Talk:The Order of the Stick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review The Order of the Stick has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
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.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Quotes

Do we really need the quotes? If people want to see the jokes, they can follow the link and check out the comic itself. I think this section should be removed since it has no factual relevence. At minimum, it should be moved to wikiquote.--JiFish 20:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

In addition these quotes will be continually added to as the series goes on, bloating the article. Plus, the text doesn't do justice to the jokes. :) I think the quotes section should be replaced with some links to comics that have relevance to the article. (Like Penny Arcade.) My first post has been up for four days and nobody has replied to it. I can only assume this means nobody has any objections. I will remove this section if nobody objects in a day or so. --JiFish 22:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Adding direct links to a couple of good examples of the typical OOTS comic seems a very good idea. I'd do it myself, but the website seems to be down atm.. MMad 01:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Published Collection(s)?

"While it is principally published on the web, several collections have been published as books." Isn't there only one published collection? I may have missed the supposed second, but I don't think so. :) --Jen Moakler 00:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

No, only one book. --JiFish 11:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Two books, actually. Dungeon Crawlin' Fools, and On the Origins of the PCs. -- BRC

Third book's been announced on the site. 84.70.213.75 13:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers

Does anyone else think rather than using spoiler tags on the Characters section, we should attempt to remove as many spoilers as possible? After all, we don't have to spoil the plot to describe the characters. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:44, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to summarize the characters briefly as they were at the beginning of the comic (with no spoilers) and then fork the bulk of the character text to a seperate page marked with spoilers? 171.72.5.226 20:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Lanky Bugger

I've removed some of the more blatant spoilers from the main page's Characters section. The spoilers can be included on the individual character pages with appropriate tags. Jefepato 03:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this contract WP:SPOIL at least a bit? (That is, the use of spoiler tags, not trimming down individual character entries -- those definitely are supposed to be short and have been getting long lately.) --GargoyleMT 13:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belkar's Alignment

If Belkar was evil, wouldn't Miko recently have figured it out, even with Belkar using his lead shield to hide from Miko.... Just a thought--Azathar 04:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The entire point of that lead-sheet is that he can hide from Miko's Detect Evil Spell. Why would he want to hide from it if he wasn't evil? Miko isn't stupid, she is highly suspicious that Belkar is evil, that's why she has cast "Detect Evil" on him more than once. Thank goodness for that lead-sheet. Belkar's evil alignment is well established. Just take a look at the Giant in the Playground discussion boards. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:54, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
I don't tend to read discussion boards, takes way too much time to sort thru them, and remind me too much of usenet. Plus, boards aren't cannon. I'd still say chaotic neutral (with evil tendencies), but that is my opinion.--Azathar 15:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
After reading the following forum Why is the ranger evil? I'm still not convinced, but, I am not going to start and edit war over it, and will leave it alone, though I still think CN is more appropriate.--Azathar 16:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Rich himself has stated that Belkar is evil.
Cool, can you provide a link to that, so I can add it as a reference? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Maybe Belkar is only Chaotic, as in the original D&D rules.... LOL--Azathar 07:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I assume by the "LOL" that you aren't being serious. Belkar is Chaotic-Evil Period. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the LOL means I was not being serious, BUT, technically, he is Chaotic ______, as it hasn't been said yet in the comics that he is actually evil. But, I agree, I now think he is Evil, just wonder when Rich will admit it in the strips.--Azathar 01:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Probabily at the same time as confirming V's gender. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed! :)--Azathar 16:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

id say hes evil, baised upon this[1], but thats just me

Reiterated over and over, here[2]'s the author declaring Belkar is CE. -KiloByte 20:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Although his alignment was once in dispute, it has since been confirmed by the creator of the strip both through explicit statement ([2]) and through events in the comic itself ([3] and [4]) that Belkar is chaotic evil.

Huh? "Once" when? I'm surprised this is an issue at all. Hasn't it been clear beyond all doubt that Belkar is evil way back since strip 11? --Maggu 15:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough, the GiTP forums were once rampant with "Belkar is Chaotic Good" topics and they still crop up with readers aware of the Giant's statement that Belkar is Chaotic Evil. 171.72.5.226 20:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Lanky Bugger

As fun as this topic may be to talk about, there are forums for it, and this isn't one of them. As lanky bugger said, yes, there have been no less than 10 forum topics popping up to discuss it, so use those.

This sure is one of them, since it directly affects the wording of the article... --Maggu 08:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not well-aquinted with D&D alignments. However, it is obvious that Belkar likes to kill and torment things. He also has a tremendous thirst for vengeance. In that sense he is evil. He does not, however, care if what he torments and kills is good or evil so he is not evil in an ideological sense. Most of the things he kills are certainly evil.

Belkar is discribed as a psychopath in the article. Sometimes the word psychopath is sloppily used as if it was essentially synonimous with serial killer (it isn't, most psychopaths aren't even murderers). In that sense, the word would indeed be an adequate discription of Belkar. It is clearly erroneous to discribe Belkar as a psychopath in the clinical meaning of the word as defined in PCL-R Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). Belkar is not charming, he has not a particularly inflated sense of self-worth, he is no more prone to boredom than the rest of the party, he lies often but lies to achieve a goal and not as a pathological liar, he is manipulative and has no sense of remorse, his emotions are deep (albeit a bit binary as V recently pointed out) as opposed to a psychopath's shallow affect, he is not particularly economically parasitic, he does have poor behavioural control but is not particularly promiscuous. He is capable of long-term planning, is only impulsive when it comes to anger, he is irresponsible and is not criminally versatile (he sticks to murder, assault, torture and abuse). Psychologically it is much more adequate to say that he is a murderous sadist. Therefore it is a rather unhappy that the text on Belkar actually links to an article that describes psychopathy in the clinical sense. The linked article describes something Belkar is not. Therefore I suggest the link and/or the word psychopath is changed.

Sensemaker


I changed his description to "an erratic and vicious, yet lovable killer" which is accurate I believe.--Something unpredictable 08:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. The above debate should be entered into evidence in the "Alignment As A Concept Is Full of Crap" case.  RGTraynor  18:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor char lawyers

I'm not sure that the lawyer that Belkar hired was one of the named lawyers. Does someone have a confirmation of this? --Syrthiss 21:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It might be better if we don't name the lawyers at all. "Lawyers" should surfice. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, the lawyer that shows up [3] looks the same as one of the previous lawyers ([4] and [5]), so I assumed they were the same guy. --Pentasyllabic 23:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it's a statement that all lawyers look the same...--Azathar 04:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
There are only two lawyers in the land. The third is Celia.

[edit] Elan's Intelligence

Elan has "OK Intelligence"? You're kidding, right? Elan is as dumb as a box; that's been established. This needs to be changed. Calion

Fixed. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elan's Alignment

I've altered the information on the main page to list Elan as being either Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. Elan is described in the character write-up in No Cure For The Paladin Blues as possessing "inherent goodness", which I consider good enough to confirm him as being of good alignment. Bards cannot be lawful - I think Haley even states that at one point, making Elan either Neutral Good or Chaotic Good for the time being. Any extrapolation from his mother's alignment or Nale's would seem to be too close to the dreaded Original Research to include. --Tailkinker 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belkar vs Miko

In the upcoming combat that is sure to happen, who do you think will win? I'm rooting for Belkar.--Azathar 17:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages aren't forums. --Pentasyllabic 17:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denial of Service Attack

The Order of the Stick page has been the target of a Denial of Service attack or some such lately. People haven't been able to access the page. Does this have any relevance to the comic?

I wouldn't say so, a lot of comics and website have down time, it's not really noteable. If it goes on for a while longer (say another couple of weeks), or it esculates into an issue (the author complains about it and takes action)- but not quite yet.--Oppolo 05:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haley's cryptogram

Has anyone figured out the cryptogram that Haley is speaking in? If so I think it should be added to this page.Unklelemmy 21:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's different in each strip. Lots of people are posting translations, usually within an hour of a given strip going up. You can find them on the official message board for OotS, ENWorld, the newsgroup rec.games.frp.dnd, and probably other places as well. PurplePlatypus 22:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
This thread on the official forums has all the translations. Phlip 01:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing line

I just took out

Durkon's spells and abilities show him to be at least level 11.

from Elan's paragraph. Either this line has the wrong name in it or it was put into the wrong paragraph, and I don't know which. Bryan 05:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it was in reference to Durkon's ability to use multiple fifth level spells per day (shown once or twice, and explicity asserted by Belkar in the latest strip as I write this). I put a similar sentence into Durkon's section last night. PurplePlatypus 22:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I just modified it to suggest that Durkon is level 12 - In order to cast Raise Dead three times at level 11 he would need a Charisma of 20, and no Charisma boosting item has ever been mentioned. Azezel 16:52 02 MArch 2006 (UTC)
It's Wisdom, not Charisma, and it's conceivable that Durkon has a wisdom-boosting item. Just because they haven't mentioned it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Plus, level 11 characters have had two ability boosts.

[edit] Avoid specific stats/levels

Speculation about characters' exact levels, feats, and stats should probably be avoided, unless there are direct statements about them in the strips. See http://www.giantitp.com/FAQ.html#faq6a - Burlew purposely keeps these things fuzzy so as not to restrict his storytelling. Key line: "As a rule of thumb, I tend to think of them as being around 7th-9th level or so". Zompist 19:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We aren't speculating: we're going through things that are either expressly written (i.e. Belkar is CE alignment, or that Belkar and Vaarsuvius are the same level), or can be conclusively shown to be accurate (i.e. if V can cast x amount of spells per day of this spell level, he MUST be at least level Y).⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, these things are speculative, unless they're either mentioned in the strip or in statements from Burlew (e.g. Belkar's alignment). Deductions from the rules aren't conclusive. One reason is because they might contradict other things Burlew has said (e.g. his statement about character levels above); another is that the campaign the strip represents might have house rules (this possibility was explicitly mentioned in one strip); yet another is that characters' statements may not be entirely reliable. We know for instance, that a statement by a character about V's gender is just that character's opinion. Maybe Belkar's wrong about how many spells Durkon can cast. Zompist 19:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, drawing conclusions in this way probably violates the WP:NOR rule. Stick to facts. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Branch off a separate article for the characters

As is the case with many webcomic articles, the character section is crufting up with trivia and excessive plot detail. Consider forking off to Characters of the Order of the Stick or something like that, which could contain the detail, and then streamlining the character section here to just the basics. For examples of other webcomics that have done this, see:

It's not the most elegant solution, but the end result is a sleaker main article. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I have added a {{splitsection}} tag. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree; the section is getting absurdly long, and I doubt there's any hope of keeping people from making it exhaustive. Zompist 20:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. The main article is being cluttered up with minor characters. While these are important to the plot, etc, they aren't necessary to be in the main article overviewing the series itself, nor is the detail therein. Keep the main article down to brief overviews of the Order itself, and put everybody else, and more expanded descriptions in a seperate article.

Agreed. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done it. The character page was the easy part; I just plopped the whole thing in there and was done with it. Writing a brief, spoiler free summary for each of the primary characters on the main page, however, was really tough. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well done, though. It's hard to summarize a character in a line, but those are really good. Zompist 18:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Lets keep the character section on the main page to the members of The Order of the Stick proper. They're the only ones who have been in every story line, after all. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 04:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity

I've changed the characters section of the wiki to reflect the fact that Durkon possesses the Girdle, not Roy. Comic 249 clearly shows Roy leaving the belt with Durkon. The implication, obviously, is that Roy doesn't want it and coupling that with Durkon's question about whether or not Roy wants to keep the belt suggests Durkon still has it in his care.

171.72.5.226 20:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Lanky Bugger

[edit] Tundra

Someone just said that, because there's a tundra in the far north, this is an indication that OotS takes place in the Forgotten Realms.

The mind boggles...

Needless to say, I reverted it, seeing that this was either trolling or a good-faith but singularly ill-considered edit. PurplePlatypus 02:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rich Burlew Article?

"Rich Burlew" redirects to this page, which means that there is no Rich Burlew article, right? Someone should correct that, and I'd be inclined to take a crack at it, but I'd like to make sure I'm not duplicating anyone's efforts or contradicting some policy decision that Rich Burlew should redirect here. Any thoughts? RolandStJude 23:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • It's been done, and was deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Burlew. That doesn't mean you can't do it, but it won't be given much leeway. Basically, it has to start off as a shining example of all that's good in bio articles, or it will probably just get reverted back to the redirect. You might want to see if you can put something together on Comixpedia, and then move it over here when it's polished. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
He's got published work (although that article needs to be edited) as a game designer, completely seperate from Order of the Stick. I don't think he'd have trouble surviving AfD a second time. --Starwed 11:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw someone started a new stub for Rich Burlew, and I jumped in..I had a few references that I had found when adding third-party ref's to this article that weren't of use here, but made for good writing for a biography. Ig8887 12:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thog is a half-orc, not goblin

Per Rich Burlow himself [6] (search for "Reply #7" from "The Giant") Thog is a half-orc, not a goblin. Characters of the Order of the Stick got it right. Alan De Smet | Talk 00:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giant in the Playground

"Giant in the Playground" redirects to Order of the Stick. Since the Giant in the Playground page has a lot of non OotS media, shouldn't it rate its own page? 208.165.251.16 17:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I may have to agree. Especially now that there's another comic being hosted on the site. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] alignments

i added in roy and belkar's alignments, as i feel they're unanbiguous, either by direct statement from the author, or in-strip refferences (roy's admited to being LG).

please dont start a revision war; arguments go here:--Dak 15:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural references

OOTS is rich on cultural references, so I was wondering whether it'd make sense to list them all in an extra article? For example, in strip 388, Elan and Thog meet the PC party from Final Fantasy VI and in 390, Julio Scoundrél refers to Elan as his padawan. :) The only trick is to avoid too much OR if we decide to pull it off. %) --Koveras ☭ 14:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea, but my main concern is that there are an awful lot of them and many of them are fleeting, to say the least (like the padawan reference), so we're getting dangerously close to the indiscriminate knowledge problem. For now, I would suggest that any really significant references, those that are more than a single phrase or one-panel joke (like, for example, Warthog's School or the Final Fantasy characters showing up) could be referenced within the relevant articles rather than actually providing a specific list of them, and the quick references probably aren't necessary. --Tailkinker 18:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

In addition to not having references, the tagged section makes claims that could be considered non-factual deductions regarding the source material, as well as being written with a bit of in universe perspective. It needs cleanup, i kan reed 14:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed your original research tag - if you had followed the character name links to their individual character pages, you would see paragraphs upon paragraphs of referenced source material that substatiates the claims. It's not OR. It's also kind of silly to have a link to a page AND a reference mark to the same page, just to make it look like it has valid references. Timmccloud 03:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me for being curt, but that is utter nonsense. The assertion, for example, that Belkar is the group's id represents psychological interpretation not referencing an actual psychologist, nor stated by the creator. This is the very definition of Original research, and is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is no place for personal liteary analysis. Rather than engaging in an edit war, I'll wait a day or two for a reply before I replace the tag. With regard to your assertion that it's silly, it is completely appropriate to notify readers of all kinds of innappropriate content. Being unverified is one thing, being one (or a group) of editor's analysis of a situation is another, both tags are needed. i kan reed 04:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with that - the phrase is certainly completely unnecessary for Belkar's description. Consider it gone. The rest of the descriptions seem accurate to the portrayal of the characters in the webcomic. What else do you consider problematic? --Tailkinker 07:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Other examples in this short section: "Playing close to type" on Durkon. The assertion that Elan survives mainly on luck. Definetly the assertion of Haley's "Heart of gold". These statements all represent things that editors want to beleive is true. I understand that editors want summaries to be elegant and beautiful, but an encyclopedia calls for dry and factual statements sometimes. i kan reed 16:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Well, I'd certainly say that Durkon is portrayed as being reasonably close to a stereotypical fantasy dwarf, so I would say that "playing close to type" is a not-inaccurate description in his case. I would agree that the suggestion that Elan survives on luck is flawed - he seems to go through life relying on his considerable charm more than anything else. Haley has shown an altruistic side on occasion - agreeing to assist in the rescue of the mud farmer from the ogres when there was no profit in it for her, for example. Whether this necessarily qualifies her for the "heart of gold" description is questionable, but I think that her altruistic streak is worthy of mention at least. --Tailkinker 18:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't misunderstand. I'm not saying these things are wrong or incorrect, just that they are original research that don't represent the view of an authority on the subject. i kan reed 18:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the individual articles for the characters, and I can't find the sections you are referring to. Belkar's alignment is the only one that has any citations. I think if the alignments are removed where they don't meet WP:V, and some descriptions are rephrased so they're WP:NPOV, the section will be better. --GargoyleMT 15:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
There has been a tremendous amount of excellent editing now done to these short descriptions, all of it improving the article. Your specific issues have been addressed. Has your original research issue been resolved? Timmccloud 00:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It's now on par with the rest of the article, which is no GA canidate, but hopefully we'll get it there. i kan reed 00:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added an original research tag to Fictional World, on the paragraph about the world's ethnic diversity. The terms "black" and "white" have specific meanings in this context, corresponding to "African" and "Caucasian," respectively. All we know about the characters' races is that some have light skin, and some have dark skin. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Roy (or anyone else) is "black" as Western society defines it, nor is the term used anywhere in the comic. If there is a reference, please cite it. Otherwise, the paragraph should be removed. Gitman00 17:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I've changed the wording to exactly what we know: That Roy has dark skin, while others have light, and no one differentiates between the two. That should make it not OR anymore. I still think it's worth mentioning, because obviously the author chose to portray it that way and does so consistently; in any group of humans, there's always a variety of skin colors. But I wrapped it more in information about the different regions. I wanted to cite "On the Origin of PCs" for reference to the Western Continent (Haley talks about it on page 10) but I'm new to this and I haven't figured out book citations yet.BadIdea 19:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Good work. If you want a book citation, wrap <ref></ref> (since there's a <references/> tag at the bottom of the article) around a Template:Cite book reference ({{cite book |arguments}}). Preview may not do much good, but it may not hurt either. --GargoyleMT 23:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Good?

It's never been explicitly stated in-comic, but consensus on the forums and (I think) the Class Levels and Geekery thread is that Durkon is Lawful. Should it be changed to Lawful or at least listed as unknown?JeffKo427 15:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Everything in the article should be verifiable with reliable sources. This overlaps at least somewhat with the discussion of the "Original Research" tag one section up. --GargoyleMT 15:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this is something that needs to be addressed, particularly, as you say, with regard to the point above about original research. The article currently gives precise alignments for five out of the six members of the Order, but, as you say, Durkon's alignment has never been explicitly stated, so it most certainly shouldn't be listed as if it had been. So, of the six members of the Order, whose alignments do we know for absolute certainty? Namely either through the subject being directly addressed in the comic, or through statements by Rich Burlew?
We know that Belkar is Chaotic Evil, courtesy of Mr Burlew. Roy refers to being lawful in issue 162, which would seem to be good enough to put him down for Lawful Good. We know that Elan's mother is Chaotic Good and that his direct opposite, Nale, is Lawful Evil - is that enough to definitively peg Elan as Chaotic Good as well? Has there been anything more definite? Should we put "Chaotic Good" with a 'probably' or an 'almost certainly' qualifier? I don't recall anything off the top of my head about Haley's alignment, other than she's not evil and can't, by definition, be Lawful. She would seem to be an unknown, like Vaarsuvius. And Durkon, while I personally agree with the forum consensus that he's almost certainly Lawful Good, remains unspecified as well.
Haley states that she is 'Chaotic Good (ish)' during her period of aphasia. You can check through the link under Haley's cryptograms further up the talk page. Oni no Akuma 08:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It is, however, more than likely that I've missed something somewhere along the line that will allow us to narrow things down. Can anyone else remember anything useful? --Tailkinker 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I think only direct statement in the comic or by Mr. Burlew are "good enough". Synthesizing information about Elan's family to arrive at an alignment does constitute WP:OR, by my reading of the guideline. Wikipedia is intended to be a repository of facts (or "verifiable content") established elsewhere; "almost certainly" or "probably" are words that may very well denote material that doesn't belong... --GargoyleMT 17:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


Slightly unrelated note--I've linked all the alignments to the DnD alignments page, just in case anyone with absolutely no knowledge of either DnD or OotS stumbles across this article.JeffKo427 19:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Reading the On the Origin of PCs book, Durkon's high priest describes Durkon thusly. "He so Lawful, if I command him ta stay away until I send fer him, he will". That would seem like a pretty definitive statement from a character who knows Durkon very well. Good enough to narrow his alignment down to Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral? (Let's face it, he's Lawful Good, but we need something definitive on the Good part). --Tailkinker 17:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been stated by the Giant that all party members are Good, save Belkar, though I don't know exactly where. Given the quote you list, I think that's at least good enough to list his alignment as "probably Lawful Good." Thoughts? Walther Atkinson 20:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You could say "Good", if you can find the citation you were looking for. (I'm not sure how useful this partial information is, though.) Everything on WP is supposed to be verifiable, mentioned explicitly elsewhere. Synthesizing information is "original research", which is inherently non-verifiable. The word "probably" has no place in any WP article (with some exceptions, of course). --GargoyleMT 16:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

It seems to me that the article is missing a Plot section--a crtical part of any fictional work's article. Is there a reason that one has not been created, or is there one and I just haven't noticed it? +JeffKo427 10:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the odder webcomic articles - the plot is spread out across the character pages, as opposed to a central location. So you are right, there is no single "plot" spoiler, there is about 6 of them... Timmccloud 13:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erfworld

Since both GiantITP and Rich Burlew redirect here, I thought this would be a reasonable place to have a discussion about Erfworld. Is there a reason to not create an Erfworld wiki page? I have heard that one has been created multiple times, and then deleted. Was the page just not stellar enough? If so, why didn't some wiki gardeners come along and make it so? I'm sure there are other reasons, and if you (especially the deleters) could list them here, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --BonnySwan 00:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say hold off on creating the article. I don't think Erfworld would pass WP:WEB all on its own quite yet. i kan reed 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
So I guess Rich Burlew/GiantITP doesn't count as an online publisher, then? (I know it's not my job to cite all the "notability" references, I'm just curious.) But I think I see your point; is one of the problems that Erfworld is just not established enough as a comic yet? (Trying to increase communication between the page creators and the page deleters, here.) --BonnySwan 04:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not exactly a pro at this, but it seems to me that Erfworld is worthy of mention. The creators are experienced from other comics (e.g. Partially Clips), a LiveJournal community of supporters already exists and the strip has the support of The Giant In The Playground, whose webtraffic surpasses marvel.com. It seems notable enough to me that if I heard someone mention it I would be disapointed in wikipedia if it didn't answer my questions. Obviously that's hardly an official argument consistent with the wiki guidlines (I suck), but I would argue that if a full article isn't warranted then some kind of reference is still needed. Perhaps a stub article? Or a subheading within the Giant_in_the_playground or Partially_Clips articles? Such a preliminary reference could then be expanded as notoriety grows. anyway that's my 2 cents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathan Usmar (talk • contribs) 12:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Launch Date?

Just wondering, when exactly was OOTS made? 2003 is not very specific... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.114.161 (talk • contribs) 11:18, February 27, 2007

30th September, 2003 (or possibly 29th, depending on timezones). [7] --Phlip 01:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that should go in the infobox then. I'll update it. Gitman00 17:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I noticed that the character articles seem to basically just recollect the series' entire plot

Wouldn't it be more efficent to have a seperate article for a plot summery (or better yet just a short summery on the main article) and focus the bios on the character's traits rather than their role in the plot?--Bisected8 19:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really - the character articles only detail those parts of the plot that deal specifically with that character; this is in keeping with character articles generally. It makes a lot more sense to give character histories in their articles, rather than requiring somebody wanting to know about the history of a particular character to wade through a long plot summary to pick out those bits pertaining to that character. --Tailkinker 22:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
But if someone wanted to know the history of a character in that much detail they copuld just read the strip.--Bisected8 12:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If someone is reading the article, they probably want a quick summary-style. Wikipedia articles are there so that you don't have to do your own research (i.e., read the comic). 67.42.238.48 02:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly--Bisected8 11:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be SOME form of plot summary, however brief, in the main article. Right now, you could read the entire thing without knowing that it starts out in a dungeon with the OOTS trying to kill Xykon. For all that article says, the plot could involve the OOTS and Xykon competing in an worldwide scavenger hunt on rocket-powerd canoes. Which would be an awesome comic, but is not the comic that we're discussing. Even a one paragraph summary would do. Ig8887 08:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crayon Effects

I have to disagree with a recent edit removing the mentioning of "crayoning" effects. It is extensive in the print versions of oots that are not part of the online comic, and I direct anyone interested to the bullet points in the middle of this page of the Stick: Start of Darkness. So this will become a reoccuring thematic element in the comic, and deserves the paragraph that I have re-established. Timmccloud 22:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving request

This page needs a good archiving - 35kb of talk is too much - anyone up to the job? Timmccloud 22:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category

I'm a little confused - why have we suddenly gone from having an Order of the Stick category, which could neatly include everything, to having an Order of the Stick Characters category, which excludes the main page itself and the locations page?

Unless there's a really good reason why somebody did this, I'm going to change it back. --Tailkinker 14:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If a category disappears, the easiest way to find out what happened to it is to go to its page and use the "What links here" link in the toolbox on the left side. The category was up for discussion on April 30th, and they decided to delete it: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 30#Category:Order of the Stick. --GargoyleMT 12:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, okay, fair enough - ta muchly. Missed that discussion somewhere along the lines. In that case, surely the new category is equally inappropriate and should be eliminated? --Tailkinker 16:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Eh, I suppose so. The core argument is that the OotS articles are all interlinked enough that navigating them doesn't require a category. And that argument would seem to hold regardless... but I'm just some guy, ya know? --GargoyleMT 13:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Right, well, we've got a precedent that the Order doesn't need its own category at all, we've got good interlinking and we've got the template that lists everything anyway. Ergo, the Order of the Stick Characters category is redundant and can be safely gotten rid of. --Tailkinker 14:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monstrous Skin Colors

It's stated in the "Fictional Worlds" section that "Some 'monstrous' species have variation between races, such as between the dark green goblins and the orange hobgoblins; others, like the uniformly orange kobolds, do not." As stated on the Hobgoblin (Dungeons & Dragons) page, they are goblinoids, but separate from goblins, much as bugbears are. Since there are no "hobkobolds", or any other variation of kobold present in the OotS comic, it's logical that kobolds have a uniform skin color. As hobgoblins are distinctly different from goblins, and skin color is clearly being used to show this difference in the comic, it seems inaccurate to equate them with the variations among human and demihuman races. Unless someone objects I'm going to remove the "monstrous species" portion of this section. -Atamasama 16:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comic #501 shows us that the previous assumption in the fictional worlds section--that all Southern people have the same skin color--is flat-out wrong, as we see several Southern nations that Hinjo visited that have darker skin. I revised the language. Ig8887 01:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Publications and Games

OK, so just delete my contribution to Publications and Games, even though it CLEARLY states that these are coming out in Fall right here: http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=23501&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0. I'm just gonna go put them back. Unless, of course, someone wants to be an annoying ass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XIIIStruggle (talk • contribs) 09:16, June 23, 2007

Added your link as the citation for the book's release date. Ig8887 07:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


Supercollider: A Webcomics Mash-Up

The publications section is missing The Order of the Stick's inclusion in the one-off webcomic collaboration for San Diego Comic-Con 2006 that was Supercollider: A Webcomics Mash-Up.

For details of the product, see http://www.inksandwich.com/news/p2_articleid/83

Also see The Giant In The Park (giantitp.com) News page of 9-Jul-2006 for OOTS-specific info about the product at http://www.giantitp.com/index2.html

For details of the not-so-successful sales outcome, see http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10151&p=854071

--J-- (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability and sourcing concerns

First off, let me be perfectly clear -- I love The Order of the Stick. It's a great strip.

However, something I've noticed while browsing the related articles is that there are zero reliable third-party sources to establish notability. As can be seen here and here, those are significant concerns that often lead to deletion.

Can we find some reliable third-party sources to add to this article and the character articles?

-- Powers T 00:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This article mentions that it was published in Dragon Magazine, a print publication that is certainly notable as the first and longest-running roleplaying publication ever. It also mentions several awards the comic has won, as well as the ISBNs of published books. I'm not sure what else there would be, other than reviews from other sites/magazines. Ig8887 01:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Reviews in magazines would be the best possible choice because it would help assign cultural relevance rather than just having plot summary as the article is now. i kan reed 02:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Would linking to the website version of an article from a print source qualify? I can find reviews from The Onion, Time Magazine, and Comic Buyer's Guide (all print magazines), but I can't figure out which print issues they would have appeared in (and I strongly suspect the Time.com blurb is only on their website). Their online versions are readily available, though. I'll try to write up a section using these either way, and if it's not sufficient, maybe someone else can track down the print issue numbers.Ig8887 06:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I added a Critical Reaction and Awards paragraph, with lots o' links to sources online, print, and online-but-from-a-print-publication. I also added a line early in the article about its ranking in the top 10 most read webcomics, according to a survey (that includes Alexa rankings).Ig8887 09:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Comic's Schedule?

It seems to me that a whole paragraph detailing what the comic's schedule was at various points in time is pretty pointless. The current schedule, "Three a week without warning", is listed in the info box and referenced to GITP's news site. What the schedule used to be, complete with vague mentions of Rich's health problems with no real information, isn't that important. I deleted the paragraph. Ig8887 09:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Three a week" is the nominal schedule, but one a week is closer to the reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.67.23.49 (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, well, that would be Original Research, now, wouldn't it? I mean, unless a reliable source had compiled an average of comic updates over X period of time and so on. The listed schedule is three-a-week on average, that's what should stay in the article. Ig8887 (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Since I just added a History section, this bit of history now has a place to reside. Thus, I've restored it (though in a less POV manner, I hope). --Ig8887 (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional World to Locations article?

Maybe I'm going overboard, but the last three paragraphs under "Fictional World" seem like they belong in the Locations article, rather than on the main page. The first two paragraphs describe the nature of the comic, while the last three describe the nature of the planet on which the comic takes place. Anyone agree we should move them and make the Locations article a more comprehensive, "World of OOTS" article? Ig8887 07:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Getting to Good Article status

OK, so I've been editing this article heavily for a while now, adding a ton of references and real-world context. I'd like to ask anyone else who still monitors this article what else would be needed, in their opinion, to try for Good Article status? I requested an assessment over a month ago from WikiProject Comics, and haven't heard back yet. The only thing that jumps out at me is a plot synopsis, which I probably will add soon (but hesitate for fear of it being too long). Are there any other glaring omissions? --Ig8887 (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've submitted this article for a peer-review from the WikiComics Project; the discussion is here. If this doesn't result in some comments, I'll relist it on the main peer review page. --Ig8887 (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SYNOPSIS

I'll do that. Give me a day or so.... -doomender —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doomender (talk • contribs) 23:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I came here to post my attempt at it before I saw this! Well, if you have anything essential that I've missed, I've managed to whittle it down to only five paragraphs. I really, REALLY think it should not get much longer than that, because a lot of fiction articles get crap for having too long of a plot section, but I think some recitation of the plot is necessary for the article to be complete. --Ig8887 (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh. You've got it pretty good. Nicely done. Doomender (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] durkon-good?good!

durkon is cleary good. why? in strip 11 ( http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html ) he hit be 'Unholy blight' spell, and become somwhat unclear. the spell ( http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/unholyBlight.htm ) causes it to be sickened for sometime. durkon get sick=he is good!and we know he lawful, so...

             a.r.koffil  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.37 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that Durkon s certainly Good, it is impossible to know for sure in that panel if he has been sickened, or merely struck by damage. Therefore, anything short of an open declaration of alignment by the character themselves is considered Original Research here. Durkon has never (to my knowledge) declared his alignment. --Ig8887 (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

thor's Alignment is good-he had some archon or angel as his servants (strip 40, 485 say that they good). we saw people Unconscious from nonlethal damage, and this not same. but Roy get sick after he learn he know les from elan in somewhat, and this seen same. sorry on the english

                    a.r.koffil  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.36 (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
That's still Original Research. Drawing conclusions based on images that imply something without stating it is practically the definition of OR. Thor's alignment doesn't matter, because in D&D, clerics can have different alignments than their gods, and whether art "seems" the same or not is not conclusive. This is an encyclopedia, we need to stick to verifiable facts, not conjecture, or the whole thing becomes worthless. --Ig8887 (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Character Pictures

I think we need pictures for the main characters. Agree/disagree? Doomender (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, each character has their own article, which has a picture. Adding all of those in here would be quite a clutter, and the banner at the top already illustrates them (and the thumbnailed strip shows Miko). I'm not sure how much value is added by inserting an additional 10 images to one section. But if someone thinks they can do it without disrupting the flow of the page, go for it. A picture of Xykon and Redcloak and the Monster in the Darkness together could be appropriate for the Antagonists section. --Ig8887 (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Celia

Should their be a page for Celia? She is an important character, more important then Hinjo, and possibly Miko, who both have pages. Epass (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to argue against her having her own page, but she's definitely less important than Hinjo or Miko. As of today, Miko has been in the comic 68 times, and Hinjo 56 times; Celia trails them with only 33 appearances. But if you think you can write an entire article based on what little we know about her, go for it. Likewise, I'm considering adding a blurb on both Hinjo and Celia to the main article's character list, when I get time. --Ig8887 (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fancomic Links

To the editor who added the links to fancomics: I don't see any benefit to this article served by calling out the names and links to two barely-related comics that are themselves clearly non-notable. It smacks of advertising by trying to slip URLs into an article on a popular comic. I'll grant you that the avatar/fancomic phenomenon is unique enough to OOTS to bear mentioning, but there are many such fancomics, and probably more to come. When one of them manages to establish itself as notable, maybe we can mention that it began as a fancomic for OOTS.

As far as mentioning the server delays, I don't see how that is particularly encyclopedic. It may or may not be true on any given day, there's no real citation we can make for it, and Burlew may buy a new server tomorrow for all we know. It's MAY be a characteristic of the GiantITP website, but hardly a defining characteristic of the fictional work Order of the Stick, which is what this article is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ig8887 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)