Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hahnchen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Tedzee's recommendations 2 That makes sense 3 Some thoughts on Tedszee's comments 4 Policy (oh boy!) 5 A comment on User:Snowspinner/Webcomics 6 statistics

[edit] Tedzee's recommendations

I do not think this is the appropriate place to propose changes in how policy is debated and carried out; this page is supposed to be discussing alleged infractions by a particular user, and not another forum for the webcomics discussion. I agree we should settle on guidelines before conducting more AfD's—I might add, I am doing my damndest to carry forward this discussion in a positive manner at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Webcomics/Notability_and_inclusion_guidelines—but this RfC is not the place for it. Nor is it anyone's place to tell a user who hasn't seriously violated any rules that he can't put things up for deletion—although frivelous AfD's can be shot down, as always.

Incidentally, I seem to recall that Hahnchen claimed that the creation of an article on Tedzee's webcomic might be a violation of WP:POINT, because of the earlier arguments; I don't think it was as petty nearly as Tedzee makes it out to be.

There were some specific proposals on general reversal of AfD's that I will refrain from commenting on here, since they're irrelevant to the page—but if they are discussed elsewhere please let me know. -- SCZenz 01:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] That makes sense

I agree with much of what you've said above, and will plead only my ignorance of exactly how RfCs are meant to be carried out for my defense.

At the same time, SCZenz, I would love to see your policies analyzed and then have the recently deleted comics reanalyzed at a later date with the new points in mind (once again, not to "save" my own comic, as I doubt it would qualify under your proposals, but to put some notable purged comics in that I think deserve a place). --Tedzsee 01:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to reanylzing things in terms of the new guidelines, but I want to make sure it's done via the appropriate process. Once we have consensus on the guidelines, we'll have to look at what that is; I'm not sure either. -- SCZenz 01:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some thoughts on Tedszee's comments

I'd just like to react to the point made about my personal "vendetta" against certain webcomics.

I'd just like to say that my nominations for deletion are never personal. Tedzsee mentioned that he didn't think his comic was all too notable, but had a good Alexa ranking during an AFD debate. User:Hijamiefans was part of the AFD debate, and in violation of WP:POINT, he created an artlce for Tedszee's comic, 8 1/2 by Eleven. Hijamiefans admitted the creation of the page was made to test a point, and can been seen on my talk page.

Much has said, erronomously, I might add on my over reliance on Alexa as a motivation for deletion. In fact, T Campbell even mentioned it in his blog. It's true that I placed too much emphasis on Alexa rank in my earlier nominations, as picked up by T Campbell. But, Alexa has never been the only reason for the nomination, merely a piece of circumstantial evidence, I have placed less and less emphasis on Alexa, but still feel it can act as an indicator for popularity.

Another point, is about the stick man comic. Stick men are an art form, if wikipedia did not have an article for Xiao Xiao, then I'd probably do my best to write one or bring it to attention. The remark about "how hard is it for a stick man to reach 400 strips", was an attack not on stick men, but on the proposed criteria at WP:COMIC that longevity = notability, which some had taken as policy. - Hahnchen 18:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Policy (oh boy!)

SCZenz says above that this is not the place do discuss policy, but I believe that a disconnect between two users' sense of policy caused this RfC -- and a lot of the ones that have gone before. This is a warning bell, to me at least.

I for one care about non-editors' opinions of Wikipedia. And that websnark discussion is very disheartening. This RfC seems to be less about one person's actions and more about what the purpose of Wikipedia is/should be.

It seems clear to me that Snowspinner and Hahnchen don't agree, and that non-editors certainly have an opinion. I think a lot of the time we editors talk amongst ourselves like we are the only ones who care about Wikipedia, and that our views from within Wikipedia are therefore the only opinions that matter.

Is there any sort of formal way we could go about finding out what non-editors want Wikipedia to do/be? --Jacqui ^{★ 19:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)}

My major issue was the implication that policy changes should/could be possible consequences of the RfC, which it turns out wasn't Tedzee's intend anyway. I'm happy to dicuss policy here, although I do think Wikipedia:Village pump or all the pages on Wikipedia:Deletion reform might be more appropriate forums. I do think the fact that the RfC isn't really about Hahnchen's actions, indicates that it's a bit frivelous.

But let's talk policy. I don't think people who aren't currently committed editors, but do have a passionate interest in using Wikipedia to store a piece of information of special interest to them, should have a big say in our notability guidelines. Familiarity with Wikipedia policies and goals, however you end up interpreting them, is vital to participating in that discussion. To include every webcomic would be a clear violation of WP:NOT, and a (likely unwitting) attempt to misuse the wiki. If we gave in to similar groups of passionate internet denizens, we'd have Everything2 instead of an encyclopedia. -- SCZenz 20:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Has noone used E2 since 2002? All of the webcomic articles I've seen deleted, and most of the ones I've seen kept, would probably be deleted on E2 without a second thought.

This is the time in as many days I've seen someone refer to E2 as if it's the place for the what would be a lame stub on WP. It's not. You're welcome to write about whatever you want on E2; what's important there is the quality of the prose. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 20:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

My mention of E2 was unimportant. I should have said we'd have a web directory. I should also mention, before my hastily-written comment arouses ire in other regards, that I welcome new users who are interested in discussing the webcomic guidelines and building consensus; I only object to making Wikipedia notability policy based on what some outside users think is a popularity contest: see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker. (Yes, there are legit votes in there, and the outcome was correctly overturned, but that's not my point.) The great thing about Wikipedia is anyone can edit it, so I don't feel bad if only editors have a direct say in how the encyclopedia works; if non-editors want to make changes, all I ask is they put in the time to understand this place. -- SCZenz 21:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm just griping about misconceptions about E2. I wasn't necessarily commenting on tthe rest of your point. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, clarification based on above conversation -- obviously we don't want non-editors and/or clueless newbies to entirely change what this place is about. That would be wrong, I agree. But at the same time, their views might be important on how we... tweak policy from now on. I think it's pretty evident that the policy does at least get tweaked, because clarification has to be added as people come up with different interpretations, or when Wikipedia as a whole decides that something isn't working well. --Jacqui ^{★ 21:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)}

I'm not opposed to getting input from random people. Make a page explicitly for non-users to throw in their ideas/complaints/suggestions, perhaps? Call it Wikipedia:Ideas or something, maybe. If you proposed that, I'd say sure—I'd even read it from time to time. -- SCZenz 21:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You're talking about a community desperate for attention and recognition. Most webcomic creators are aspiring professional artists, part of a somewhat marginalized subculture in a culture of artists (comic creators, both longform and daily strip) who have long had a chip on their shoulder about being taken seriously. People have their egos invested in not only the success of their own work, but in the subgenre as a whole. This doesn't characterize everyone by any means, but as a community the webcomics community is desperate for attention and recognition.

At what point do you sacrifice things like no original research and verifiability, as well as "Wikipedia is not a soapbox", for this demand? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A comment on User:Snowspinner/Webcomics

Snowspinner, has, during AFD debates posted that his arguments should hold more precedent than others due to his academic work with webcomics. I think we should take the comments made there with a pinch of salt. I am not arguing over Snowspinner's credentials, far from it. But Snowspinner has repeatedly stressed his support of Eric Burn's original webcomic proposal, that any comic with over 100 strips is automatically notable and should/would be instantly kept on wikipedia.

This, I have to disagree with. I'm not studying webcomics for a phd, Snowspinner is. Does that mean that his support of the "100 strips in catalogue = notable" criteria? No, does that mean I am totally wrong? No. As stated in the talk pages of WP:COMIC, I don't think longevity means notability, even if a webcomic expert thinks so.

But I do not doubt Snowspinner's expertise, I see anti-elitism as a problem in wikipedia. There are some recent letters in The Register which concern this. So yes, I would not doubt any changes to a webcomic article that Snowspinner makes, but I do respectfully disagree with his guidelines for wikipedia inclusion. - Hahnchen 19:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I have not stressed support for Eric's proposal in some time. I thought it was an acceptable proposal, albeit not the one I would have made. But if you look at my last few votes on webcomics AfDs, they were overwhelmingly delete - I believe I voted keep twice - Able and Baker, and Life on Forbez. My criteria in voting on AfD, roughly, are "Does this comic have any artistic, critical, historical, or other note that separates it from the average Comic Genesis comic." Snowspinner 20:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

How much time is the "some time" since you last stressed support for the "100 comics = notability" proposal? It was only proposed less than a year ago, and you strongly supported it then. Have you disavowed your previously strong support for "100 comics = notability" recently? Or are we to assume you don't support it any longer merely because it's been "some time" since you last publicly supported it? I've seen you as recently as Oct. 22 trying to equate notability with "If the comic develops to over 50 strips of length" on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fat_Cat_Online, so it doesn't surprise me that other editors would still think you support the "100 comics = notability" proposal. Also, if your criteria on AfD includes "Does this comic have any artistic ... note that separates it from the average Comic Genesis comic" then it sounds like you are trying to be an art critic. Casting your vote on the Fat Cat Online Afd based on your opinion that the "comic has a reasonably good art sense, and has a certain indy comix groove to it that is at least somewhat promising" carries as much worth as basing your vote on an obscure bar band based on whether you think they have a good beat and you can dance to it. Critical and historical note can be supported with WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Verifiability; your personal determination of artistic note is inappropriate per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and Wikipedia:No original research. Dragonfiend 20:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are, but I point out that the Fat Cat Online AfD, I also voted delete on, meaning that you're taking my comments heavily out of context. Snowspinner 20:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

That was Dragonfiend; I'm sure he'll sign his own comment when he comes back and sees he missed it. In any case, your comments in that AfD did imply that you're willing in principle to judge notability on artistic merit—is that incorrect? -- SCZenz 20:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that was me above; sorry I forgot to sign. Note to Snowspinner: There's a history tab at the top of every page that you can click to see who left a comment they forgot to sign. That's probbaly what SCZenz used. Note to SCZenz: No harm, but I'm a "she." I guess I type like a man? Dragonfiend 20:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

No reason or excuse for my assumption except statistical likelihood and dislike of misusing 3rd person gender-neutral pronouns. I apologize. -- SCZenz 20:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] statistics

I spot checked the latest of Hahnchen's webcomic nominations for deletion and they are 1 no-consensus and about 10 deletes (all but one of them unanimous).

If the nominations are being accepted, especially when they are often unanimous, then we can't really complain that he's nominating them. RJFJR 16:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)