Talk:List of The Order of the Stick characters

This... really needs work.

The Elan and latter half of the Belkar articles are just sad, not to mention (in the Elan one, anyway) POV. The article claims that "I'm a pinapple chunk" and whatnot is one of his most famous quotes, when, in all honesty, I can't even remember him saying it. We need to seriously re-write this, and consider a spoiler tag for all the OotS readers that aren't up-to-date.

I have the time and the knowledge-- at least of the comic, though I'm quite the novice about D&D itself. Can you be more specific about individual parts of the article that are bothering you? ekedolphin 05:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Elan's quote refers to a one-shot comic involving a gelatinous cube; the last frame shows him floating inside of it and claiming to be a chunk of pineapple.

A Spoiler tag isn't necessary here. See Wikipedia: Spoilers

Sesamehoneytart 01:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Those assasins

Shouldn't that dwarf and the shadow dude from the hotel be added?

Flumph Reference

The article states that Flumphs are the "only lawful good monster in original D&D". Flumphs do not appear in Original D&D, but appear in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (1st Edition) in the "Fiend Folio". Further, Gold Dragons are also Lawful Good in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (1st Edition) as are a number of other creatures. I believe the reference should read:

"Two representatives of the only lawful good monster in the 1st Edition Fiend Folio were introduced as inhabitants of Dorukan's Pit, which was full of monsters that were never updated to 3rd Edition."

Vaarsuvius' Gender Debate

While Vaarsuvius has been, on occasion, referred to as male, (s)he has also been referred to as "sir or madam", [1], and in the same comic strip was referred to as both "that elf chick" and "the elf dude". [2] See also the strip in which Belkar expressed his own ambiguous opinion about the subject. [3]

It's been made pretty clear that no one really knows whether V is male or female. When someone refers to V as "he" or "she", they're simply going by what their interpretation of hir gender identity is, not what hir actual identity is. ekedolphin 08:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's more than just not knowing. Vaarsuvius' gender has been deliberately ambiguous nearly since the beginning, and as such, the character should be referred to androgynously whenever possible.

When speaking casually, the series creator uses "he". This is not meant to suggest his perceptions, but rather it was chosen because "he" has less key presses than she, (s)he or sie.

I suggest that we either use the awkward Sie and hir notation, use both male and female in an alternating manner, or just bite the bullet and admit that for now, Vaarsuvius is an It. –Gunslinger47 05:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And also because "he" is the proper gender-neutral personal pronoun in the English language on those rare occasions when one is needed... Rogue 9 13:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Haley's cryptogram?

Does Haley's speech use the same letter substitution scheme throughout the whole ordeal? If so, what exactly is it, and maybe that should be included in the article? --Cyde↔Weys 16:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Afraid not, no. Every comic has a different key for the cryptogram. See the OoTS forums for an EXTENSIVE thread of 'What Haley says' which includes all the keys for the code. --Tim ^{(talk), (contribs)} 20:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

To save work: What Haley Said Compilation--Auric (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Haley (disambiguation)

misdirected page

eh, theres also a helay on Lewis Zimmerman that is unrelated
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.20.122 (talk • contribs)

Problem solved, and then some. Check out the Haley page in all its glory. –Gunslinger47 06:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

On Elan's relation to the rest of the party

In Haley's description it says: "some of the other party members can't stand Elan". That is an exaggeration. Roy often finds him next to worthless and terribly annoying and has expressly stated that he would be glad to be rid of him. Vaarsuvius occasionally finds him irritating. Belkar likes him, Haley loves him and Durkon has yet to express an opinion. That makes Elan more universally liked in the party than Belkar or V. I am changing that to "Roy usually and Vaarsuvius occasionally finds Elan's stupidity terribly enervating"

I am also adding a comment about Elan being a demonstration of the fact that if your charisma is high enough you do not really need to be good at anything else.

Sensemaker

Durkon likes Elan. He has called him "tha heart o' the team" and was willing to listen to Haley's plan to rescue him. He also seemed concerned about both Roy and Elan after they were attacked by assassins.

The User with Pi as Their Number 11:06

Nits

1. As discussed extensively on the OotS' boards, Belkar's Wisdom must be 10, not 7-10. (If it was 7-9, even the Owl's Wisdom would not allow him to have the ability score necessary to cast CSW.)

2. Also as discussed on the OotS' boards, V's ability to scribe a 7th-level spell does not necessarily mean V is 13th-level. (There are no level requirements for scribing.)

In any event, all of this fails WP:OR and the boards do not constitute reliable sources. JoshuaZ 20:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

character quotes

Are they really necessary? It's not like character personalities can be summed up in any single quote... --Pentasyllabic 23:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you; they're not really necessary. They don't provide any accurate summation of the character, particularly as, as single quotes, they have to be taken out of context. --Tailkinker 06:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Length

I'm thinking that this article's getting pretty long these days, inevitable given the number of characters that have now appeared. I'm thinking that we should split off certain characters onto their own individual pages, namely a seperate page for each member of the Order, and a page for the Linear Guild, which is quite a sizable section. Unless anyone expresses any counter-opinion in the next day or so, I shall do this. --Tailkinker 09:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Stereotypes

A great many characters in the story relate to stereotypes, particularly those in fantasy fiction and RPGs. Some are stereotypes (V -the quitessential intellectual, Elan the dumb blonde), some are counterstereotypes (Belkar the homicidal halfling) and some do their best to fit in the stereotype role (Xykon). I have pointed out this explicitly in many character descriptions. Perhaps it should be added as a separate heading what characters refer to what stereotype. -Sensemaker

Other examples may include the counterstereotype of Roy Greenhilt, the intelligent fighter, as well as Elan's evil twin bro Nale who, like Xykon, tries to fit in the stereotype role (that is, the role of evil genius) that he has been cast in. - Numbuh3.14

Bandit Clan added

How could this article be missing Samantha's bandit clan? That plotline was 20-some-odd comics long and one of my favorites! Regardless, I've added the clan information under Minor Characters. If you think it needs any improvement, discuss. --Smoke Rulz 22:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Miko Bio.

Miko is many things, but not exactly stereotypical. Paladins are stereotypically often pleasant and urbane. Miko very probably has a charisma score of at least 16 based on combat analysis in Rich's fight descriptions and the strips, based on use of Lay on hands, Smite Evil, and Divine Grace. She does not regard the OotS as her 'party.' The party never states that all paladins have a stick up their ass. Declaring Miko has an entire tree up her rectum HAS to violate NPOV guidelines. Haley is not, in fact, decisively greedy, if reports of her father's imprisonment are to be believed. There is no evidence Miko considers Durkon an enemy prior to her encounter with Xykon. Of COURSE Windstriker remains loyal and aids her in combat. He's a *class feature.* All paladins mounts also have unusual intelligence and are capable of understanding speech. There is no evidence that all non_Belkar OotS party members are Good. Added a minor section on Xykon's motives in permitting Miko's escape.

82.141.243.217 16:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Monster or Creature?

Noticed a bit of to-ing and fro-ing on the title for our friend under the Hello Goblin umbrella, regarding whether he should be referred as "The Monster in the Darkness" or "The Creature in the Darkness". Seems to me that we should try to come to some sort of consensus on this, simply because the character's linked to from a couple of other articles, and if the title keeps getting changed, it's going to foul up those links.

Personally, I'm not terribly bothered which one we pick; my choice would probably be to call him "The Creature in the Darkness" on the grounds that that's the name that he's listed under on the "Cast of Characters" page in the No Cure for the Paladin Blues collected edition - that's presumably Burlew's name for the character, so it would seem sensible to use it. On the other hand, "The Monster in the Darkness" is still a perfectly accurate description, and it's also what the current links point to, so it would be somewhat easier to keep it that way (not that changing the links would be hard, however).

Any views? --Tailkinker 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care, I just wanna know what it looks like and who it is!!! --Das654 20:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The OOTS board game also refers to the character as the Creature in the Darkness, so I would bet that's the official name. My question is: Where did the idea that its a "Hello Goblin" umbrella come from? It's never mentioned in the comic, and it looks exactly like "Hello Kitty" to me. I'm looking at it in the printed version, and it's clearly a white cat face with a triangular nose, three little black whiskers on either side, and a red bow. There's nothing "goblin" about it, unless someone knows something I don't. BadIdea 11:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, if you look very closely, you can see a white goblin face with fangs protruding from its smile. 87.192.28.39 11:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm looking at the printed book (No Cure for the Paladin Blues), and it's not goblin fangs. It's three small lines on either side of a nose, like whiskers. The art on the website is 72 dpi, while the printed book is at least 300, and it's a much, much crisper image. If the only basis for the term "Hello Goblin" is an interpretation of the online art that is refuted by the printed book, then I'm editing it out. If someone who is looking at the printed book wants to dispute it, fine, but judging from a low-res image when a high-res image is easily available is ridiculous. BadIdea 20:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I went back and checked very closely, and I can see that you are, in fact, correct. Ergo, the "Hello Goblin" should be removed, or at least replaced with "Hello Kitty". Groove Guy 17:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, somebody already reverted it, probably without reading this discussion. I feel like it's been in the article so long that it's just taken as fact. Anyway, I changed it to "pink umbrella" since that is without a doubt true. BadIdea 01:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again somebody's altered it to read Hello Goblin. I've changed it back, adding a note not to change it and referring potential editors to this discussion. I give it a couple of weeks max before somebody changes it anyway. --Tailkinker 16:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

To whoever edited in that the demon roach called the Monster "Mikey": That was a pop culture reference to the Life Cereal adds of the late 70's, where "Mikey likes it!" was the catchphrase to indicate that the kid who didn't like anything liked their cereal. It is definitely NOT the creature's given name, so I've taken it back out. Ig8887 (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hinjo's Promotion to Recurring Character

I feel at this point, Hinjo is no longer a minor character, but rather significant enough to be moved up to recurring character. Thusly, I have done so. And that's that then. ShadowHare 05:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Redcloak - important?

I believe that, as with Hinjo, Redloack should have his own page. He seems to be a very important character, even moreso than Hinjo. Any comments/suggestions? Groove Guy 11:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. His section here is getting long enough to be a whole page anyway.172.200.23.57 19:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Especially since we know that the upcoming "Start of Darkness" will further detail his history, which will result in a ton more information on the character. It seems prudent split him off now. BadIdea 20:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Tailkinker 17:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Julia Greenhilt and the missing sibling

I deleted the line about Julia first being seen in flashback as a toddler (strip 113). Yes, we all assumed it was her for ages, but Start of Darkness destroys this theory. One, Roy and Julia are 12 years apart, and Roy is not 12 in that panel. Two, the Greenhilts' mother was pregnant in a "21 years ago" section, so there was a third sibling in between Roy and Julia's ages. This sibling has not yet appeared again, so there's no point in creating a separate section for him/her. 91.105.45.100 12:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Inline HTML links

Wikipedia standard is to use references, not inline links to the comic pages. I've converted a good lot, but this is a long page and I could use some help. Timmccloud 02:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Start of Darkness Characters...

Should there be a section for the characters that appeared in Start of Darkness (particularly Right-Eye and The Dark One) within the list under the Minor Characters list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanzo66 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably. Though I think given the still-relatively-recent release of the book and the somewhat surprising fate of some of those characters, any such section should probably get a spoiler warning.Ig8887 (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Still, should The Dark One be placed under the category for Gods now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanzo66 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Grouping

Would anyone object to taking this list and regrouping it by team allegiance? As in, put all the Sapphire Guard in one subheading, all of House Kubota in another, all of the Greenhilt family in a third, etc? Right now its just a long undifferentiated list, and this would also allow us to discuss each group as a whole. Ig8887 (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that no one objected, I went ahead and did it. It will need some clean-up. Also, I am attempting to add each character's first appearance, as part of an effort to add more out-of-universe information to the article, to prevent it from being deleted like the Locations list. Ig8887 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Eugene and Otiluke's Resilient Sphere

Someone edited in that the spell Xykon trapped Eugene in during Start of Darkness was Otiluke's Resilent Sphere. While it does seem similar, the spell is unnamed when Xykon casts it, so calling it that is Original Research. It could have been a custom spell or something else. Burlew usually avoids using the proper noun names like "Otiluke" when people cast spells anyway, so even if it were the same spell, it would be simply resilient sphere, per the SRD. I edited it out to read simply, "unspecified magic bubble". --Ig8887 (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Move?

This is a list of characters in the comic, so should the article be moved to List of Characters in the Order of the Stick? Epass (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. An article with some list-like qualities does not need to have the word "list" in the title, especially since it is not a list in any particular order (most lists are alphabetized, while this is sorted by allegiance). See Minor characters of Megatokyo, Characters of Sluggy Freelance, Characters of 8-Bit Theater, or Minor characters from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. --Ig8887 (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Circular references?

Why are there no subsections for the members of the Order of the Stick, including pictures? Besides, the links in Xykon or Redcloak, to the complete articles, simply redirect here. --Gonfer (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There was just recently a discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Greenhilt) to delete all the character articles, which made them redirect here. The discussion was closed very hastily and no one took the time to merge the information over to here, which means right now those sections are very short. If you want, you can help out with moving the character descriptions from Order of the Stick over to here, or going to the page histories of each character article (Roy Greenhilt, Belkar Bitterleaf, Thundershield&action=history Durkon Thundershield, Elan, Haley Starshine, Vaarsuvius) to merge some of the content here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does Redcloak et al all have articles then? Shouldn't they be deleted too? And am I the only one who thinks putting ALL the characters on ONE page a rather bad idea? If they are not going to get their own page, at least have the members of OOTS on a page by themselves. Katana Geldar 07:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they should be deleted. The deletion of the other articles was carried out pretty haphazardly, without a view for the overall structure of this topic. Do you know how to do AfDs? If so, I suggest you take all the other minor character articles there as a procedural AfD nom.

As for your other comment...yeah, it's probably not a good idea. What would be better would be something like what Megatokyo has, a list of minor characters (which we would pretty much give up to the forum-goers and fanboys...I've never seen a "list of minor characters" article that wasn't full of cruft, OR, and junk) and a list of major characters (whether the major villains would also go there, or that list would just cover the 6 members of the party, is open to discussion). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's my idea. Page just for the members of the Order of the Stick, they need their own page. A page for other major characters, like Shojo, Hinjo, Miko. Page for minor characters and maybe one for the Linear guild. Katana Geldar 11:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea. The OOTS-only page would probably be pretty easy to do, you could just go to the pre-redirect version of each character-specific article and take chunks of it (shortening the bios and skipping the huge swaths of OR). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the circular references, and replaced them with pertinent information from the previously deleted "main articles" on Xykon, Redcloak, and Hinjo. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a note from the admin who closed those debates: the articles weren't deleted. Very specifically not deleted - the consensus was a merge and redirect. I simply did the redirect part, because obviously as a neutral party (couldn't close the AfD otherwise) I don't have the knowledge to merge th material properly. If there are other characters that you think this should be done to for consistency, there is no need for an AfD - just replace the text of those articles with #REDIRECT [[Characters of the Order of the Stick]] - that's all I did. All the information from those articles is available in the revision history, so the material is there if you need it merged. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The main characters

On both "The Order of the Stick"'s main page and here their descriptions are a lot less details than that of the supporting characters, that doesn't make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feyre (talk • contribs) 18:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

They used to have a page each until the merge and delete. Katana Geldar 01:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we need to either move back to the model of each main character having their own page, or at the very least expanding what is currently present. It does not make sense to have more description for characters like Xykon, Miko, etc... --BobTheMad--Beware of Gods who do not laugh (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Xyxon's level and Redcloak's level

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Characters_of_the_Order_of_the_Stick&action=historysubmit&diff=304390609&oldid=304381017 - editing his level is reverted, because it is the 'original research or speculation'. Yet, Redcloak section can be judged as speculation and is still allowed. I'd suggest to either remove speculations about Redcloak's level or correcting Xyxons section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.243.72.224 (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT: if Redcloak's section violates policy, anyone can clean it up. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with removing any and all speculations about the characters' levels. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That's right. Including speculation is a clear violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy. The last few edits I have made have consisted of removing unsourced speculation with predjudice. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I've noticed that while we've merged all other character articles we still have the Linear Guild page. I don't think they'll be many official sources for those characters, since if we couldn't find sources for the main characters, they're minor evil counterparts aren't likely to have much more coverage. Thus I'm suggesting that the page is merged into this, maybe after a clean up to shorten it. Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. It looks odd to have every character described in this article except the characters of the Linear Guild, instead having a content-free section referencing Linear Guild. I can't think of a compelling reason to break those characters out of this article, other than making this article too long (but that can be fixed by trimming the trivia). I think being WP:BOLD and simply doing the merge should cause no controversy. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Went ahead and did the merge. If anyone has any complaints to this, feel free to revert, though I feel like splitting the article into Minor and Major Characters seems like a better alternative. Harry Blue5 (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Good job. Splitting into minor and major characters wouldn't be viable, in my opinion. Too much reliance on judgment calls without authoritative sources.

Some characters (Therkla, for example) appeared to be turning into a major character at one point, as she was the focus of several strips before she was killed. On the other hand, Celia started out as a minor character, almost non-existent for a couple hundred strips, but evolved into a major character after Roy's death. Then there's the Oracle, who makes few appearances but is critical to the plot and his presence pervades the entire strip. And if you count only appearances, the demon cockroaches could be considered major although they are completely irrelevant to the plot.

I expect that splitting the article this way would result in no end of edit warring, moving characters back and forth between articles. Without an authoritative source (i.e. Burlew himself) clearly defining who is minor and who is major, I think it would be too hard to judge until the series completes. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

True. Recurring characters of The Order of the Stick? Or we could just leave it as it is. Harry Blue5 (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should leave it as is. When the series nears completion we can work on how to split up the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Still, there's a lot of trivia that can be trimmed to shorten the length. Harry Blue5 (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That's for sure. There's a tendency to write a sentence for every appearance of every character, in effect breaking up the strip into dozens of parallel story arcs. I think that's overkill. The character's significance, personalities, relationships, and anything that particularly stands out should be described. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Past tense

Would anyone mind if I turned all verbs to the past tense (apart from future events)? Harry Blue5 (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that would be appropriate; since these characters don't exist in the real world, plot summary should be in present tense. The real work that needs to be done is trimming down all the unnecessarily detailed plot summary and trivia. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The Order of the Scribble

I removed the Order of the Scribble as I found them incredibly minor characters. I mean, seriously, this article is incredibly huge, and I thought they were just more trivia that is indulged in this article. I believe that the Order of the Scribble can just be covered in one paragraph. Going into detail to describe each member, and mostly just to say what their D&D class is, I felt was trivia, though I can understand why my edit was reverted. I have removed their first appearances, though. Still totally unnecessary imo. What does everyone else feel? Harry Blue5 (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your removal of that content — however, you need to use the edit summary to explain your edits, as unexplained changes often get reverted. I have lost count of the number of times I have deleted trivia, speculation, and fancruft from this article. A single short paragraph is all that is needed. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Found references

http://non-productive.com/villains-month-xykon/

http://non-productive.com/genre-love-stories-nale-and-sabine/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diego Moya (talk • contribs)

Looks like a blog to me. Not really citable. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSBLOG; there's nothing wrong with blogs as a layout style per se. Non-productive is a commercial entertainment producer with a regular staff. Diego (talk) 06:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Those don't look like a reliable sources to me. It used to have an unsourced article which describes it as a college radio show. Is it commercial? I'm not sure if it is, or if that matters, but I don't see any signs of a positive reputation, editorial oversight, or other indicators of RS. This is only slightly better than a self-published blog or anonymous forum post. Maybe WP:RSN would disagree. Grayfell (talk) 06:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

How exactly do you measure the reliability of opinions? The notability of artistic works is determined by the gaze of WP: PROFESSIONAL writers, who notice the topic and write enough independent content to write a neutral article. There's no way to say that one opinion is more reliable than another, as all are subjective. What makes a professional media like this one different from a fan blog is that they want to attract and retain readers, so they publish content with an established level of quality and consistency. Diego (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, reliable sources are not discussing this site, so it doesn't have the positive reputation required by RS. I don't see any source of revenue, so I don't know for sure that this is professional, but as I said, I don't think that matters very much. I think blogs (fan or otherwise) often do want to attract and retain readers, but so do trashy tabloids and many other unreliable sources, so that's not a good threshold. It's very easy to find professionally written opinions which are, in fact, thinly veiled PR, so I don't think that being professional is meaningful if the source isn't also reliable. I'm trying to find info about the site and its author, Jesse Baruffi, and I don't see it working as a source. He wrote for the site for a couple of years, and his first post sure reads like a standard blog, and says that the it was created as a place for stuff that didn't make it onto the... podcast? college radio show? The site doesn't clearly explain what it is. Several years later, he wrote a novel which was published by "Curiosity Quills Press" which appears to be a legitimate press, so he arguably has some expertise. None of that happened until later, though. It also looks like after he left the group, he kept blogging under the "Geekademia" name at a Blogspot site, which is weird. I'm not sure about that or the details, but the NonProductive site just looks like a blog and podcast with multiple contributors. Even if it is reliable, this is only one source, since both articles are by the same writer on the same site. The WP:SNOWFLAKE essay you link to suggests several reliable sources are needed, and also advises boiling them down to the bare essentials. I agree with that, but that hasn't happened yet, and may not be possible based from what I've seen. Grayfell (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Characters of The Order of the Stick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160813145809/http://comicsalliance.com/rich-burlew-kickstarter-order-stocl/ to http://comicsalliance.com/rich-burlew-kickstarter-order-stocl/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)