Talk:Jeph Jacques

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
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.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on October 27, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.


Contents

[edit] Automobile accident

Was Jeph Jacques killed in an automobile accident? The sources I have found all seem to cite this wikipedia article, which doesn't seem to have any sources.

I can't find any information either, but I have no idea who this person is anyway. Based ont he information in the article, I did clean up the tenses. Holford 2 July 2005 09:10 (UTC)
I've been in the questionable content IRC channel and it turns out that it is a prank perpetuated by some people who shall remain nameless. The person who started the rumor on the QC forums has the same IP address as the editor on wikipedia who inserted the information about Jeph's death. Toba 2 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)
Yes, it is clearly a quite bad-taste prank but I'd like to know if it was by Jacques himself or not (notice his last post on July 1 in the QC index page about his "eventually final" strip). I don't think he did it; he would've post it somewhere else and not Wikipedia. It created hell of tears in the QC forums earlier, I'll check now again since you say the matter is clearing up... dalegrett 2 July 2005 22:23 (UTC)
Cool - I was gonna clean this page of prankiness myself, but it looks like others got there first (like, in the minute between when I opened the page and when I logged in and tried to edit it).
OK. The Identity of the prankster has been stablished: User:24.167... etc. It seems his identity in the QC forum has also been stablished (wears glasses in his avatar, right?). Naughty Boy! Hope Jacques finds it funny. We didn't. The deaths list from July 2005 need to be cleared, also the QC article. Check also Indie Tits. dalegrett 2 July 2005 22:40 (UTC)
Wow, angsty hipster nerds out for revenge! Whatever next?
...Hamburgers?

Uh... shouldn't the information on his death be removed?

That is just bizarre. The actual article is still wrong, showing the death information, but the data on the edit page is correct. Even a full reload won't get it right. Could this be some kind of database hiccup?

Fixed now, never mind. Or is it...?

Well, it says he died again, and I can say he definitely didn't, because I talked to him on the forums after his death. I think I shall remove such information. 69.138.183.115 14:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leave note about rumour?

Should the note about the (death) rumour be kept ? I think it would be a good idea because im sure some people will goto this page looking for more infomation abou the "death" --2005-07-04 10:10:28 (UTC)

Not if Wikipedia was the primary venue of the hoax, no. That would be enshrining a prank pulled on Wikipedia, and be self-referential to boot.  — Saxifrage | ☎ July 4, 2005 20:24 (UTC)
I think it'd be better to leave it. I understand the concern about Wikipedia's reputation, but I think vandalism and pranks in articles like the such of the Pope's are worse in that sense (or even actual articles -no joke intended, although it'd seem they are pranks- about Reptilian humanoids invading the Earth or any occultist or gnostic or pseudoscientific article). Also, if we were to hold that view of protecting all institutions reputations, they'd be no science nor religion nor nor family (just as examples) anything. Science and religion and family are still beating and kicking despite all the hoaxes, pranks and evildoings. So, I don't find it damaging to the Wikipedia, and I think it speaks well of Jeph Jacques and also it is a notable event about him (making him more notable) that his death was hoaxed. That's why some (including me) had suspected Jacques himself was behind all of it (but he was not, I think) dalegrett 4 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)
It was also mentioned by word of mouth and on Jeph's forums ( and IIRC another web comic ). --2005-07-04 21:57:37 (UTC)
I'm not worried about Wikipedia's reputation when I say self-reference is bad, it's just a general policy here to avoid talking about Wikipedia in articles—it's amateurish and smacks of self-importance. Rule of thumb to avoid self-reference: if Jeph Jacques got an entry in Encyclopedia Britannica, would that article mention the Wikipedia hoax? I think likely not. From what another editor mentioned above, it sounds like this was the work of a single person who didn't actually put much work into it except by saying "he's dead" on IRC and on Wikipedia. Above all, Wikipedia is not for stroking the ego of some prankster. Thus, I still think it should be left out.  — Saxifrage | ☎ July 5, 2005 09:30 (UTC)
The hoax originated on Wikipedia. The prankster edited the wiki first and then created an account on the Questionable Content message board saying something to the effect of "hey guys have you looked at the wiki entry for Jeph lately, it says he's dead." The moderators assumed at the time that it was probably Jeph's doing as he was spending the afternoon with another webcomic artist who had previously faked his own death so the mods played along a little although they referenced a fictional location from the comic Wigu as the scene of the accident. Jeph happened to not check the internet before he went to bed that night and things started to mushroom since he had no knowledge of the hoax and didn't find out until the next afternoon. It was a pretty minor event and not worthy of notation. --209.6.13.99 7 July 2005 08:25 (UTC)

Move to Bad Jokes and Deleted Nonsense? -- 81.79.114.138

Definitely not. Even if it hadn't originated on Wikipedia (which evidence strongly indicates it did), it's not notable. I would urge people to watch to prevent similar vandalism, rather than endorsing it. Superm401 - Talk 04:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not Really a Stub

I love Questionable Content, but how long does this article have to be? The article seems perfectly informative and the length seems perfectly adequate, not sure why it's marked as a stub.

[edit] AfD result

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on October 27, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

— JIP | Talk 10:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DRV of Indie Tits

A recent deletion review resulted in undeleting IndieTits, which has since been redirected to this article. I leave it to discussion here whether any content should be merge, the article should stand alone, or the redirect should remain in place without merge. GRBerry 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guest comics

Is it really necessary to have links to all of the guest comics that he has done?Mynameisnotpj (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Logan

Should we mention that Jeph often refers to Sam Logan as his rival/adversary/nemesis?65.95.112.163 (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to add something to that effect, but I am teh n00bzorz at Wikipedia, and I didn't want it to explode or something. Also, I don't technically exist since I don't sign my posts or anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.59.183 (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)