Talk:Neglected Mario Characters

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.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 24 February 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Addition of other Comix

Should we add Lord of the Wings and possibly others to this? ChunkyKong12345 (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Launch date

The article says September 6th, 1998, whilst the sidebar says 1997. Can anyone investigate? --Shinyplasticbag 05:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The site started on September 6th, 1997. The comic series started in 1998 in honor of NC's first anniversary. No one knew how big the phenomenon would become. Crazyswordsman 17:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I used to hang out at SSS when I was a kid and the fact that because of this article, a bunch of my dumbass friends from there have references to them in a Wikipedia article is depressing me. Sinatra Fonzarelli 03:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Have you talked to anyone else about this? CaptHayfever 06:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the sidebar - SPKx 12:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pic Count

Sean, you've got to get rid of at least half of these pictures; there's just too many, and they're artificially lengthening the article. We don't really need samples from every NC series. CaptHayfever 22:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Done - SPKx 03:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Length

As you may have read on the deletion page, I have flip-flopped regarding the deletion of the article, but I created a version of the article a version of the article that I believed to be an appropriate size for the subject. Since it has been verified that it is the originator of the sprite genre of webcomic, I feel it deserves an article, but due to the subject's profound obscurity, I really don't think it needs an epsiode list and a list of characters. A short description sufficies in my opinion. Sinatra Fonzarelli 23:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


I agree that the episode list wasn't needed, but the characters make up a large part of NC I feel they should stay (maybe without images). If you look at the page now, and how it used to look, you will see that it's much more compact now. - SPKx 23:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Good compromise. Crazyswordsman 05:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Neutrality

The SomethingAwful link is a relevant external link. Nothing says all links have to be positive and continuing to delete it shows a non-neutral point of view. Pandaman87 20:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or was it about fishing? Friday (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, like half of it is. The link is at the bottom.Pandaman87 20:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Non-neutral material is not allowed on wikipedia. Didn't you know that?. - SPKx 21:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Only positive links don't make something neutral. Negative and Positive make neutral.Pandaman87 21:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Neutral means unbiased. - SPKx 21:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
SA is biased against NC, and you're biased for it. I'd say that turns into a healthy neutrality.Pandaman87 21:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:EL says: "On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first." Wasn't there already a link to an article on a video game site that gave a positive review of the comic? If so, both should be included. (Especially considering, within the world of Internet culture, Something Awful has extreme significance. Articles on different subjects should be held to different standards.) Personally, I think both links could be removed. Sinatra Fonzarelli 21:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

We've had external links to sites that are critical of the subject matter many times before. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this particular link, but check out Scientology#External_links - there are all kinds of critical links there, as well as official scientology links. Friday (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

3rd Opinion: I don't think the link qualifies with WP:EL for inclusion, specifically because it falls under the following category of links not to include, "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view." --Hetar 21:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The link is clearly an opinion, and anyone who is familiar with Something Awful will know that it's opinion's aren't meant to be taken for face value. Chances are that Dr. Thorpe's opinion on NC will be read by more people than NC itself, and so while it might not be from an "expert"'s point of view, it is suitable for this subject. I see nothing wrong with this link, as it gives another opinion about NC's value. This article is otherwise positive, the link serves to balance that out. Xath
Did you even read the 1up.com link? It's far from positive. As for the article itself, it's pretty neutral to me. SPKx 21:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The 1up article clearly isn't positive, but it does present to us an NC that has a valuable contribution to web comic culture. The SomethingAwful link presents the other side of things, an NC that is completely irrelevant. I think they balance each other out. Xath 21:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd say keep the link, even though I'm an NC fan. I've read what's in the link, and it just seems to be satire and good-tasted humor, nothing more. On the other hand, the description is more anti-Mario than anti-NC. So I'd say it has very little to do with NC if anything. Crazyswordsman 23:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I also moved the link to the bottom of the External Links. That's a good compromise, no? Lighten up, guys, and let's all give up some of what we want for the better of Wikipedia. Crazyswordsman 23:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Sprite Comic Claim

I noticed that there are still people who want solid proof that NC is the first sprite comic. The fact is, we can't provide that proof. All we can say is that NC started in 1998, while all the other sprite comics I know other didn't start for at least one or two years later. We can't prove that it's the first, but it also would be hard to prove that it's not. So, just leave it be. - SPKx 21:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't state what's true, it states what's verifiable. (I actually believe that the 1up article is a reliable source). Sir Crazyswordsman 15:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It's worth a try I guess. - SPKx 20:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The 1up article was written after this article, meaning we may be entering the circular logic of someone placing an unverifiable claim into a wikipedia article, that wikipedia article being used for a source on another site, and then that site being used to justify the original unverifiable claim on wikipedia. I don't see 1up.com as a relaible source for this, I'm suspicious of why we don't have a claim of "first" for a comic started in 1998 until late 2005, and the claim seems like the type of claim no one could ever realistically make. Without knowing everything ever posted on every web site ever, no one can claim that any particulr site provided any type of content first. That type of thing is just impossible to measure. I think the best we can say is that, by virtue of its start date, this is an early sprite comic. -- Dragonfiend 21:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, however, I should probably state two things:
  1. When Sprite comic was written way back in the day, a sentence in the first version said something to the effect of "The first sprite comic was Neglected Mario Characters...," which they COULD have used as the source. Also, they probably used several sources, double checking each.
  2. We can't say Bob and George was first (this is a common misconception among sprite comic fans that even David Anez denies), as it is clearly verifiable that NC existed before B&G
What IS known, however, is that NC is the longest running active sprite comic. That would be a fair compromise. Sir Crazyswordsman 02:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
No, we don't know that either. Again, without knowing everything that has ever been posted on the internet, no one can realistically make such a claim. For all we know, somebody posted a Pac-Man sprite comic somewhere on a BBS back in 1984, and has continued posting them in obscurity to this day. Also, keep in mind that we don't write articles on what we think is probably true (that's original research), but instead we write about what can be verified through reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 03:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
My B&G claim still stands. Sir Crazyswordsman 15:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
How about we just say "arguably the oldest", as is done in the [Epic of Gilgamesh] article. Since, after all, without knowing everything that has ever been written, no one can realistically make a claim to know what the oldest piece of literature is. For all we know, some ancient sumerian chiseled his own work of literature before Gilgamesh was written, and we haven't found it yet. If we add that one word we're golden. Eoseth 02:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Worth a shot - SPKx 23:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This an interesting issue. As far as I understand it, and have always understood it, Neglected Mario Characters was the first sprite comic; however, there simply is no way to independently verify this, as there obviously is no literature on this topic. But even if there was literature on this topic, it would be just as reliable as the independent research we would be conducting in this article, and therefore dismissable. Unfortunately, that not only leave us with no information about the validity of this "first sprite comic" claim, but no information about anything concerning this comic, as all information about such internet phenomena would have to be independently researched. In other words, if you are going to hold the "first sprite comic" claim to such a high standard of verification, then the entire article must be held to the same standard - and I'm sure you all know as well as I that this article would therefore cease to exist.
I think that perhaps it would be fair to claim that Neglected Mario Characters is "the first modern sprite comic." What do you think? Brash 09:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple Sprite Comics

Am I the only one angry with he fact that Wikipedia calls NC a sprite comic when it's MULTIPLE sprite comics? - Kennercat

Well, all of its coimics revolve around the same characters, so it can be considered one comic. Joizashmo 02:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
NC is more a series of multi-part episodes than the more common "daily strip" for of web comics. SPKx 04:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Comix Section

Is this really needed? There was something similar before and it resulted in complains that is made the wiki page too long. - SPKx 02:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope. I'd say get rid of it. Sir Crazyswordsman 21:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
NOW IT IS TOO SHORT! Please put back the comic section. ~ A. Guest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.29.2 (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Image:NCbanner.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 (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)