Talk:Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Criticism on Dominic Deegan

Should we include a section on some of the more common complaints about Dominic Deegan? i.e., the rape storyline, his supposed 'bad' characterization? Even if we don't, should we include a section about the definitely controversial rape storyline? I mention this in Talk instead of editing first because I feel that this is something that should be discussed before it's added, to ensure it's not too biased in either direction. 64.74.213.62 (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There already was, the usual suspects keep removing it, calling it "personal opinion", even though people have been criticizing it for awhile. Kade (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
If it isn't cited, it is personal opinion. See Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability. And as written, the section isn't encyclopedic in tone but reads like a private blog, see Wikipedia:Manual of style, Wikipedia:Words to avoid, and Wikipedia:NPOV. Any media franchise will have some fans and some detractors, each with their own likes and dislikes, they don't all need to be listed here. -- Noclevername (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I read the section. It's one of the least encyclopedic things I've ever seen on Wikipedia. With the exception of the rape storyline bit, the things listed in it should be integrated into the rest of the article.
The fact that the drawing style hasn't evolved much, maybe into the header.
The "progressiveness" of the good guys compared to the "bigotry" of the bad guys into the World section.
The discussion about Dominic's character should be deleted, and possibly moved to the Characters of Dominic Deegan section.
I'm not going to make any edits to the article yet since I've not worked on it yet, but that criticism section is awful and needs to go. McJeff (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Spellwolves

Added a section on them. it's not very good though, so feel free to tidy up Beefpelican 19:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Races of Dominic Deegan

In light of the new filler illustrating the various races, and how much racial conflict has become and issue in the comic, perhaps its time for a Races section? --75.35.110.139 8:06, 02 June 2007 (UTC)

Go for it Beefpelican 19:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture suggestion

Just a quick thought - perhaps it would be better to include an image from later on in the comic? To put it mildly, the first strip is not particularly representative of Mookie's current style. I think that in the interest of showing what the vast majority of the comic actually looks like, it should be changed. --68.150.43.247 08:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much of a difference. The lines are cleaner, but the style in the first comic looks pretty much the same as the style in the latest comic. --FuegoFish 06:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the first point myself. also, perhaps there should be a seperate section for university staff and students, since they seem to be about to become an important part of the comic 151.197.15.137 20:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ya know, I was just about to ask about that myself. This really needs a new picture... DD's art style has changed (improved) significantly over the years and it would give newcomers the wrong idea about the quality of the art to use such an old picture. Vadskye 18:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Melna loves Luna?

The last sentence in Melna Durnaxe's section states that "It was recently revealed that she loves Luna." Having seen this I scoured the archives of the past year or so and have seen no indication (in my opinion) of this being true? Can someone point me to a comic, or should this be edited?

137.238.60.70 19:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and deleted! In fact, the most recent strips are indicating that she is in love with Stonewater Beefpelican 21:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the author of that sentence was using a broader definition of "loved" than is currently the cultural norm. "She loved her friends", "He loved him like a brother", "She loved her parents dearly", etc. as opposed to the common, purely romantic definition. 24.180.152.215

Bullets for all!

I recently added bullets to the parts of the page that lacked them in an effort to tidy up. it seems like a good idea to me to do that when new stuff is addedBeefpelican 21:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Characters

Can anyone explain me why didn't Luna just smooth with a file her tusks? It can be done with animals so it's not painful and she will look normal.

There is no logical answer whatsoever to why she didn't do anything about it. --FuegoFish 21:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer, but this way I always find difficult to be sympathetic with all those years she was rejected for having tusks, being so easy to remove them, event without using magic, just a file.
According to this comic She says she didn't want to go to an "Alterist." I think her reasons for avoiding them may be the same as her reasons for not filing them. Petrelg 16:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Petrelgirl
But in that comic she didn't give any reason, it just said she didn't want to see an alterist. If the reason was not wanting to use magic because the illusions of her mother didn't work I think she could at least try with the file. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.57.16.138 (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

The reason she didnt get them remioved is she shouldnt have to Rocks Lotus 01:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

And this all matters why? Just felt the need to commentWhstchy 00:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I invite anyone who wonders why she didn't file her tusks to take a file to their own teeth file them all the way down to the nerve endings at the core... then file some more then said nerve endings are exposed... THAT (based on the size of her tusks and assuming they are similar to tusks in animals) is how much she'd have to file them for the tusks to be unnoticable. Such a procedure would, at best, be excruciatingly painful or, at worst, lethal due to shock. By the time it became obvious that she could let them be pulled and replaced with false teeth (carved by Melna, presumably) she was already comfortable with her appearance. Robrecht 15:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

This seems unecessarily harsh and long for an unsourced section- the weasel word "many" is used various times, I would argue that a forum membership does not necessarily represent the majority in any way shape or form. Regardless, there is absolutely nothing to substantiate the use of the word "many". It reads like a rant from a disgruntled fan. (uh, don't know my ip, sorry...[do now-82.46.19.197])

I agree, I've been on the forums for a while and I've never read any criticism exactly like that. Seems more like some fan wanted to get at Mookie and used wikipedia. Deathshroud 08:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Deathshroud

I hesitate to delete the section without anyone else expressing their opinion, but it really seems like it shouldn't be there. (same guy as before.... IP-82.46.19.197)

There are no sources for this information. It is nothing but a forum post with no basis in fact, only opinion. There is no reason for this section to exist. Quite frankly every time I see that section back up I intend to delete it as I would any vandalism. - 71.60.68.149

I disagree. Although the criticism section started as a troll post, I feel that it legitimately belongs in this section if it's cleaned up. Other comics have criticism sections and it's not like this comic is utterly devoid of stainless spots. The revelation of Melna's rape by Stonewater when she was younger plus the feelings she then developed for him later on left a bad taste in the mouths of many, many people. As for the non-sourced information, dude, people are still talking about the rape on the forums to this very day. It was extremely controversial. -Red Viking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.241.147 (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Then it shouldn't be hard to get some citations for it. See Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability. It also needs to be massively rewritten for tone, see Wikipedia:Manual of style, Wikipedia:Words to avoid, and Wikipedia:NPOV. Noclevername (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Passage of Time" running gag

Are there other examples of this gag (last one listed in the 'Running gags' section) beyond the two already noted in the article? If not I think the gag should be removed; the same joke appearing twice (two years apart) shouldn't constitute a "running gag," IMO. Ubermammal 17:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There are many occurances of that gag in the webcomic. Kid Jack
Links would be helpful to prove your point. That "gag" should remain deleted until mroe evidence is shown.--147.72.234.5 11:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Verylong tag

Wow. Just wow. This article has an incredible amount of detail. Enough to actually make it unwieldly. If all of the information is notable enough to exist on the Wikipedia, it should be split off into seperate articles. If it is not, the article should be trimmed dramatically. Even though Mookie apparently approves of the Wikipedia article, it is against Wikipedia policy to go so in depth as to be borderline copyright violation. Pruning the article to have about the same detail as User Friendly would probably be ideal. Otherwise, forking off the character information, as in Characters of Sluggy Freelance would be a good move. EvilCouch 12:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I'm in the mood to go through this thing in depth, but I did get rid of some of the unnecessary "running gags". Several are either a stretch, or are no longer apparent in the strip (like the fish thing)--WingedOutlaw 22:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I've deleted a lot of the characters, several of which are either long-dead (and irrelevant), long-since written out of the plot, or have yet to prove any real importance. Hell, one hasn't even shown up in anything more than a preview yet. I'm also tempted to delete the planes section, as it really adds very little and amounts to an exposition dump from strips that are a few years old now. Can anyone justify its existance? Otherwise I'll delete that as well.--WingedOutlaw 23:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I moved the rather long list of chacters to its own page. (Justyn 07:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

Missing the Forest for the Trees

I just noticed something. Despite the info-dump of a page this is... it says VERY little about the actual plot of Dominic Deegan itself. We hear about what the world is like and get a description of magic and planes and stuff, but there's almost nothing about what actually happens in this story.

I propose a complete re-write, which I'll probably do tomorrow if I'm bored. So much of the current information really isn't necessary, and information that might actually be relevant is excluded.--WingedOutlaw 00:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Some things to keep in mind:

A) Plot pages/sections are often what get pages deleted.
B) Too much of a plot overview can be veiwed as copyright infringment. That is not only against Wikipedia rules, but a crime. So, give a BRIEF overview of arcs.

(Justyn 23:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC))

Actually I'd rather just post the briefest of descriptions as to the plot of the webcomic, and then delete a good chunk of the other information here. Very little of what is currently posted here is really needed to know what the comic is about.--WingedOutlaw 20:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I feel that the purpose of this page is to provide a reference to new readers who don't feel like reading all of the archives. There are a whole heap of characters and long standing jokes, so someone who wasn't sure if they wanted to start reading DD might benefit from seeing it all laid out Beefpelican 19:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Since when did Wikipedia start doing "New Reader? Click Here!" service for webcomics? Not that I disapprove of having the information, but it seems odd that this gets kept while other articles get trimmed and deleted. Natedubya 23:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I support the removal of the Magic section (no particular reason to have that long a section on it), and possible trimming of the World section. Some sort of plot overview (i.e., a basic overview of each arc, nothing too detailed) would be nice and more relevant. Characters make sense. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 05:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Citations/references

As OSborn pointed out, this is a bit light on citations. I've started things off, and will return to do more later. The Schlock Mercenary and Sluggy Freelance articles are pretty good about putting pointers to things, rather than just making statements. -j 128.174.236.211 22:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

And one of the citations that is listed is a rant blog that pretty much a troll of a flame-fest. Not too professional. You'd think the nasty language alone would disqualify it as a "reputable" citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.173.71 (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't notice that. If I had, it'd have been gone 10 seconds later. McJeff (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

SpellCheck

Seriously, people... I cleaned this article up, but look at it!

two "filler skeches" make refrances to a mer-like race intitaled Qualenti. they appear human in basic biological stucture but with fin alterations (webed toes ecetra). and of hobgoblins who appar to be hunter species. not much is known of these races and it is unknonwn at this time how or if they are going to be impliminted into the story

This is what spellcheck is for. These mistakes are easily avoidable, and they get in the way of the topic they're in. Just take a run over it after, OK? That's all I'm asking.

I mean, 'Appar'? 'Unknonwn'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doomender (talk • contribs) 18:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)