Talk:The Order of the Stick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Category:Order of the Stick characters[edit]

Representation of minorities[edit]

This is regarding this edit, whith this improved version being contested. If this had been established by secondary sources as significant, primary sources would be appropriate for filling in the details, but that's not the case. As I said in my edit summary, I think Burlew's effort to include minorities is an interesting point, but just it's one of many aspects of story-writing that goes into this webcomic. Even including this content at non-neutral, as it's giving undue weight to one aspect of the story and highlighting only part of Burlew's assessment. I wouldn't be totally surprised if there are reliable, independent sources talking about this, but maybe not. I would like to see them, if they exists. Vaarsuvius gender identity has gone from being a tired running joke to just being part of a more well-rounded the character's identity, which seems like one of several noteworthy developments, but my assessment of that or of popularity among fans isn't verifiable. Using the author's forum posts to factually explain his position is a problem, because it never establishes why this is being explained. I think the article is already longer than its independent coverage justifies (per MOS:PLOT), so using forum posts (reliable or not) is expanding the article even further outside of neutral territory. Grayfell (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

A full review of the whole article may be in order, but meanwhile an edit like this which singles out just one part of a section makes little sense, when the rest of the article is similarly sourced. As I explained above the content is an improvement for the in-universe "world" section, and it's actually better sourced than other section such as the board game one. Due weight is not merely about "do independent sources exist?", it also needs to take into account the whole structure. With the current state of the article, that section is not unduly prominent. If/when we expand the article with the available third party coverage we may need to reconsider this section's length and placement, but meanwhile it does more good than harm. Diego (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The forum posts might provide a very useful source for the author of the work's opinions on the subject, if for example a secondary source had reported on it. No secondary source has reported on it. We should not be creating sections for everything the author says about the webcomic on the webcomic's forum. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't get why you started a new section on this talk page (there's one above this one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Could you people at least stop with the edit warring? There is no deadline, so let's just reach somekind of concensus and edit the article after that. It doesn't really matter that Greyfell started a new section; they probably just didn't notice there was already a section on this. Othar than that, I seem to agree with Grayfell, in that we need secondary sources in order to write it as a separate section. As shown above and in the article itself, there should be plenty of sources to fill the article with verified content, so that we don't have to use primary sources. ~Mable (chat) 12:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I reviewed the talk page, but somehow glossed over that section, this belongs there, sorry. That said, my point remains. As I said, the article is too long considering sources. That the proposed section would also be too long doesn't meant that it's an improvement. It's not the worst thing in the world, but it's a step in the wrong direction. We can't assume there is independent coverage, and we can't assume we know what that hypothetical coverage would be about. We need to build the article based on existing, known sources, and most of those should be secondary. Grayfell (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
It being too long (which is kinda subjective) doesn't excuse arbitrarily and wholly deleting the entry though. I think it's important to acknowledge the author's stance on the matter given how he's made a definite effort in pushing it both in-comic and outside the forums as well. Since it influences the webcomic as a whole and brings about a much needed real-life side of things I believe it definitely has a place on the page. Also the author himself has acknowledged -and thus validated- the existance of some "less than warm" reception to this inclusion (writingwise), so that shouldn't be wholly ignored either. All in all I don't like how the entry's been appearing and disappearing due to (apparent) personal biases and warring war. I don't know who's been deleting it but I feel that did a bigger disservice than just a possible overexaggerated lenght. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Where has he pushed it outside the forums? Grayfell (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
This is all original research -_- This is exactly the kind of reason why I rarely ever use primary sources... ~Mable (chat) 21:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Primary sources are considered reliable sources for describing what an author says about himself or his work. Secondary sources are not appropriate for quoting authors directly; the author himself is the best source for quotations and the author's own personal views. Primary sources are never to be used for original research, but rather for stating what the author said. The material removed, which was cited to the author's own words, provide encyclopedically valid information about this webcomic. It doesn't matter if the author wrote the words in a book, was interviewed by a newspaper, or posted them in a blog or forum; in all cases those are primary sources (including interviews) and are appropriate for the narrow purpose of providing encyclopedic information about the author's views. The author's views and statements are relevant, and appropriate to document in this article. Secondary sources aren't needed for that purpose. Secondary sources are required for any interpretation of what the primary source says.
Simply being cited to a primary source isn't a valid reason to remove content. It matters what is being cited. If it's original research, then yes, remove it. If it's author statements, then removal should be based on other editorial considerations, not the sources cited. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Deciding whether to include this content or not is a matter of judgement, which is something we should use independent sources for. Exceptions are routine details, which this isn't, or responses to issues raised by other sources, which this also isn't. I don't think anyone is saying the posts are blanket reliable, so that's a distraction. Grayfell (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Edit conflict - Secondary sources are necessary to establish what due weight is for any idea or aspect covered in an article. Otherwise, how do you know which statements of an author are worthy of inclusion and which aren't? Picking statements from forum posts or from an autobiography based on what seems like proper information for an encyclopedia is basically just original research. Interviews are in a different position because they were published by a secondary party, giving a proper reason to believe that what is written in the interview is worth noting for a good understanding of the topic, of "notable", if you will. ~Mable (chat) 22:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
This isn't just any random internet forum we're talking about, it's the author's own chosen place to appear publicly and express his stance/thoughts on matters. It has all the validity if not of an interview of at least an official public statement, and should be treated with such dignity and importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Burlew's forum posts are not the equivalent of an "interview," since that would indicate third party interest in this aspect of OotS.Eladynnus (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I checked the page and nobody said they are "equivalent of an interview", whose entry are you addressing here? Anyway to get back on topic, regardless of the context in which they were delivered those are official statements from the author that provide encyclopedically valid information about this webcomic, so they have all the reasons to stay here. I stand by what Amatulic said.
I concur with the above IP poster (amd Amatulic): nobody said they are an equivalent of an interview, but not only that's his official forum, those (about minorities) are statements which he's fine being recorded, as he stated in a specific thread where users are keeping tracks of what he writes/says about the whole aspects of the comic ([1]); also, that's not the only time primary sources are being used in this article for similar purposes. It appears you're trying to find reasons to have the section deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Nah, I would personally like to see basically all content that is referenced only by primary sources to be replaced by content referenced by secondary sources. You have no idea how much it pains me to refers to pages of the webcomic in order to summarize the story 36 times. As I described in an essay a while back, it makes me wonder if the level of detail of the plot section isn't completely undue. I'm just too lazy to put in the effort to actually fix it all. Plus, it doesn't help that I haven't read the webcomic, and may intend to do so at some point in the future. Thing is, I don't see why the issue has to be made worse. ~Mable (chat) 13:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I am indeed trying to have the section deleted. There isn't any third party coverage of this topic, just the creator posting his thoughts on his forum, which are not inherently notable - imagine if Burlew made several posts about the color symbolism or stats of the protagonists' armor. That wouldn't be included, either. You are right that this and other articles inappropriately using self-published or specious sources, but that doesn't justify including *more* like it, especially not such a large section which violates Wikipedia's policy on original research as well as verifiable sources. Eladynnus (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
What original research? What sources aren't verifiable? Third-party coverage of what an author says about himself or his works isn't necessary, and has never been necessary, for inclusion of encyclopedically relevant content, and there is no policy or guideline prohibiting this. We have Wikipedia:Primary sources, which describes how primary sources can be used, and this article is compliant with that policy. That policy also suggests that the webcomic itself would be the primary source and Burlew's commentary about it is a secondary source — and the most reliable secondary source imaginable because he created the primary source. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
You're right Amatulic, that's exactly the point. You conveyed it a much better, though. Fact is, the section is legit in the way the soruce are being used in a way that is compliant to wikipedia rules. I'm kindly asking stop deleting the section without any actual reasons. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
On a second thought I must add that yeah, the section, while being totally legit, could use some secondary sources as well, and I'll try to improve it as soon as I can. Does the author's commentary on the books based on the webcomic counts as secondary source? The only problem is that I do not know how to reference it properly being new to wikipedia. Those are books which can't be read online so i can't "link" the source.
The very first sentence of the primary sources policy says that articles should be based on secondary sources, putting tertiary and primary sources on a lower tier. It also says that the former two types of sources are necessary to establish notability, and that even primary sources must be "reputably published", which forum posts are not. You are also misreading the policy when it defines secondary sources. When it refers to "an author", it doesn't necessarily mean the author of the work being discussed, and everything else written about primary sources on Wikipedia (such as the rubric at WP:USEPRIMARY) says that authors writing about their own works are inherently primary. Eladynnus (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
You're misinterpreting the rules. Also, i've just said that i can reference the section with secondary sources TOO. The commentary about minorities has been made by Rich Burlew himself not only on his official forum but also on the books that are printed about the webcomic. I just do not know how to reference those commentaries, the books are not aviabile online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I've seen how book are references so i went to add secondary sources in order to improve the section. If you want to help me improve it (because there's always room for improvement) you're welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
A book published by Burlew himself still does not meet the standard set by WP:SELFPUBLISH. Eladynnus (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
It does; in fact, references from official book commentary are used all over this article. How come an official commentary from a printed book can't be used as WP:SELFPUBLISH. Read the article again and stop deleting the section basing on your own made up rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, to refer back to Eladynnus' earlier comment, this book is more "reputably published" than the forum posts, so that makes it "better", but it's still just a self-published source. It's again putting undue weight on the claims of the author. ~Mable (chat) 10:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I still don't get why you're saying it. Books were used in this very article before, but all of a sudden it's not ok anymore? I find your argument very weak, I think that even if i found some kind of official third party statement (and i don't think that's impossible) you would find reasons to delete this section just because reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh no, if there was a secondary source about this, that would be amazing. I find it pretty interesting content, so I would personally love to see it included. My opinion on what an article should or shouldn't have is irrelevant, though, as I just follow the sources. As for "Books were used in this very article before, but all of a sudden it's not ok anymore?" – I was not around when this article was created. I have never had any influence over the evolution of this article. I have, however, spent time with edit practices as they are now, having been in contact with some GA and FA reviews, etc, and would like to think I have at least an idea of the kind of direction Wikipedia articles should take >.> Point is, I don't think a status quo is necessarily optimal. ~Mable (chat) 10:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I really appreciate the fact Diego Moya is trying to reach a compromise instead of blindly deleting the whole section but I don't get the point of having a butchered version of it; was the length of the section an issue? If so, I could redo the article in order to be a little shorter but maintain a bit more information (especially the ones from the book). My answer is not meant to fuel any type of controversy but, again, I don't get the point of shortening it. I thought the issue there was the reliability of the sources (which, I think, are estabilished to be at least acceptable). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── When due weight is raised as a concert of some editors, as is the case here, length definitely matters. Sources about oneself are allowed as reliable, but WP:Neutrality suggest using primary sources with care. In this case consensus policy recommends a middle ground position, which may be a short version (one of two sentences long) that allow readers to know the existence of the described point, and explain its essence without including details; readers who want to know more can read the reference. Note that this is often done even with secondary references if someone complains about their weight in the article. Diego (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


Revised version of section[edit]

I heavily edited the section, after reviewing the cited sources carefully. I rearranged things, corrected spelling and grammar, consolidated a duplicate reference, tried to make the sentences more fairly represent the sourcing (the original section came across as rather preachy, in my opinion). It's also more concise. Now, hopefully, it just states facts neutrally. Hopefully this new presentation of this material will be more satisfactory to everyone. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I've expanded a little rewriting the short part about the official commentary on Blood Runs in the Family. What do you think? It's too lengthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Is there any difference between this and the older version of the section? You seem to have restored half of what Amatulic removed without making any changes except for some rewording. Do you understand why he removed them? Eladynnus (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Basing on the last revision by Amatulic and the explanation Diego Moya gave me about the careful use of Primary Sources it seemed to me that a "middle ground" position is the best practice in this case. As I've asked i'm trying to figure out if this new version is too lengthy, so I'm following the discussion awaiting for more specific advices. If it's too long i'll try to cut it, but I'd like to leave, somehow, the section based on his official commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, remember that i'm not native speaker, so i fully expect some rearrangements of the section. I've tried to be more concise but the big part is the literal quote from the book, I think. Suggestions are welcome.
So, they decided to block the article in the right moment i was adding a comic reference. What a shame. It appears i really need to make an account right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
A new account will need to be autoconfirmed before you can edit a semi-protected page, so whether or not you create an account you will need to use this page to work towards a consensus in the meantime. (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
And that was exactly what i was doing until the page was protected: using this page to reach consensus. Nothing has really changed except the fact that a really shallow moderator (EdJohnston) has decided to close the matter claiming that i'm a "Ip-hopping edit warrior" by ignoring the ones who infringed the 3RR rules PeterTheFourth and Eladynnus see [1][2][3][4][5][6]). Oh well, it's the internet. Probably some form of double standard and nothing new :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
You were not trying to build any consensus, you were reverting the section back to what it was before Amtulic tried to pare it down (editors can compare the IP editor and Amtulic's new versions here with the original version). Eladynnus (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
That's a blatant lie. I've left the improvements that Amatulic did (formatting, grammar and shortening of my section) and then i've restored just the bit about official commentary, adding that if he wanted he could delete it in it's entirely. I'm just asking for help by experienced users while trying to leave something of what i've originally researched and added. By experienced users i'm not including you, because it's clear that you're here just to show hostility and toxic behavior towards me. If Amatulic or the others wants the sections to go away while providing valid reasons as they did before I won't complain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, now that the IP editor cannot edit, hopefully there'll be no more disruption. My question is: Why do we need this section? My argument against inclusion is: It's sourced entirely to forum posts by the author, with no secondary coverage. If forum posts are impetus for creating sections, then the article would become entirely too bloated. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a short note, only that specific IP has been banned; the editor himself already has a new IP and has been going meta by edit warring on the page for complaining about edit warring (1, 2, 3, which has led to the page being protected.
As for the section: most of the primary sources I've seen on the page are used for straight facts, like the age of the characters and plot summaries. There are, however, some passages that should be removed (OR in the description of Redcloak, for example), but these are flaws in the article that should be removed, not used to justify other problems. Wikipedia's policy on primary sources stresses caution and conservatism when it comes to sources like this. WP:SELFPUB does say that self-published material can be used when the subject is the on who has written the material, but the section fails to meet some of the requirements: the posts themselves and the section are rather preachy and self-serving, they contain quotes and responses to non-notable forum posters, and most importantly, they and the book are still the *only* sources of information. There is also the fact that there has been no independent coverage of it, which is the very definition of non-notable. Eladynnus (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted the section to Amatulic's version, but still support removing it for the reasons I gave above. Eladynnus (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The compromise version is well summarized, but the sources are still a big problem. I would prefer removing it, but balancing it against the other issues with the article, it doesn't seem like a priority. Expanding a bit beyond direct plot summaries is a positive goal, and this helps with that. While this and other sections would really benefit from better, independent sources, that applies to much of the article, and this section is brief enough that it's hard to see it as a big deal. I will say that this doesn't make a lot of sense in the 'Fictional world' section. If consensus is to keep it, it should be elsewhere, such as the 'History' section. Grayfell (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd much prefer removing it and cutting back elsewhere similarly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see the sources in the section I summarized as a big problem. An author's own statements about his work are still relevant, regardless of the medium in which they are made, and regardless of to whom he was answering. I tried to be careful to stick to neutral facts and remove the previous preachy tone. I still maintain that the primary source is the comic strip itself, and anyone's comments or reviews about it are secondary sources — and that "anyone" includes the author himself, whose only distinction from other secondary sources is that he isn't an independent secondary source. But there should be no question about his notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
It's a big improvement over the first draft. He's a primary source about himself, and that this is about his work seems like a technicality here. The only reason we're even considering his opinion at all is because he's the authority on his own perspective and motives, which is what the section is about. The problem is not with the accuracy of the posts. Deciding to including this content at all, and deciding how much to include, was subjective. I'm guessing someone read it in the forums and thought it was interesting enough to add. Totally understandable, and sometimes unavoidable in editing Wikipedia, but that's not really how we should be building articles, so it's still a problem. Grayfell (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
But this is exactly how we always have written articles. Some editor founds some content in a reliable source, writes a summary and adds it to the article at a place where it seems relevant and satisfies the overall balance of the previous text. If we had lotses and lotses of other content in the article sourced by independent third party sources you'd be right that this may have been given too much WP:WEIGHT, but this is clearly not the case here.
Unless you're claiming that WP:ABOUTSELF is no longer policy and authors are not reliable sources "in articles about themselves or their activities", I don't see the problem. Several editors acknowledge that the original extended section has been greatly improved and trimmed down, and several editors do not want to see it fully removed, so the current version looks exactly like the compromise solution that WP:CONSENSUS favors. Diego (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
'Several editors' would be grateful if you could list who you believe thinks that we require a section about the representation of minorities in this webcomic, sourced entirely to forum posts. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
You can find them at the article history, restoring the removed content. Diego (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but one IP hopping editor does not 'several editors' make. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
You're not counting in Amatulic, plus myself when I trimmed the section down, but let in a significant portion of it. Diego (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for actually naming who you believe agrees with you (Amatulic) as I initially requested. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── How about merging the information into the rest of the history section? One of the cited posts (this one) is very vague, and connecting it with gender or anything except writing in general would be OR. The other post (here is the post, rather than the whole thread) has direct and specific statements about the comic, although I am still not comfortable with relying on it. You can see my proposal for what to do with this at User:Eladynnus/sandbox. Eladynnus (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I'm with Amatulic and Diego Moya on this one: being the author's own statements I don't see Amatulic's version of the summarized section as a problem and, also, I'd like to reintegrate, somehow, the direct quote from the author's commentary from the last book (which I personally own, by the way); it's the "best" source this section could actually use. I'm going to rewrite a bit of the part that Petertheforth removed trying to be more encyclopedic by adding a direct comic reference, so the statement could be reinforced, and trying to avoid expressions like "for example" which, as he correctly stated, are not encyclopedic. I'd probably reintegrate the direct quote from the book as I've said above, but I'll probably do that in a second moment (the original quote about Tarquin is a bit too long, so i need to try to summarize it by remaining neutral). I concur the original section was a bit preachy so it definitely needed some cleaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talkcontribs) 19:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
So, i've reintegrated the bit that Petertheforth deleted making it more encyclopedic and I think it should be fine. I'm a bit in doubt about my second edit, which is the reintegration of a digested version of the original Book part. I find the part about Tarquin character more interesting that the fact Burlew fears to write about minorities, but the former is too long and the latter can sound a bit preachy. Any suggestions about this one? I have no problem having this bit deleted but I find it basically the most reliable source about the matter, so I think it's really beneficial to the section (both the Tarquin part and the other one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talkcontribs) 19:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
It's nice to see that you've finally gotten an account.Eladynnus (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I think this kind of behavior is not really costructive and not meant to reach any WP:CONSENSUS. Amatulic did a version that was fine with himself and Diego Moya but it wasn't for you and Petertheforth, therefore i think we should revert to THAT version, which you did, but then Peter deleted a bit of section because it was "not encyclopedical" (without any consent here, in the talk page). THEN you asked to remove the section entirely, merging it with the rest and leaving just a sentence. I think you're both trying to gradually remove the entire section without the actual consent of anyone. I do not think you're trying to reach a consensus at all, and this should be the focus on this discussion. So, the thing I'll made now is reverting the section to Amatulic version but with my two improvements (the "for example" expression avoided and the direct comic reference), and we can start discussing from there. I'd like to keep the direct quote from the book, but you gave no reasons for removing it. Could you elaborate? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
And by the way, i did the above posts being logged out to prove that i do not intend to hide that i'm the original author of the section. My ban has expired and I've got all the reasons to write it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talkcontribs) 22:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
As i was saying in the post above this one, i'd like to reinstantiate somehow the bit about the official commentary from the book. I'd like to know if someone has any practical suggestion in order to do it or why we shouldn't. I'm fine with using direct statement of the author from the forum, as Amatulic is, but the book source could be considered "better". Maybe the part stating that Rich Burlew is afraid to "talk out of his ass" sounds preachy? But the part in which he describes Tarquin is really good, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talkcontribs) 22:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

As a show of good faith, Meelanasah, would you please self revert the changes you've made? It's difficult to have a constructive argument when one editor will continually revert until their preferred version is established. It would be a lot easier to believe you genuinely want to discuss the issue and you are not going to repeat the behaviour for which you were banned if you self reverted. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

That's what I've already done. I've reverted to Amatulic version and then i've changed the bit you considered "not encyclopedical" by trying to avoid expressions like "for example" and adding a direct reference do the comic. I've also discussed at lenght the change I want to propose right here but it appears you're trying to avoiding any compromise with myself, Amatulic or Diego Moya, so please abstain to acting like you're behaving in a correct way because it appears you aren't. Also, just out of curiosity, is this page referring to you? [attack link redacted] Quite interesting read ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talkcontribs) 22:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, I do not want my request to be lost in all this writing with you telling me I'm not discussing so I'll ask it again: what's your honest opinion about adding a reference to the direct commentary from the book? Do you own it? If so, maybe you could help me summarize the section better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talkcontribs) 22:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
So, i think we could actually get back to discuss about the article itself. I must say i'm pretty fine with the section being as it is but i'd really wish to add a bit from the official commentary from Blood runs in the Family. The two informations worth mentioning (in my opinion) are the part about Tarquin's character and the fact Rich is afraid to take stances without "talking out of his ass", because he is in a position of privilege. Do you have any suggestions in order to not making the section too long/preachy/inadequate to WP standards or do you think it's entirely a bad idea? If so, provide reasons please. Thanks Meelanasah (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why it is necessary to include that specific quote in the article. It's been a long time since I read through OotS and don't remember anything about Tarquin, why would he be mentioned here? I've included the book reference in a revision to my proposed edit at User:Eladynnus/sandbox. It is still based entirely on self-published and mostly ephemeral material. Eladynnus (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Because in his quote he states that Tarquin is written in a way that he represents a character who despises minorities. The exact quote is: "Tarquin is by no accident "a wealthy old straight white man losing his marbles over the fact that the tale he is experiencing doesn't focus on the other straight white man at the expense of the black man, the woman, the genderqueer person and the Latino guest star <...>"". It's definetly quite appropriate and fitting to the section and, also, the source is "better" than an unofficial forum post; also, the part which Rich describes how difficult he finds to write stories about minorities because he is not party of any is also fitting to the argument of the section (his exact quote is that he's afraid to "talk out of his ass", but i can avoid that). Could you explain why you think it's not necessary? If you just say that it's "not necessary" without providing actual reasons it appears to be a case of WP:BELONG. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talkcontribs) 20:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Tarquin being written to be bigoted should be put at his entry in The_Order_of_the_Stick#Antagonists; the subject of including minorities and a character's racism are not the same thing. Quotes that contain colloquialisms like "talking out of his ass" should probably be avoided if your own writing can say the same thing more clearly. I've edited my sandbox proposal to show what that would look like. Eladynnus (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Wikipedia articles should be built primarily on secondary independent sources. Saying that you think it belongs, and why you think it belongs, is answering a question nobody is asking. You're saying it's appropriate because you believe it's appropriate, and that it's obvious. Well, no, it's not obvious. We're saying that Wikipedia should use outside sources to make that decision. What about all the other content he's written? This source mentions four regrets with about two sentences each. He spends more time in that post talking about how he likes to move forward and doesn't like to dwell on past strips, but that's not mentioned at all. Why only mention the latter two bullet points? What about all the other answers he's posted elsewhere? Why is this point being given time when the rest of his comments are not? If there were legitimately sourced criticism or praise of his handling of minority character from reliable sources, then maybe this could be included as a response, but even then it would risk WP:SYNTH and needs to be judged cautiously. Selecting brief quotes and comments from obscure sources to emphasize a point, even if it's an accurate one, is not neutral. Grayfell (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I've said that the section i'm proposing COULD belong to the section because they talk about the same arguments: it makes sense to explain Tarquin's bigotry and Rich Burlew's stance about talking about minorities in a section called "representation of minorities". Why only mentioning the latter two bullet points? Becausae the former two do not refer about minorities. They talk about the opening "in medias res" of the first strip and the "crappy art style" he used in the first strips. Amatulic did a good work trying to be neutral because all he did was reporting neutral facts about what the author stated. He did not cherry-picked the entries that are now in the section nor he had not take anything out of context. We have entire sections of the entire OotS article based on primary sources (likely, the character's page) because it couldn't be done other way. So, if we keep a small section about Rich Burlew's stance about minorities i really fail to see what's the issue bringing the quote from the book. Moving to the The_Order_of_the_Stick#Antagonists as Eladynnus is proposing is not a bad idea by itself and i'm actually considering it but that quote, from an official source (albeit written by the author), gives value of the section because it offers the author's POV about minorities through the explanation of a villain's development. Explaining why it belongs is the purpose of this discussion, otherwise talk pages wouldn't even exist. I'd be wrong if i've just said something along the lines of "hey, i think the section belongs here" without actually addressing any reason. Meelanasah (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Is any reliable, independent source indicating, in any way, that it is valuable to include Burlew's POV about minorities through the explanation of a villain's development? As I've already said, the due weight and sourcing problems with the rest of the article are problems to be solved, not excuses to include more. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
What's concerning to me is the idea that a subject can create information that we would have to include in an article just by posting about it on a blog or forum. Where does it end? We might be advised to use common sense, but we are arguing right here about whether or not we should include a substantial chunk of information (the original version of this section was five paragraphs long) that no one anywhere has covered. While I don't think Burlew is doing this, it's not unlikely that other content creators would take advantage of such a loophole. Eladynnus (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely. Category:Articles with a promotional tone (containing 19,731 articles) is littered with that problem. That said, I'm also concerned the article suffers in overall quality and readability regardless of potential for future abuse. A brief article which only covers the important points with due weight is so much more valuable than a long article which also mixes in other details based on judgement calls from fans. This is especially true for a general-audience encyclopedia, which should be impartial and understandable to an unfamiliar reader. Specific details don't always serve that goal, because that requires far too much prior familiarity with the story to even make sense. They also make it harder to find and evaluate other information. At a certain point, they might as well just read the comic if they want to understand what's being said. Wikipedia isn't the place to promote the comic, though, so that becomes a failure on our part. Grayfell (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Rich Burlew's views about including minority groups in his webcomic hasn't escaped the notice of other publishers on the web, but admittedly they are all blogs. One of the more respectable pieces is Writing Possibilities, which devotes a couple of paragraphs to the topic in a larger article. A large and active blog on Tumblr devoted to webcomic reviews took note of the appearance of a gay character. I wouldn't call these citable sources, but the coverage demonstrates that this section we're discussing isn't random trivial or indiscriminate information, it's encyclopedically relevant material that was written about by secondary sources including the author himself (with the comic being the primary source), and has gotten more attention than Burlew's other postings or musings (which are rare enough as they are). I would prefer citing his books rather than forum postings, but either way, the topic is worthy of inclusion here, as it marks a significant turn in the development of this webcomic. It doesn't merit more than a handful of sentences, though. I felt that the extermely short 2-3 line paragraph I wrote earlier balanced WP:UNDUE with encyclopedic information. Just a mention is all we need. It may not even need its own subsection if it can be fit in somewhere else as a passing mention. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't strongly object to a few sentences. As I've said before, I don't think Burlew's own comments are WP:SECONDARY for his own motives and opinions, which is the heart of the section. How would this be substantially different from a diary or written letters recounting an event (the event being the writing of the story)? Those are the quintessential examples of primary sources, and this seems like the same thing. The existence of uncitable sources is hardly any better than nothing at all, but this is a good way to expand beyond mundane plot details. I suppose it's an improvement, but it's one that leaves the door open to a lot of problems. Grayfell (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Does my proposal here seem any better? I have yet to get any responses to it except from Meelanasah. Eladynnus (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice that. It does look pretty good- I'd cut the 'written Hayley to be bisexual' part, especially if it's just sourced to a webstrip. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Done! Does Wikipedia have any style guides for citing posts on a forum? Eladynnus (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I have no earthly idea. Probably just cite web? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@Eladynnus: I like your version. Concise, to-the-point, no undue weight, no fluff. My only concern is that mentioning minority representation only in the lead section (as your sandbox seems to suggest) and not in the body doesn't align with WP:LEAD. 06:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@Eladynnus: Honestly it seems to have really few informations. My original section was too big and "preachy" but this does seem quite the opposite. It's not that I do not concur with your version but i find it really TOO MUCH concise. I'd rather leave the content as it is right now in the page (maybe merging it with other sections like you did instead of having a separate paragraph). Meelanasah (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
The sandbox version looks fine, and I would use 'cite web'. It's a copy of the 'History' section, so I don't think LEAD applies here. Being concise is a good thing. The words "revealed" and "recent" make sense, but are red flags that we're trying too hard, so the proposal is better for style reasons, also. Grayfell (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
That shouldn't be a problem, i csn adjust style as you're suggesting but i do not think a three-rows paragraph has WP:HEIGHT issues. I don't see why we can't simply change 2 words instead of removing harmless and neutral information. So, what do you think if we adjust style accordingly and merge information with what Eladynnus proposed? It won't make a big of a section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talkcontribs) 08:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
So, peterthefourth started a new section without giving time to anyone to answer my last question. Does anyone have a suggestion about i've asked (merging the actual section with Eladynnus one and changing style accordingly for words like "revealed" and "recent" like Grafyell pointed out? Meelanasah (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hatted section[edit]

Section closed for not improving the article and being an epic failure to WP:AGF
(Amatulic) and (Diego Moya) i'm writing this because Petertheforth is trying to having me banned; after his last answer, instead of trying to discuss about the article in the talk page, he went to the page with the administrator who previously banned trying to manipulate him to having me banned AGAIN (for no actual reasons other than claiming i wish to start another edit warring, which i won't). I seriously hope that you'll help me reaching WP:CONSENSUS (as the main focus of this discussion should be) instead of having them remove the entire section without actually discussing it with you two and myself. Thanks.
Outside observer here. I don't have any particular stake in this nor do I really care whether the entry exists in this or that form. However, I do not like the constant and reiterate attempts of either PeterTheFourth and Eladynnus to override people's consent here. Judging by the quality of the edits I saw in the past few days it appears clear from my point of view that without being able to outright delete the entry they're now trying (possibly under hidden partnership) to have it removed by slowly making disappear one sentence at a time. Which is, needless to say, just a different form of bypassing people's consensus. Before enforcing a change on the entry you're advised to discuss it here on the talk page, not the other way around, especially since one of you expressely stated his interest to see the entry disappear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you sure you're not a sockpuppet? (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
No, and trying to bypass my arguments by attacking me personally isn't gonna work either. I stand by what I said, if you wish to address me address my words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
No, that's a legit concern. Your IP is from the same location (which apparently only has a few thousand English speakers), so it's very hard to accept that this is a coincidence. Grayfell (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Accept what you like, investigate as you wish, I've got nothing to hide. I'm no sockpuppet. I expect the next message to address what I said instead of going against who said it. Or no message at all, either is fine to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
So, i'm here. I can see why you're concerned about the sockpuppet thing being that ip from my same location but i can assure you whoever wrote the post above is not, by any chance, me. I'm surprised that Eladdynus, being so perceptive about writing styles and so on, doesn't notice that this user's english is noticeably better than mine ( :( ). Also, i know there are people from Milan who follows OotS; some of them i personally know. The important thing is that this person is acting indipendently as a legit user and i'll surely do anything necessary to prove it. My IP locations are 2 (my home/my workplace); his IP is on even a different range! Now, can we actually gete back to discuss about the article itself instead of trying to "frame" me? I'd really like Diego or Amatulic to show, otherwise i'm afraid this discussion will be one-sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talkcontribs) 07:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
All I can really say is ducky goes quack quack. Using multiple IPs and/or accounts may or may not be a problem depending on the situation, but if the situation is you pretending to be more than one person - especially if you are trying to make it seem like other people are agreeing with you in a discussion - then that is a BIG problem and can result in your brand new account getting blocked long-term. Plenty of people on here thought they were pretty clever with that sort of thing until they got caught. (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
You know, the funny thing (for me, of course) is that i'm 100% sure that isn't me (and that ip doesn't belong to neither of my ISP's from home/workplace). Seeing that you're trying so hard to "frame" me on no basis makes me happy, because in the moment someone will prove that user is not me you'll get punished, and i'll get a good laugh. Of course, the problem here is that there's probably not any sureproof way i can prove that we are different users (and if there is i'd like any administrator to let me know). Also, i've missed the part where i'm pretending to be more than one person. My account is this one (Meelanasah) and my 2 ip ranges are the one from which i'm posting now (which i've found to be a static IP, by the way, or at least it hasn't changed for a long while) and the one i'm using at home (dynamic, but it starts with 151). Again, let me remember you that all you write on wikipedia (even on the talk section) is permanent. If i were you i wouldn't feel so free to make defamatory accusations just because you're editing from an ip address.
So, for the sake of syntesis, i'll recap the two "sides" on this matter
1) "PRO SECTION": Myself ((talk), (Amatulic), (Diego Moya)
2) "AGAINST SECTION": (Eladynnus), (PeterTheFourth)
3) NEUTRALS: -> which is the IP Editor you're claiming to be me. I've read what he wrote and he doesn't strike me to be neither PRO or AGAINST the section, he just stated that (Eladynnus) and (PeterTheFourth are somehove trying to partially avoid consensus.
(Grayfell -> He did an initial revert of my section while it was in his first form but, after Amatulic did his version, he didn't objected as far as i can remember. Correct me if i'm wrong Grayfell, i don't want to pretend you're on "PRO SECTION" side if you aren't.
Now, for the last time, i'm kindly asking you to discuss about the section instead of trying to remove me from the discussion by doing false accusation. If i see this kind of behavior one more time I'll open an incident linking this discussion (which, if you are interested, is being already discussed here. I can guarantee you that in the moment someone will prove that i'm NOT that editor it won't be end well for you.
A neutral third party who agrees with everything you say and makes the same arguments? Eladynnus (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I've missed the part where he agrees about the section; his/her exact quote is " I don't have any particular stake in this nor do I really care whether the entry exists in this or that form.". It appears to me the only thing he/she expressed is that he finds you and PeterTheFourth to bypassing consensus. Needless to say i agree wholly with this statement, because that' exactly the thing you're doing. Can't you see every bit of this discussion became "let's try to frame Meelanash instead of discussing about the section"? I'll be totally honest with you: i don't get you. We managed to reach a version which was ok-ish for everyone (which was Amatulic's version) but you keep trying to deleting it by avoiding any kind of civil discussion. I really wonder what your motivations could be, the section itself is harmless, at least. It has a preachy tone in it's initial incarnations but i think it's gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talkcontribs) 12:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
He says that he doesn't care but then repeats the accusations and arguments you've made on this page while showing the same shaky grasp of Wikipedia policy. The only difference between you two is that that editor's English is better, and the preponderance of evidence indicates that you and he are the same person. No one is framing you, since that would require the fabrication of evidence. The record of your behavior on this and other pages is what led to your ban and the protection of two other pages. The only role I and others have played in those sanctions is calling attention to it. As for the edits themselves, there is no "we" when it comes to that section - you were banned in the middle of undoing Amtulic's version and your edits had to be reverted after you were gone. Eladynnus (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
By the way, you should read WP:NOHARM. Eladynnus (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm still at my workplace; when i'll get back to home i'll gladly report you and the other ip editor for trying to claim something that is not actually true ( even if not knowing the appropriate policy i'm sure that this kind of behavior is punished ;) ). I'll probably have a good laugh because you ARE actually trying to fabricate the evidence. Same ip location is a good indicator of sockpuppetry, i concur, but it's not enough: even if is stating that you and peter are not acting in a correct way (opinion that i find reasonable other people than me could have) he's not actually a part in this. As far as i can see, he made a single intervention claiming that, as an external viewer, he has no interest about the outcome of this. The fact that you're trying to frame me over a single intervention is quite hilarious, especially when i'll be able to prove that the user is not me :D Regarding the part of poor knowledge of the rules well, i'm new here, i don't spend my entire life trying to impose myself on Wikipedia with my "advanced knowledge of tricks and rules and manipulation" ;) And i've got no interest to become such a person: the only thing i have is my "common sense", something that, it appears, you're not used to, but.. hey! You can keep shielding yourself behind fabricated evidences and policies. I'm not guilty so i'll just report you in a fitting section. By the way, i was fine with Amatulic version and i'd have done the revert myself wasn't the page being protected: as you can see, my last current edit on this page is... guess what, reverting to Amatulic's version! see here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talkcontribs) 15:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I can hardly believe that this is still going on. And it's equally astounding to see how insistently Eladynnus is trying to get the entry's author banned (and thus the entry removed - his true goal) upon something he can neither prove nor is true. I can only hope that an objective, competent mod will put you in your place as this has nothing to do with improving Wikipedia and is just an act of warring war using rule-bashing. I'm making similar accusations as others because this is how you've been acting so far. More than one people can see the picture behind your actions. But as a little food for thought, let me ask you this: if you really believe that me and that other guy are the same person, why would *I* be the one who writes with the "better english"? I made something like 2-3 posts max during this whole discussion and didn't really vouch for the entry as much as I did for respecting people's consensus and Wikipedia. If we really were the same person (which isn't the case, let me repeat that) why would the "lesser, typo-prone, confused english" persona be my main spokesperson? Wouldn't it make sense to perorate my cause with my better english and only afterwards post a few "sockpuppet-bad-english" messages to feign majority? We are two different people, deal with it. As to Meelehwhatever stop replying with such long texts to everything that guys says, you just end up validating his accusations by giving him attention, which is what he wants: to take the discussion away from the entry itself and make it personal. We may be from the same country but we're not the same person, and as long as that remains no Wikipedia rule is being broken. There's nothing to hide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Implementing Eladynuss's suggestion[edit]

Eladynnus, do you believe that your suggestion is ready for implementation, or would you like to alter it further? I would like to place it in the article in place of what is currently there. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not think we all agreed with his implementation, so please don't start a new section ignoring my answer and prooceding to alter the section without an actual consent. I'd like to put a revised section by merging the current article with the Eladynnus version (and changing some words as Grayfell suggested). I'd say we can start from this, not deleting the entire thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talkcontribs) 22:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, now that i think about it, how could the words "Revealed" and "Recent" be substituted, in this context? Suggestions? Meelanasah (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean 'everyone agrees with the proposal'. Please read WP:CON for an explanation of consensus, and WP:FILIBUSTER. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Consensus mean "consensus", not "I'll just edit the article from another user's wersione because i WP:LIKE it, ignoring other user's proposals/discussions". We are trying to reach a consensus but you started a new section blatantly ignoring the fact i was trying to accomodate Eladynnus edits with my section, proposing a merging (and altering some words). We were having a civil discussion until I've asked to everyone if we could do a merging by adjusting the style, continue from there and please abstaion to keep this distructive behavior. You have no authority about changing the version by your likings (again WP:LIKE is not a valid argument) and bypassing discussion by opening new sections. Meelanasah (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I did not suggest "changing some words", I said those words were a red flag that the entire section needed to be changed. WP:WTW is not just about substituting some words with synonyms, but is about addressing the underlying problem those words indicate. The shorter proposed version does this to my satisfaction. Making a new section is a perfectly reasonable way to move things forward, and calling that destructive and throwing around "WP:LIKE" accusations does absolutely nothing to build real consensus. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I didn't mean to be destructive, but the thing here is that peter is not actually trying to reach any consensus but overriding my argument in it's entirety. By the way, you are very clear about the fact it's not just those "two words" but i'll just change the article a bit in order to give it a proper neutral and better form, let all me know if this is of for you but honestly, does the current *three rows paragraph* poses a big threat about WEIGHT issues? Meelanasah (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, i've adjusted the form in a more neutral way. Id' also like to integrate the section with the sentence about the book eladynnus wrote but then the section would become a bit big that i think we are all comfortable with. I'd like to reinforce my thought that removing the section in it's entirely it's not a good way to "move things forward". I'd be more prone to merging the section/adapting it. Meelanasah (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
That's not enough of an improvement. Rearranging the wording solved nothing. "This strip"? Which is "this strip"? That doesn't really make sense, and from a practical stand-point it's too confusing. Worse, it doesn't address the underlying issue at all.
Phrasing it that way uses Wikipedia's voice to claim that Burlew was successful in compensating for the story's previous lack of diversity, which is an issue that's only raised in sources by Burlew himself. We can only say that he described it as a compensation for the problem as he saw it, or that it was an attempt at such a compensation. We cannot even imply that he succeeded. Was Bandana a success? Was it too-little-too-late? Was she included as blatant tokenism? Pandering? Those are all more or less valid critical interpretations, aren't they? Why are we only focusing on this one aspect of it? Why are we digging so deep, and bending over so far, just to give him that extra little bit of credit based only on what he's said about his own work? It's not neutral to approach a topic like this.
He wrote in 2015 that he regretted showing "insensitivity to gender issues" in older panels and was making an effort to improve that aspect of the comic is perfectly clear. It gives him credit for acknowledging past mistakes and trying to correct them (which I think he should be commended for, by the way) without providing a platform for self-promotion or fan favoritism. Grayfell (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
"this strip" refers to the strip i've added as a reference, propose a better word change if you wish. Regarding the fact if he was successful or not it's not inferred in any way. The exact quote from the section is "<cut>was obviously gay to compensate for such a character's absence". Maybe it's more correct using "to ATTEMPT to compensate", i'll make that correction now to see if it sounds better but, even as it is right now, there's no implication that he succedeed or any consideration you've exposed. Meelanasah (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

There are problems with the approach followed by Eladynuss in the sandbox. In particular, it doesn't make sense to remove all mentions to the publication in Dragon and Gygax magazines, which are sourced by reliable, independent references.

The article has a large amount of in-universe content in the Plot, Characters and Fictional World sections. Trimming down the parts that offer real-world information is problematic under WP:NOTPLOT. Diego (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Peter, Diego Moya was not referring at my section but at the entire article as you can see in his previous comment. Could you please avoid to misinterpret information in order to delete the section without providing actual reasons? Thanks Meelanasah (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Diego, i'm seriously not getting what' wrong with the actual version of the section aside "Eladynnus proposed a shorter version". If you decide to revert again to that section i won't object, but i do not get why you did that. There was not any actual consensus. There's a discussion during which peterthefourt changed the version to eladynnus without actually addressing any reason or answering to my questions. I do not think that's really correct for a 3 rows paragraph which i've adjusted many times to accomodate people's opinion about wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talkcontribs) 12:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, Diego, you even did a reword on my version see here so i don't get why, all of a sudde, you wish to delete it :) Meelanasah (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not agreeing with this version. I know that somehow the consensus became this "section with no actual information about the subject" and i can't edit again or i'll get blocked. Meelanasah (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, Diego, i do not wish to use edit summary to flame with you but as you probably noticed i'm not a native speaker. I know "my consensus" sounds ridiculous; what i meant was "my stance". Meelanasah (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, sorry for that remark. I knew I was stretching the rules when I made it as an edit comment, I just wanted to lighten the mood and not to be taken too serious (therefore the 'wink-wink' emoticon). Diego (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
No offence taken, i know you're acting in good faith. Being new to wikipedia i just find sad and irritating that my stance was basically ignored. I know there is a consensus to be reached but i've tried to politely adapt my section and accomodating critics; my section was not not preachy, not lenghty, not anti-neutral, but the extreme eladynnus's edit managed to be the "consensus". As i've stated before, it's not that i do disagree with this version but it's just that basically contains no information. Meelanasah (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
This latest entry feels extremely lackluster. The very initial one was something like 6+ lines if I remember right, which was indeed too long and verbose, I'm agreeing on that. Then it got reduced, which was correct. Then it got redacted by an user (Amatulic?) which I believe gave it the right lenght: something like 3 lines and a half which was consistent with similar entries above and conveyed the point with ease. Now... it's just a shell. What's an "outsider status"? I have no idea, and the entry does nothing to tell me. The previous one made everything clear to the average joe reader from first glance, this is just air. I don't know if I need an account to propose anything here, but personally I feel keeping the mere line "Burlew has used his webcomic as a vehicle to convey stances on social topics because he wishes his work to have impact beyond momentary distractions.[21] Burlew explained that he is attempting to compensate for past instances of "unintentional sexism and/or insensitivity to gender issues".[22]" and ending the entry at that (without the needless Bandana reference) worked perfectly, true balance between keeping it short AND keeping the message easy and clear. This is just too lackluster. (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
That's actually a valid point. I do not like that even the bit about Bandana is being removed but at least we could make the remaining bit of the section a bit more self-explanatory. Same lenght, same content, better form. I'm not sure if i can edit the article again so, if anyone has not anything to object about this, i'll change the section just with that couple of sentences. Probably tomorrow. Meelanasah (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
P.S: you actually need an account in order to perform the edit by yourself as the page is currently semi-protected. Meelanasah (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Now that i think about it with this change the official commentary reference is lost (the one that refers to the Giant's issue to write about minorities being not part of any). I'd like to merging it with the bit of the section mentioned above (and, again, removing the bit about the introduction of Bandana in it's entirely). I'd like to hear other's opinion about this last idea before i eventually proceed. Meelanasah (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
So, as i was saying yesterday, i wouldn't have proceeded to edit the article again as the actual version was estabilished to be consensus but, after the proposal of the ip editor above me, i find reasonable to edit the article to convey a bit of more information while not altering the lenght/tone of the article. So, i'll just leave the bit "Burlew has used his webcomic as a vehicle to convey stances on social topics because he wishes his work to have impact beyond momentary distractions.[21] Burlew explained that he is attempting to compensate for past instances of "unintentional sexism and/or insensitivity to gender issues".[22]". I'll also add a very brief hint about official commentary, basing on eladynnus sentence, but maybe substituting "outsider" (which, by itself, doesn't mean very much) to something like "not part of any". I'd put something like "white heterosexual male" but i feel it's wrong for some reason. Meelanasah (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
That is certainly an acceptable edit to explore; I obviously can't speak for the other editors, but nobody seems to have objections to any particular wording, only the length of the section. Attempts to clarify the text while maintaining the current size are welcome, and any objection can be further discussed here - or hopefully directly improved by those who would raise them. Diego (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok then, i'll proceed to the edit as soon as the 24h 3 edits period expires. I do not want to incur in some 3RR stuff. Meelanasah (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
If I'll need to make an account to vouch for the shorter version I proposed (which is the previously established and already long-edited one save for the needless bandana line) than I'll do so. I agree with wanting to keep the entry short but shortness shouldn't come at the expense of clarity and meaning. This "new" entry feels very lackluster and obscure. (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
That won't be necessary. As i've already said i'm going to perform the edit as soon as the 24hours since my yesterday first edit expires. Meelanasah (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
You don't need to wait until the period expires, as this change has consensus for now at the talk page. Conversely, if the change didn't have consensus, you'd still could be punished for edit warring even if the period had just been expired, for trying to game the system on technicalities. It is the spirit of the edit that counts for the WP:Edit war policy, not just the letter. Diego (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I've performed the edit. I'm not 100% comfortable about how i've worded out the last sentence; does anyone have suggestions in order to improve the fluency of the sentence? I've adapted the "talking out of his ass" bit into "making false claims" which i personally find appropriate but, i don't know, the sentence feels clunky. Meelanasah (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've condensed and reworded your version. Diego (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's really good; i just hope it is for everyone so we can end this debate :D Meelanasah (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I've made a final tweak, revert it if you think the previous wording was better. Diego (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm personally fine with it. Meelanasah (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Here it is for convenience:
Burlew has used his webcomic as a vehicle to convey stances on social topics because he worries about the impact of his work beyond momentary distractions.[forum] Burlew wrote that he is attempting to compensate for past instances of "unintentional sexism and/or insensitivity to gender issues"[forum] but, being a straight white male, he is afraid to talk authoritatively about minorities without the proper knowledge.[book]
I still don't like this. "Stances on social topics" is far too vague. It's conversationally fine, but in an encyclopedia article about a work of fiction, it's meaningless. What is and isn't a social topic? Without defining what that means, we're effectively giving him credit for something based only on his own comments.
This is a recurring problem found in other parts of the article, also. For example, the section on art style includes Burlew's editorializing and critique of his own style. Why? Most artists, (and most people in general) can point to things they would've done differently. We can assume that he wouldn't have changed it if he didn't think it was a good idea to change it, right? Elaborating on this by using his personal opinions on his past artistic choices reads like filler. Filler is non-neutral.
This section also includes unknowable claims presented as fact. We cannot know what Burlew 'worries' or what he's 'afraid' of, we can only say what he's said about those things. Rephrasing this to make that distinction clear would be more impartial, but it would also draw attention to the sourcing and neutrality problems that come from including this in the first place.
I would also change "wrote" to "has written" since we are quoting him from the past about what he is currently doing. Grayfell (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, his exact quote on the book is "i find difficult to make statements about the experiences of other demographics groups without running the risk of talking out of my ass"" So, yeah, stating that he's "afraid" could be considered a bit misleading... more that he finds hard to talk about it. Suggestion on rewording the sentence basing on the original quote? Also, about the first quote, we could change it into something more specific like "convey his social stance about minorities" or something like that in order to be more neutral? I'll do a first edit about the things i'm sure i can rephrase a little better. Meelanasah (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • And with respect to "worries", the exact words are "you start to ask yourself whether what you are doing is really important and what impact, if any, your work will have on the world beyond momentary distractions". So we could change "because he worries about the impact of his work" to "because he asks himself about the impact of his work" in order to WP:STICKTOSOURCES if you want, but I don't think that much fidelity is needed, and the latter reads awkward. Diego (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
We accept Burlew as the only authority on his own mental state, but we're still just repeating his claims about himself. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but we still cannot report his mental state as plain fact, because we cannot possibly verify it. It's a level deeper than we have any good reason to go. If we had to include this, we could say something like "Burlew has said that he's included social issues in his comics so that they have a lasting impact". This gets the point across without trying to divine his inner motivations based on some passing comments. I still don't think we should bother at all, though. It just reads like filler to me. Everybody (as in all of us) ask ourselves things all the time, and rarely does this get included in Wikipedia articles. Why is this point an exception? Here's a theory, tell me if I'm wrong: At a glance, this appears to be a pop-culture related comic drawn in an intentionally simplistic style. As a reader of the comic, I know that it's much more complicated than that, so it's tempting to want to include content which defends its legitimacy as an art-form. The comparison between the gags of the first 'dungeon' and the emotional arcs of later strips is especially jarring, and Burlew has obviously evolved as an author (and visual artist). When I say it's 'obvious', I say that as someone who's read all of the strips, but that's still just my personal perspective, isn't it? A desire to defend a work isn't coming from a neutral place. It's also WP:OR. Digging for Burlew's own quotes to help support a preconceived notion is (potentially, if not always) a round-about form of editorializing and original research. We need to let independent sources guide the content, and they don't appear to exist, so we need to be show restraint in how we approach this. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Or, alternatively, we may be writing about the representation of minorities because it is a verifiable fact that the author signifies as relevant, and the article is lacking in out-of-universe material. Please see if you like my latest wording upgrade. Diego (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Characters of The Order of the Stick[edit]

It looks like this character article was split from the main article about... 10 years ago. It is currently PROD. Should we merge anything from there to here? (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Not much, if anything, should be merged. The Wikia is that way. Grayfell (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I have one sincere question for the people who make "move the content to a fan site" arguments in delete discussions. How are we expected to do that, if the attribution information required to legally reuse the content is subsequently deleted from Wikipedia? Diego (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I admit that came off rude, and I'm sorry about that. I'm frustrated by the amount of time spent on gaming related content, but the pages themselves are valuable, and do deserve to be preserved in a more appropriate place. I don't mean to dismiss the work that's been put into them.
That's a good question, and I wish I understood the transwiki process better. Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion specifically mentions restoring deleted pages to be "used elsewhere". I believe page history and attribution can be copied to other Wikis (I've never actively edited the "Military Wikia", for example, but I'm listed as a contributor). Grayfell (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't think of copying the attribution info to the target site before deleting it here. That solves the technicality I was concerned with. Diego (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Are there any objections to a merging? I'm okay with doing it myself, but having never merged an article before I'm unsure that I'd be able to do it as competently as another. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The Characters of The Order of the Stick was the result of a multi-way discussion, where multiple stand-alone articles were merged into that single article, which was then deemed notable enough; I think moving beyond that previous consensus would require a more publicized discussion. Diego (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@Diego Moya: Should I start an RfC? There's a notice at Characters of The Order of the Stick that has been there for a while- is there anything else I could do to attract attention? I feel like an RfC would be going too far for this issue. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
What is the problem that you're trying to solve, that can't be fixed by editing the list article directly? Diego (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I do not believe that there are sufficient sources solely about those characters to justify a separate article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
List articles typically don't need independent sources about each entry, only that the ensemble of characters is discussed as a notable topic by RSs as a whole; the venerable article List of Dilbert characters would be the equivalent to this OoTS list. I've been adding references about the reception of those characters to Characters of The Order of the Stick, and I think there are more to find and include there.
We might try to tightening the inclusion criteria in the list instead, to remove some less relevant entries, although I can't think of which direction to take. Diego (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
That reads a bit to me as a WP:OTHERSTUFF kind of argument. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
If you prefer, I can quote the WP:LISTN guideline that says "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group". Or the exact line of the guideline that quotes the List of Dilbert characters as a valid example, where you'll find the criteria that makes it acceptable. Diego (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it's definitely an improvement Diego, thank you! (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Gosh. No, you're right, I'm wrong. Sorry. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)