Talk:Erfworld

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. See comments.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[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)

The other potential confirmation would be the domain name records indicating that Rob Balder (author of Erfword) has registered the hamstard.com domain; however, domain name records aren't all that permanent and include info (e.g. address) that seems like an unnecessary privacy issue. SMBrinich 21:13, 15 April 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)

Got the infobox picture up; working on cast pictures. Gitman00 15:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
EDIT:Okay, I've uploaded the cast pictures. Not sure if they're too big, but I'll leave them at full size for now. I figure the biographies of the characters will grow to fit the pic sizes. Thoughts on developing a separate cast page? Gitman00 16:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I never noticed this section. Just keep in mind that fair use images are to be used only where necessary. i kan reed 17:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I notice the pictures were deleted, with a note on breaking the page layout. Possible compromise: We can restore the pictures but make them smaller. I'll go ahead and do this if I don't see any objections in the next couple days. Gitman00 19:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
EDIT:Never mind. After some experimentation, I discovered that making the pictures small enough to fit within the article's layout would make them too small to be meaningful. I'll wait until the character biographies expand a bit. Gitman00 18:00, 29 April 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)

[edit] Original Research

There's all kinds original research, fan speculation, and unsourced synthesis going on in the characters section. I'd say no more than one or two sentences per character are actually attributable. I know if I stubified the section it'd be reverted, so I'm taking my concerns here first. I know it won't help stop more crap from being stuffed in, but I've tagged the section. i kan reed 18:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"There's all kinds original research, fan speculation, and unsourced synthesis going on in the characters section." Examples? "I'd say no more than one or two sentences per character are actually attributable." Actually, it looks to me as if no more than one or two sentences in the entire section lack a clear attribution link supporting the factual assertion made. That being the case, the tag is clearly inappropriate. SMBrinich 20:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's start from the top and I'll give every example I can
  1. "a mysterious tool of divine origin, resembling a toy hammer". The reference does for that line doesn't even begin to assert that it resembles a toy hammer. This one is sufficiently obvious that this is not a concern, but no primary source, nor any secondary source, nor anything states that it looks like a toy hammer. This is the interpretation of an editor.
deleted the "toy hammer" part Gitman00 15:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Not the appropriate response. The concern is unfounded. The resemblance to a toy hammer is obvious, as I am sure i kan reed would even admit. If a cite is truly needed, use the toy that the hammer was modelled on: http://www.supercoolstuff.com/items/misc/nv680.htm RBalder 07:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Point taken. It's a pretty nitpicky point by i kan reed, admittedly. Now that I look at it again, it seems the concern is not with the statement itself, but with the reference. Gitman00 21:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. "Stanley objects strongly to being called a "bad guy"" again a case of obvious implication, but it's still an interpretation. The author never said this. No review ever said this. This is simply not how primary sources are are supposed to be used.
It certainly is. If this assertion is "obvious," then its veracity is not in doubt, only its significance. It does not need to be proven via a secondary source, because there is no reasonable question as to its truth. For example, if someone added "the characters communicate via top hats which are black," then the color of the hats would not need any more cite than the page on which the hats are depic ted. Because the fact that the hats are black is not self-evidently notable, it would not add to the quality of the article and should be edited for that reason, but not because it fits some creeping definition of original research. RBalder 07:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. "warlord she summoned (Parson) did not match Stanley's expectations". The concern here: it interprets a character's motivation. This is a serious problem on numerous wikipedia entries on fictional works. An encyclopedia is not an English paper. Also, again I'll indicate that the lack of secondary sources is a problem.
If there is a problem, the problem is with policy and application thereof. Interpretation of what is actually going on in a fictional work is not a serious problem with article quality in most cases. In the Britannica article on Hamlet, for example, the editors see nothing unencyclopedic about saying, "Polonius is a pompous courtier whose meddlesome and garrulous nature eventually brings about his death." If you were editing that article, I take it you would scream bloody murder (pun intended). As relates to this article, unambiguous characterizations of the actions and words of the characters in this comic do not violate policy when there is no reasonable chance the editor is misinterpreting. RBalder 07:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. "His name is an anagram for "Protagonist". This one asserts signifigance to this fact that is not substantiated by any piece of fiction nor comment from the author. Merely being true does not warrant its inclusion in this article or section.
It certainly does. It's not original research to note a self-evidently true fact about the comic. The anagram is clearly intentional on the part of the author (Do you doubt that? And wouldn't it be even more remarkable if accidental?) It is worthy of note because it is not immediately obvious to a reader, yet knowing it increases the understanding of the subject. It sheds light on the author's intent for the character, and serves as a concrete example of the subtle style of the work. Removing this fact degrades the quality of the information in the article, which is not the intent of the policy you cite (or any editorial policy, though many WP policies are misapplied). RBalder 07:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. "She has an unrealistically oversized sword." Whose claim is it(going to WP:ATT here) that the sword is oversized?
Added reference Gitman00 15:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
That's not an appropriate reference. The concern was attribution. I've seen the sword in question, who's idea is it that that is "oversized"? who said that the size of her sword is even moderately relevant? As far as I can tell, no one but the editors who put that into the section did. Thus the original research concern. i kan reed 18:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It is an entirely appropriate reference. Read the "Strengths" section of Jillian's bio: "Unrealistically Oversized Weaponry". Gitman00 19:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm getting tired of listing examples right now, but this is the kind of thing I mean. A lot of things that editors think is important is going in and 10 thousand equivalently reasonable statements could easily be made. Now, I'll give you that erfworld is really young and secondary sources are just lacking right now, but that doesn't make the unreasonable synthesis ok. I severely doubt anyone can do anything about these concerns except by cutting right now. I just want it to be clear the particular ways this article can improve when secondary sources are available for referencing. i kan reed 21:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

These examples you cite are wholly reasonable synthesis. Characterizing them otherwise is a misinterpretation of policy, and demonstrates a willingness to put your own views about editorial policy ahead of the worth of the information in the article. Please think before removing information you believe to be true and relevant, merely on the basis of how you perceive it to be sourced. That is not the purpose of the policy, and it is not helping anything.
As you may guess, I am the author of Erfworld. I have neither created nor edited this article, and won't. I have not personally directed any of the editors who did. But I do wish to participate in the discussion of the article. I created this account to do that.
If i kan read has some suggestions as to other ways that I can protect the true assertions made by editors of this article, perhaps by keeping a separate blog in which I personally verify the claims, then I am open to them. I just consider that silly and unnecessary, considering he doesn't even dispute the accuracy of any of these claims, merely their sources. I am certain that i can reed and I share the same goal for this article, namely that it contain high-quality information which is true, accurate, significant, encyclopedic, and verifiable. RBalder 07:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I apologize Mr. Balder, for what may seem a personal slight, but secondary sources are important. You'll also note I removed the OR template already. You really shouldn't do anytrhing for the specific purpose of providing information for wikipedia. The reason the OR claims come up is editors shouldn't be the ones deciding what kinds of details are important. There's no doubt A meg's worth of details in the erfworld story already. Randomly picking a few out is what is concerning. For older things, there are numerous noted published materials discussing the subject matter by experts. If one looks at the articles on say... Penny Arcade and scrolls to the references section. Most of the sources aren't comics. The reason I put the OR template on the section in the first place is the desire for this article to be the best possible article on erfworld there can be. If I notice something about the article that needs improving and I don't know how to improve it myself, it's going on the talk page or as a template to help guide other editors who are perhaps more knowledgeable in the subject matter. I think that the addition of the template improved the quality of the article especially thanks to the help of User:Gitman00. I won't hesitate to point out that you have a conflict of interest in this matter. There's a whole world of reason why original synthesis isn't allowed, but that might be something that'd be better discussed between 2 people. Suffice to say, please don't be angry with me for wanting to improve the verifiability and attribution and accuracy of an article about a webcomic I like from a good author. This is about the article and not about erfworld. i kan reed 21:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
At some point, the editors always will decide what is important. You have to do so in order to write an article about any subject. It seems to me that you are creating disputes about the importance of particular facts where none should exist, by means of invoking the original research rules (which are an abominable failure for new media subjects, anyway). If the choice is between the article being stripped of a fact that I know to be significant, or having to provide some kind of dispute-settling outside verification that the fact is significant, then I'd rather jump through the hoops. I'm one of two final authorities as to whether or not something about Erfworld is significant. But as I say, that would not be necessary if you were not calling into question the source of common sense observations such as "the Arkenhammer resembles a toy hammer." Why would you invoke the most stringent applications of policy in order to remove true and significant information from the article? Is that the goal of an editor? Does a cop pull over everybody who goes 56 mph in a 55 mph zone, or does s/he exercise some judgement and apply enforcement of the laws, in a sensible attempt to support the ovearching goal of public safety? The overarching goal of every policy on Wikipedia is to provide quality information. The sad fact is that editors here quickly decide that the policy is the point, and fight the wrong fight, over and over again. I can't change that, but I can protect this article. Maybe that means I'll have to publish a periodical printed summary of significant developments in Erfworld and register it with the Library of Congress. I'd like to keep this sensible, but it wouldn't surprise me if I had to do something like that. Wikipedia is not a sensible institution by any stretch. Can we get on the same page here, i kan reed? RBalder 00:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Trying to get on the same page. Take a look at the five pillars of wikipedia as they are called. Lack of original research is actually one of the "unbreakable" rules. I'll give you that this article had:
  1. less original research than most articles of the same age.
  2. presently lacks decent secondary sources.
  3. it's often good to avoid bureaucratic nonsense.
and those are all good points that have been made on thousands of articles, but as wikipedia is edited anonymously, these(specifically what defines synthesis and original research and et al.) are the kind of guidelines and rules that serve the purpose of creating an idea of what is acceptable and what is not. Wikipedia isn't a random collection of information. It was never intended to be. It was always intended to be an encyclopedia. A lot of what I'm trying to say about this is covered under Wikipedia:Trivia, which is not policy, but rather an essay explaining how trivia relates to policy. The answer I could give to your example is "it looks like a toy hammer, so what? Why should that matter to someone reading the article." Citing a lot of policy is not going to get me on your good side, but pointing you to what wikipedia is not regarding this particular subject doesn't seem too far out. Wikipedia isn't a random collection of information. There does have to be a reason why something is included.
I'm not a cop. You're comparison is inapt, because rather than dolling out punishment, all that anyone is trying to do is improve the article. I wasn't trying to argue with anyone, and I'd prefer not to argue with you. I saw something that needed some correction, and flagged it. This happens with other articles from Science to God to even Master of Magic. Noting room for improvement, even minor, pushes articles to be better, not worse. Yes my concerns are minor, but that doesn't mean that they can't be fixed. I appreciate your concern in this matter. I'm no stranger to backing down when I'm wrong, but this issue is functionally already settled. I noted something I perceived as needing improvement for other editors. Then it got fixed after a little discussion. Yes it's a trifle, but that's hardly an excuse not to fix it. If you have any other concerns, especially about how I personally am interpreting wikipedia policy, it'd probably be better to leave a message on my talk page. Looking forward to tomorrow's 'klog(if there is one), i kan reed 01:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'd like to point out that there is a large gap between "Original Research" and "Blatantly Obvious". Your examples are not specifically referred to (in the sense that no one has yet said "hey, that hammer looks like a toy"), but that does not make any of them less obvious. What you are doing is attempting to follow the letter of the law to the point where you are entirely ignoring the purpose of the law. If you were actually a cop (Which, incidentally, it should have been rather obvious was not the intent of RBalder.) then following the letter of the law is more to be expected; but as you so stated, you obviously are not. And just as you are not a police officer, the rules of Wikipedia are also specifically made to make the purpose of the law more important than the word of law. --Human.v2.0 00:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ansom and Hamster Confused

In the character description of Lord Hamster, it is mentioned that "He is a skilled leader, but severely lacking in modesty. His crest is a radish. He carries the Arkenpliers, though he is not attuned to them, and thus cannot use their full abilities." Obviously, this is supposed to be about Prince Ansom. If someone could separate these out and make a section for Prince Ansom, it would be for the best. -- 155.33.148.136 03:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A glitch in the coding for one of the references screwed up the page formatting and combined the two. It's fixed now. Gitman00 17:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] List of Jokes

Unanswered query This question or request has not been resolved
Remove this tag when this is resolved.

I would like to see a list of the various jokes, either as a separate list, or threaded throughout the page. There are many jokes that I did not figure out for a long time, and thus I am sure I am still missing many. For example, until I read this Wikipedia entry, I didn't get the joke of the name "Bogroll"; I suspected a joke of some sort, but I was thinking it was a pun on "blogroll" or something.

Here are a list of jokes I think I have found:

Wanda Firebaugh -- in the "Elmer Fudd" dialect that turns "dragon" into "dwagon", the word "fireball" might come out "firebaugh". Thus "Wanda Firebaugh" sounds very much like "Wand of Fireball", a classic magic item from fantasy games.

Prince Ansom -- last name sounds like "handsome".

Jillian Zamussels -- last name sounds like "the muscles", suitable for a barbarian

ORLY birds -- based on "O RLY?" snowy owl

cloth golems -- the giant teddy bear and other plush animal units

magic words -- to make something disappear into a hat, "hoffa"; to make it appear again, "livingston"... but the magic word used to summon Parson Gotti, "scruby" was so obscure I had to use Google. (Answer: scruby) (I still wonder why the sound effect for Parson arriving was "PLOT"?)

I assume the sound is "PLOT" because it's obviously a plot turn.

visual gags -- the "portal room" was clearly based on the transporter room from the original Star Trek; when Parson was summoned, everything looked like TRON...

Perhaps some of this material should be in the main article, but I think ideally there would be a separate list, so people who want to try to spot all the jokes could avoid reading it. -- Steveha 06:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, this sounds like it would be more at home on a fansite or the official forums. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
A list of jokes doesn't sound encyclopedic to me. That would be much more suitable for a fan site. However, an example or two of the type of humour in the comic might be a good idea. It gives a reader who doesn't know the comic a good idea of what the comic is like. -Sensemaker

As a total offside, I'm very fond of the fact that naughtymancy/numbers magic, the cutesypoo equivalent of evil arcane, happens to be called "deletionism." One or two examples sounds like a good idea, would have to be fairly limited to keep it from growing fast. (Not that growing fast is a reason not to have any, just slightly more troublesome.) --Kizor 01:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a more discriminating list of "References to Popular culture" (such as the Knights In Stanley's Service) might be more appropriate? -Tar7arus 10:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I normal edit science articles but I am not at all paranoiod of having to much stuff on an article, hence I concur that a section on the jokes, or more correctly references, and it does not fall under trivia. I wanted to see if I missed something. Geek-references section must be added.

  • in the article vinny is said to be a reference to someone but I think it is without a doubt to Vincent valentine a vampire in final fantasy 7!
  • Archons are an angel race in D&D, hence Charlies' angels
  • Leroy Jenkins is a World of warcraft youtube star
  • In star wars galaxies (before Wow), crap was not filtered (whereas nazi was) and became widely used

Minor things like Elvis=titans (there is a cult that worships elvis as a god, but I think it is not that), Saline IV (a smart joke, but he explains it just in case) and that Prince Ansom rides a carpet but rolled up (it seems just a joke nothing more complicated) etc may be exessive and would get a tag by those editors whose minds I will never comprehend (actually I do, talk to any Corporate department staffmember in any industry) Thanks to whoever writes the list --Squidonius (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

For everyone's info: quoting Wikipedia:Trivia_sections: There are a number of pervasive misunderstandings about this guideline and the course of action it suggests:

This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all. This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format. This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies. --Squidonius (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I started a tread in the forum as people there might have more. [1], What is an erf? --Squidonius (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that for *any* pop-culture references to be included, you'd need confirmation from the authors or a review from a "reliable" third party source, or you will have people removing it per the no original research policy. Yes, even if it's a completely obvious reference. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magic

Nice work on this section, but considering we only have specific data on a small number of sections of magic isn't this catagory a bit overly large? Is it stands, the magic section is over one-fourth of the entire wiki but only six of the "schools" have been mentioned past their location on the axis. Perhaps a table showing the positions on the axis would be better, with sperate mentions for anything actually known? --Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried my best to condence it as much as possible, but I don't know how to make or really work tables outside of putting the information in them, so I'll have trouble helping on that part; if you can make a table for this, I will fully support you. But I must mention that tables already exist on the second Klog page, so we might put those in the page as images as opposed to just making tables. I'm not sure however, if we should just put them up or ask Rob and/or Jamie before doing so. (Justyn (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

I agree that this section has a low information-to-length ratio. Perhaps simpler one-sentence listings for each class (e.g. "Hocus Pocus incorporates the element of Life, and is divided into Findamancy (Erf axis), Predictamancy (Fate axis), and Mathamancy (Number axis).") followed by specific comments on the disciplines of magic that have actually been described in the story would be more suitable. SMBrinich (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I figured out how to make tables (to a degree) and I think these might work:

Life Motion Matter Class
X Hocus Pocus
X Spookism
X Stuffamancy
X X Eyemancy
X X Hippiemancy
X X Naughtymancy
X X X Stagemancy
Clevermancy
Erf Fate Numbers
Hocus Pocus Findamancy Predictamancy Mathamancy
Spookism Turnamancy Dollamancy Weirdomancy
Stuffamancy Dirtamancy Changemancy Dittomancy
Eyemancy Lookamancy Thinkamancy Foolamancy
Hippiemancy Flower Power Signamancy Date-a-mancy
Naughtymancy Shockmancy Croakamancy Deletionism
Stagemancy Hat Magic Carnymancy Rhyme-o-mancy
Clevermancy Luckmancy Healomancy Moneymancy


What does anyone have to say, should these replace any classes or disciplines that we have no specific information on? (Justyn (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

That second table is a perfect example of what I meant; Ihave zero clue as to the best design for such a table, hence why I didn't make one. Something like that would be a lot better than the pages of scroll we have right now. Then a simple paragraph or two containing anything specifically known at this time. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I concur that the second chart would be a VAST improvement to the long list of relatively unimportant magic types. Also, given RBalders comments on this very page, do I sense a barb tossed Wikipedia's way in the "Deletionism" magic type? Ig8887 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)