Talk:Saturday Morning Watchmen

Noteworthy??

How exactly does an 80-second viral video merit its own article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.162.17 (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it's covered by multiple third-party sources. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Recentism anyone? Let's just wait and see if there's any discussion of this in months or a year from now, and delete then based on notability and recentism. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

While I do feel that Flash animations tend to be underrepresented on Wikipedia, I am concerned how the article has no content to argue for notability. Severely needs a reception section or information on its popularity.--Remurmur (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

GeeJo, while it's true that this video was "covered" by multiple third-party sources, most if not all of those sources "covered" the video by simply writing one paragraph about it, amounting to "Hey - here's a video that's funny for a few reasons. Now, go watch it!" That doesn't make the video noteworthy, especially when this "coverage" is coming from sources like FM4, an Austrian radio station, which is presumably not an expert voice regarding American-made graphic novels, '80s cartoons, or viral videos. H3G3M0N (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, concur. Funny video tho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.216.236 (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'll argue that if something like Watchmensch can be considered noteworthy, then this video can be as well. If anything, the creator of the animation is steadily becoming noteworthy. Not only is Partridge now a known entity on the net, but he's also done several professional cartoons for the BBC. Plus it is still being discussed on the internet & mentioned in blogs & articles. Not nearly as much as it was when it first hit the web, but still a steady stream. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Dudes and dudettes, if we tried to delete content for being stupid, we'd have to start with our articles on wars. If we tried to delete content for harming our ignity, we'd have to start with the "edit" button at the top of each page - nothing else will be effective before that's done. If we tried to delete content for being niche, we'd lose an awful lot of obscure festivals and traditions that are of value to the right reader. If anything, be glad for good articles on insane topics. Most of what Wikipedia does is done better by other, specialized websites, but this strength isn't matched anywhere. --Kizor 09:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a cop-out because you like it. MANY articles covering more significant subjects have been deleted for reasons of notability. It appears completely arbitrary -- at the whims of folks on Wikipedia staff what stays and what goes. But this? It is only a little flash video parody aimed at a niche audience within a niche audience (Alan Moore fans among comic-book fans). When whole persons who have produced influential and/or controversial bodies of work in their fields disappear from Wikipedia regularly, enshrining this sort of cheap triviality is insulting. 75.105.64.39 (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Article is not notable. It has enough sources so that it should be mentioned somewhere on wiki. I suggest merging it with another article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Satire of 1980s or 1970s cartoons?

While the creators say it is a satire of 1980s cartoons it seems more a satire of 1970s cartoons. 1980's cartoons were pushing the envelope as seen in Thundercats where we see a character (Jaga) die on screen, or G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (1985 TV series) where three Joes discover the skeletal remains of their counterparts in a reality where Cobra won ("Worlds Without End") or Shipwreck is driven is near insanity to extract a piece of information he has ("There's No Place Like Springfield").--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That may be so, but I don't see how this discussion can improve the article in light of WP:OR. If all reliable sources and the creators say 1980s, then we say 1980s. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a parody of violent movies that are turned into kids cartoon shows. This was done a lot in the 80's. There was a Rambo cartoon. A RoboCop cartoon. Many more. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Saturday Morning Watchmen. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesonline.typepad.com/blockbuster_buzz/2009/07/dave-gibbons-talks-about-the-watchmen-dvd-and-staying-out-of-the-water.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Tomar redirect

why does "Joshua Tomar" redirect here? this is nowhere near his most notable role. PhantoFantasma (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

References