Talk:1/0 (web comic)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

For a previous debate over the deletion of this article see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/1/0.

Contents

[edit] unexpected

I was hoping for a discussion of why 1/0 is considered to equal infinity...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.177.186.80 (talk • contribs).

Oh. Well, this is about a comic strip instead, the mathematical expression not really being worth an article on its own. And 1/0 doesn't equal infinity in ordinary mathematics, but is undefined. Infinity in mathematics isn't a number, but an indication of unboundedness. Even when it appears to be used as a number, as in the affinely extended real number system, it isn't really because there are a very limited set of operations that can be carried out with it. But what is true is:
\lim_{x \to 0}(1/x) = \infty
There's a very important distinction between a limit and an equality. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that should be:
\lim_{x \to 0^+}(1/x) = +\infty
\lim_{x \to 0^-}(1/x) = -\infty
\lim_{x \to 0}(1/x) = undefined (i.e. the limit does not exist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.107.148 (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] added article on 1/0 the number

tell me if this is appropriate to have both articles under the same name since both have the same name. Also if somebody can please help me out they should create a disambiguation page because 1/0 the webcomic has just as much precedence as 1/0 the number. Thank you, a fellow wikipedian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carbogen (talk • contribs) Revision as of 04:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(I manually added a signature above) It seems the article has now been moved to 1/0 (webcomic).-Wikianon 12:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability assessment attempt

I have added some citations to the article to make it easier to verify, and hopefully to help determine its notability. Here is my (second) attempt at assessing the notability of a web comic, please note I may be way offbase here, and I am waiting for clarification to a question in Wikipedia talk:Notability (web). This article should meet these notability and verifiability criteria copied from Wikipedia:Notability (web) with proposed answers in bold:-Wikianon 12:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content[1] is deemed notable based on the following criteria.

  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
    Proposed answer, online independent sources: Webcomic Book Club Full Reviews; Mike Meginnis review in Webcomics Examiner; Christopher Sunami short overview in Kitopedia-Wikianon 12:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[2] except for the following:
      • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[3]
      • Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.
  2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[4]
    Passes because nominated two years running 2001 and 2002 for Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards category Best Other Genre Comic-Wikianon 12:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[5]
    Proposed answer, possibly fails because outside of its own domain space may have been hosted only on oneoverzero.keenspace.com-Wikianon 12:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    except for:
    • Trivial distribution such as hosting content on entertainment-like sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Discussions of websites should be incorporated (with a redirect if necessary) into an article about the parent organization, unless the domain-name of the website is the most common way of referring to the organization. For example, yahoo.com is a redirect to Yahoo!. On the other hand Drugstore.com is a standalone page.
  2. ^ Examples:
  3. ^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
  4. ^ See Category:Awards for a partial list of notable awards. Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability.
  5. ^ Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais had a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:OneOverZeroJunior.gif

Image:OneOverZeroJunior.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)