so, if anyone has not anything to object about this, i'll change the section just with that couple of sentences. Probably tomorrow. Meelanasah (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S: you actually need an account in order to perform the edit by yourself as the page is currently semi-protected. Meelanasah (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Now that i think about it with this change the official commentary reference is lost (the one that refers to the Giant's issue to write about minorities being not part of any). I'd like to merging it with the bit of the section mentioned above (and, again, removing the bit about the introduction of Bandana in it's entirely). I'd like to hear other's opinion about this last idea before i eventually proceed. Meelanasah (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

So, as i was saying yesterday, i wouldn't have proceeded to edit the article again as the actual version was estabilished to be consensus but, after the proposal of the ip editor above me, i find reasonable to edit the article to convey a bit of more information while not altering the lenght/tone of the article. So, i'll just leave the bit "Burlew has used his webcomic as a vehicle to convey stances on social topics because he wishes his work to have impact beyond momentary distractions.[21] Burlew explained that he is attempting to compensate for past instances of "unintentional sexism and/or insensitivity to gender issues".[22]". I'll also add a very brief hint about official commentary, basing on eladynnus sentence, but maybe substituting "outsider" (which, by itself, doesn't mean very much) to something like "not part of any". I'd put something like "white heterosexual male" but i feel it's wrong for some reason. Meelanasah (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

That is certainly an acceptable edit to explore; I obviously can't speak for the other editors, but nobody seems to have objections to any particular wording, only the length of the section. Attempts to clarify the text while maintaining the current size are welcome, and any objection can be further discussed here - or hopefully directly improved by those who would raise them. Diego (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok then, i'll proceed to the edit as soon as the 24h 3 edits period expires. I do not want to incur in some 3RR stuff. Meelanasah (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

If I'll need to make an account to vouch for the shorter version I proposed (which is the previously established and already long-edited one save for the needless bandana line) than I'll do so. I agree with wanting to keep the entry short but shortness shouldn't come at the expense of clarity and meaning. This "new" entry feels very lackluster and obscure.93.33.206.34 (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

That won't be necessary. As i've already said i'm going to perform the edit as soon as the 24hours since my yesterday first edit expires. Meelanasah (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to wait until the period expires, as this change has consensus for now at the talk page. Conversely, if the change didn't have consensus, you'd still could be punished for edit warring even if the period had just been expired, for trying to game the system on technicalities. It is the spirit of the edit that counts for the WP:Edit war policy, not just the letter. Diego (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I've performed the edit. I'm not 100% comfortable about how i've worded out the last sentence; does anyone have suggestions in order to improve the fluency of the sentence? I've adapted the "talking out of his ass" bit into "making false claims" which i personally find appropriate but, i don't know, the sentence feels clunky. Meelanasah (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I've condensed and reworded your version. Diego (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's really good; i just hope it is for everyone so we can end this debate :D Meelanasah (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I've made a final tweak, revert it if you think the previous wording was better. Diego (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm personally fine with it. Meelanasah (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Here it is for convenience:

Burlew has used his webcomic as a vehicle to convey stances on social topics because he worries about the impact of his work beyond momentary distractions.[forum] Burlew wrote that he is attempting to compensate for past instances of "unintentional sexism and/or insensitivity to gender issues"[forum] but, being a straight white male, he is afraid to talk authoritatively about minorities without the proper knowledge.[book]

I still don't like this. "Stances on social topics" is far too vague. It's conversationally fine, but in an encyclopedia article about a work of fiction, it's meaningless. What is and isn't a social topic? Without defining what that means, we're effectively giving him credit for something based only on his own comments.

This is a recurring problem found in other parts of the article, also. For example, the section on art style includes Burlew's editorializing and critique of his own style. Why? Most artists, (and most people in general) can point to things they would've done differently. We can assume that he wouldn't have changed it if he didn't think it was a good idea to change it, right? Elaborating on this by using his personal opinions on his past artistic choices reads like filler. Filler is non-neutral.

This section also includes unknowable claims presented as fact. We cannot know what Burlew 'worries' or what he's 'afraid' of, we can only say what he's said about those things. Rephrasing this to make that distinction clear would be more impartial, but it would also draw attention to the sourcing and neutrality problems that come from including this in the first place.

I would also change "wrote" to "has written" since we are quoting him from the past about what he is currently doing. Grayfell (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, his exact quote on the book is "i find difficult to make statements about the experiences of other demographics groups without running the risk of talking out of my ass"" So, yeah, stating that he's "afraid" could be considered a bit misleading... more that he finds hard to talk about it. Suggestion on rewording the sentence basing on the original quote? Also, about the first quote, we could change it into something more specific like "convey his social stance about minorities" or something like that in order to be more neutral? I'll do a first edit about the things i'm sure i can rephrase a little better. Meelanasah (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• And with respect to "worries", the exact words are "you start to ask yourself whether what you are doing is really important and what impact, if any, your work will have on the world beyond momentary distractions". So we could change "because he worries about the impact of his work" to "because he asks himself about the impact of his work" in order to WP:STICKTOSOURCES if you want, but I don't think that much fidelity is needed, and the latter reads awkward. Diego (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

We accept Burlew as the only authority on his own mental state, but we're still just repeating his claims about himself. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but we still cannot report his mental state as plain fact, because we cannot possibly verify it. It's a level deeper than we have any good reason to go. If we had to include this, we could say something like "Burlew has said that he's included social issues in his comics so that they have a lasting impact". This gets the point across without trying to divine his inner motivations based on some passing comments. I still don't think we should bother at all, though. It just reads like filler to me. Everybody (as in all of us) ask ourselves things all the time, and rarely does this get included in Wikipedia articles. Why is this point an exception? Here's a theory, tell me if I'm wrong: At a glance, this appears to be a pop-culture related comic drawn in an intentionally simplistic style. As a reader of the comic, I know that it's much more complicated than that, so it's tempting to want to include content which defends its legitimacy as an art-form. The comparison between the gags of the first 'dungeon' and the emotional arcs of later strips is especially jarring, and Burlew has obviously evolved as an author (and visual artist). When I say it's 'obvious', I say that as someone who's read all of the strips, but that's still just my personal perspective, isn't it? A desire to defend a work isn't coming from a neutral place. It's also WP:OR. Digging for Burlew's own quotes to help support a preconceived notion is (potentially, if not always) a round-about form of editorializing and original research. We need to let independent sources guide the content, and they don't appear to exist, so we need to be show restraint in how we approach this. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, we may be writing about the representation of minorities because it is a verifiable fact that the author signifies as relevant, and the article is lacking in out-of-universe material. Please see if you like my latest wording upgrade. Diego (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on The Order of the Stick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.giantitp.com%2Fcomics%2Foots0536.html&date=2008-10-04 to http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0536.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.giantitp.com%2Fcomics%2Foots0644.html&date=2009-04-10 to http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0644.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brokenfrontier.com/lowdown/details.php?id=869
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webcomics.com/full_blog_story.php?id=80
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://webcomics.com/full_blog_story.php?id=114
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webcomics.com/full_blog_story.php?id=134
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ennieawards.com/2007-archive.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090310200607/http://www.ccawards.com/2008finalists.html to http://www.ccawards.com/2008finalists.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120208113312/http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/02/05/best-webcomics-ever-this-week-2-5-12/ to http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/02/05/best-webcomics-ever-this-week-2-5-12/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Order of the Stick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708093031/http://brianroney.com/?p=30 to http://brianroney.com/?p=30
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081119142618/http://brianroney.com/ to http://brianroney.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001191250/http://comixtalk.com/the_order_of_the_stick_by_rich_burlew_reviewed_by_matt_netpoet_summers to http://comixtalk.com/the_order_of_the_stick_by_rich_burlew_reviewed_by_matt_netpoet_summers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)