Talk:Erfworld

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Webcomics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to webcomics on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Erfworld, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of mid-importance within webcomics for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.

Contents 1 Undeletion of this article 2 Sources 3 Hole 4 Discussion page of deleted article 5 Pictures? 6 Massive synopses

[edit] Undeletion of this article

Given the nature of deletion and recreation, allow me to pre-emptively elabourate my reasons for recreating this article, with modification to satisfy WP:N and WP:RS.
1) Without making any attempt to determine if in fact Erfworld is a well-known webcomic, the original deleter speedy-deleted the page, leaving no visible place to discuss it. After some discussion on a 3rd party forum, it seemed to me the simplest thing to do would be to recreate the article with WP:N and RS satisfied since these are the common complaints in any deleted webcomic article. If it was deleted for some other reason, I may never know... it was speedy deleted, leaving no record that I am aware of. I've not had to deal with speedy deletions in the past.

2) Regarding WP:RS, there are numerous blog-type reviews and references to Erfworld, as now mentioned in the article. These satisfy WP:RS - namely:

When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; second, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

Off-topic... I don't want to soapbox, but I would just like to say that the utter lack of care for a major part of internet culture - namely webcomics - on Wikipedia lately has really worried me. Erfworld has quite a sizeable readership after only two months of comics, is the product of a notable syndicated author, and has been recommended by one of the largest names in webcomics today, Rich Burlew... in fact, Mr. Burlew has recognised it to the degree that he is hosting it on his own site. If these are not criteria for notability in and of themselves - which clearly the speedy deleter did not believe - then it is nearly impossible for a webcomic to be notable on wikipedia. This is a bit absurd, since webcomics are widely recognised as one of the important phenomena of the modern internet. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 11:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Note the key phrase in WP:RS: "these may be acceptable as sources" (emphasis in original). This clause means that truly exceptional blog posts have a chance at being considered reliable sources, not that any given blog post does satisfy WP:RS. 216.52.69.217 20:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My bad for removing the emphasis. I have put it back in... forgot to CP from the "edit" mode.

I am aware of the specifications about blogs, but in this particular case one can easily see that these blogs are noteworthy, and make pretty noteworthy mention of Erfworld. Howard Tayler, Rich Burlew, and Lev Grossman are not small names in webcomics and/or journalism, nor is there any rational doubt that they made the comments about Erfworld that they did. They pretty clearly meet the spirit of RS: claiming that their comments are not RS simply because they are posted on the web is... strange, to say the least. Especially for something as subjective as a webcomic: it is not like we are citing astrophysics theories here! Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 23:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note vote to keep article 208.165.251.17 17:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I read the thread on the forums, and as a wikipedia anal-type, I thought I'd chime in. Given the recreation of the article, I thought I'd go ahead and ask... does anyone know of any print(or Television) sources mentioning this comic or it's author/publisher? That would guarantee a keep in almost every debate, the only exception being a copyright violation. I know Rob thinks this is an extension of the print war on webcomics so this will probably seem related, but that is the #1 notability and verification test. Media attention, books published by major publishing companies, and academic papers discussing erfworld just don't exist(yet). The fact that the article is sourced with multiple references is much better than most articles headed for AfD debates. As a side note, the Erfworld article is more in line with wikipedia policies the OotS article is. i kan reed 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was just talked about in Dragon Magazine. I or someone else will get the ref as soon as we can. If we're lucky it won't be speedy deleted and salted before that.

I have to question your motive though. I mean, think about it critically: why is print any more notable, in the case of a web-only presence, than multiple online reviews and mentions by major figures in an appropriate field? With a scientific paper, I can understand it, but Wikipedia's attitude to "verification" of things that are clearly there (webcomics, websites, cultural phenomena) is honestly becoming a laughingstock, possibly soon outdoing the mockery of basic vandalism. I like wikipedia, I like what it stands for, and this makes me sad.

Not only that, but major print discussion is not enough to guarantee survivability. There is a New York Times article almost 2/3 about the Web Cartoonists Choice Awards, as well as an aired television show about them, yet their article was speedy deleted. Frankly, I would say the only way to be certain your article will not be speedy deleted without any debate or warning is to have it a referenced scientific page, or have it a trivia article about a television show. That is one of several things that has, frankly, turned me away from wanting to contribute. WP's increasing verifiability bias only allows those things which are easily and regularly printed about to have strongly defensible articles. Kinda silly in an online community...

Since I am no longer a regular wikipedia contributor (haven't even logged in since November, though I still make anon edits) I realise I am not heavily involved in policy. Still, if you have some critically thought-out arguments, I would like to hear them. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 23:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You have 2 different objections here. One I can't answer for because it really is a growing problem that may need to be addressed. The other I can answer for.

1. Speedy deletion on wikipedia is becoming misused. It started with {{db-bio}} which was ok because wikipedia was spammed with people making articles about themselves, you know things that obviously are better off in myspace than an encylcopedia. This started becoming a problem when people would nominate things for speedy deletion that really did need that third pair of eyes, that one google search, or those 5 days to be cleaned up so that the signifigance could be understood. This is exacerbated by new users who don't understand the process and remove speedy deletion templates instead of making a case on the talk page, and administrators who don't give things a second chance. This problem half derives itself from the recent tendency of editors to tag things for speedy deletion rather than deletion, and half derives from the fact that wikipedia editors are human and make mistakes.
2. Print sources are more important that non-print. The usual reasons for this being the way things are, are that 1. Print sources can't change. Once printed, a book, newspaper, or academic paper will be the same, there might be newer versions with corrections or a host of other differences, but the fact that one can be certain the material will still be there is quite distinct from an online directory that can go 404, or change their statements about something. 2. Print sources(at least the kind considered verifiable) are almost exclusively done by professionals. Newspapers are written by journalists who are trained(at least in theory) whereas a blog can simply be someone's view of something or own assertions regarding facts. This happens in newspapers, but popular opinion stipulates it happens less, because of 3. reputation print sources(again of the kind considered verifiable) have the repuations of a major entity behind them whereas blogs and other such sources do not. National news sources, like Time, will fire people over bad enough errors. An online article by a noted(a bit self-referential here) expert would carry as much weight as a paper one. Again, I'm not sure how much of this I agree with, but the reasoning is not invalid. i kan reed 00:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The trouble, as I see it, is that traditional media, being traditional, are slower to react to web phenomena than the web itself is. On the one hand, this can be seen as impending dinosaur-hood for traditional media: if the newspapers are so entrenched in their ways that they can't recognize a self-publishing Renaissance happening right under their noses, why should Wikipedia rely on their coverage to determine an article's fitness for inclusion? On the other hand, that traditional sluggishness helps to filter out the flashes in the pan that propagate like lightning on the web: things that seem revolutionary and popular and hilarious when everybody is talking about them are often revealed as insignificant in hindsight, and the slow reaction time of print publications smooths out the spikes, if you will.

Personally, I have more sympathy for the former view. If you let the traditional media determine significance, then the most significant thing that happened this week was the death of Anna Nicole Smith. I just saw a bit of a major CNN report on The Secret, which is a piece of soon-to-be-forgotten self-help nonsense which, nevertheless, warranted a major investigation on the premier 24-hour news network, and thus "deserves" a Wikipedia article. I think the mainstream media do miss the point an awful lot, and can't really be relied on to choose wisely what does and doesn't merit a Wikipedia article. But that's a complaint with the deletion policies that I'm sure has been voiced before. --Jere7my 01:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jeremy, you voiced what I was thinking before I consolidated my reply.

There IS a valid reason for prefering print articles in a lot of subjects. However, and I know this isn't really the place to debate it, it seems massively inappropriate for many internet phenomena. Sure, a print article about webcomics is a noteworthy source, but Howard Tayler or Lev Grossman reviewing a webcomic on his blog-type site where he is the obvious attributed poster is no less noteworthy. If the material was changed or disappeared, the reference would simply become invalid. As wikipedia is dynamic itself, not print, this is not a problem! That is something most editors seem to have troubles with.

As a scientist this is important to me... the nature of refering is changing, and wikipedia seems like the first place where understanding should keep up. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 02:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that this is not the place to discuss it. That would be Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. What does need to be done, is someone needs to get their hands on that review in dragon and see exactly what statements in this article are verified by it. I'm affraid my local hobby shop went out of business so I can't track down a copy.

Also the comixpedia link needs to go. Other wikis are 100% not reliable sources. If the reference comes from a location anyone can edit, then it doesn't verify anything any more than another wikipedia article does. i kan reed 03:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The link in question is not from an article anyone can edit, as comixpedia is not exclusively a wiki site. However, feel free to remove it and post in here. You're as much an editor as anyone else. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 04:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I brought it up on the talk page first because it looked like a wiki. If it doesn't act like one my objection is meaningless. i kan reed 05:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hole

Seems to be a bit of a hole in the flow of the article. Right now you've got <Description of layout Format> followed by <Characters>. There should be <Premise> as brief summary between the two, something akin to "Erfworld follows the adventures of magical teenage rockers on their quest to conquer the moon..." Only I'd recommend using an actual summary of the premise, as I am unfamiliar with this particular webcomic. Bitnine 22:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is already present in the article, in the location you've inidcated. However, it is part of the same paragraph describing the format, and if I had any skill at styling things, I'd fix that. i kan reed 22:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion page of deleted article

Since this article was (wrongly) deleted, the discussion page for the earlier version of the article seems to be lost. Are discussion pages of deleted articles archived somewhere, or has it simply vanished altogether? In any case, I re-raise my concern: Should there be a bit more emphatetic mention that the 'webcomic' Hamstard is in a way 'fake'? It's actually drawn by the creators of Erfworld in order to create some nice post-modern intertextuality effect. Matti Nuortio, Oulu, Finland 13:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

contents of deleted pages are only accessable to administrators. Also, sure you can write that about hamstard if there are any reliable sources on the matter. i kan reed 14:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been confirmed by the authors themselves. Naturally, this was on GiantITP forums, which are basically an unreliable source, but on the other hand you can't get much more reliable than direct confirmation from the author. Also, someone already added a sentence about Hamstard. Thanks for that. Matti Nuortio, Oulu, Finland 21:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures?

Does someone want to post pictures of the cast, a picture for the infobox, etc?

Thanks!Belril 19:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massive synopses

It's great that someone took the time to add a detailed synopsis, but remember that this is not the Erfworld site. The plot synopsis only needs to summarise, not reprint the entire course of the comic... and more importantly, please keep speculation out of it. Even stuff that seems obvious, like Jillian being attracted to Ansom, is still speculation until stated otherwise. And if you feel the need to clarify with "It is very likely that", "suggests", "probably", "it is possible that", and more... it almost certainly doesn't belong in the article.

Will try to clean it up and pare it down. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 12:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit: done paring it down. Some could probably be restored with a bit more effort than I applied, but personally I don't think too much more is needed to get a good idea of what the plot so far is. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 13:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)