Talk:Dresden Codak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Included in trivia- Kimiko "Thundrbolt" Ross, A reference to the comic book character "Thunderbolt Ross?

I agree, just because you don't agree with something, or don't like the comic does not mean that you should delete it, many articles are worth having even if you don't like them, if it offends you that's one thing, but deleting a page is alot. Just ignore it. Now you are free to yell and scream now that I've put in my two cents XAlannax (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You delete-happy kids need to settle down.

Is it just me, or has someone basically been going through all the webcomic entries and marking them for deletion on the basis of insufficient notability? --TF

I think the main problem is that people create webcomic articles on here as character guides etc. rather than encyclopedia articles. Now we've got a reasonable article load there's a push to removing non-encyclopedic articles and making sure articles are properly referenced, rather than creating new articles. Take this article for example - lots of information which is boils down to summarising the comic and characters and providing spoilers galore, but not much about the comic in context. For example the comic was mentioned in Seed magazine, importance evidence of its appeal to scientists, yet the article here doesn't mention this at all. Character guides and plot summaries would be fine for a comics wiki, but this is supposed to be producing an encyclopedia, which means it's supposed to be of interest to the general reader. Sockatume 11:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then the "problem" is one of formatting and not of notability. It's one thing to delete an article that is insufficiently sourced, but another to delete it simply because you're not satisfied with how the information is presented. Regardless, this problem isn't unique to webcomic pages, though. Plot summaries and character information are very common on wikipedia articles about various works of fiction including films, print comics, animation and even some novels. If you don't like the type of information being presented, then change it, but bon't pick on webcomics just because they're a new medium. Deleting this article would be unfair because it IS notable, and holds a great deal of relevance to the community to the medium at large. --RC

I think the two cross over, at least from the point of view of the reader. For example if I was to write about the mind-blowingly non-notable webcomic ICFF, I would necessarily be unable to include any material from webcomic critics, commentators etc. There isn't any material on there to include. Therefore it would be obvious to someone prowling the Wikipedia that it was a non-notable subject. However if I was to write about the notable subject "Citizen Kane", and just made it a character guide and story summary, it would look the same. So returning to the subject at hand, most of the Wikipedia webcomics articles are written as plot summaries and character guides, and therefore give the appearance of being about a non-notable subject, regardless of how notable the subject is. Sockatume 18:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares, is what I say. Bandwidth is (relatively) cheap and so is diskspace. Wikipedia is a great source of info on many bands whose only presence on the intertubes is a myspace page - and I think that's awesome. Why can't we spend our energies keeping the PENIS and OPTIMUS PRIME RULES out of good articles instead, and let entropy deal with the crappier articles? Notability on the internet, of all places, is so flimsy (and lord help you if your website has been profiled by the offline media). Finally, judging by the average amount of comments in the average deletion discussion, you could easily get 15 friends with long standing accounts to bully the vote your way, on low traffic articles. That one of the folks there tried to use Alexa rankings as a justification is just sad. You can only be so much of a pedant. hif 19:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Webspace may be cheap, but the goal of the project is to produce an encyclopedia, not literally record all knowledge in one place (the BBC's H2G2, which predates Wikipedia, was designed with that in mind). So conciseness is a key concern. Regarding the deletion discussion process: they changed it from a vote to a discussion basis a little a while ago, because of concerns like the ones you mention. If someone makes a particularly sound case for keeping the article which can't be countered by those arguing for deletion, it'll be kept, or at least their points will prevent a concensus for deletion being reached, regardless of how established the user making the case is. Sockatume 19:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I go to wikipedia when I want information about something. Also the comic is notable. Bleh.

Notability versus Enencyclopeadic[edit]

I keep seeing people suggest suggest an article be deleted under the non notability grounds. As the above discussion indicated to me, they were really deleting it because they found the entry un encyclopedic. They are not the same thing. Anyway, I vote keep. Mathiastck 01:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. I suggested the deletion because of a lack of notability. If the best that this comic can come up with is an off mention by Gurewitch or a one line mention in a daily zeitgeist then its not notable. - hahnchen 17:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notable.. like.. A ROOM WITH A MOOSE?? The comic is notable. Quiet down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.195.158 (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Notable...like Snorlax?? If you see the "Wikiproject Webcomic" tag perhaps, I say perhaps, you should assume that they know what they're doing. But nooo. Crush, kill, destroy! "Wikipedia - the free lexicon that anyone can delete!" Join the fun, people! Harg 01:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SO ANGRY. Deleted MISFILE now? $#%#$%! STOP DELETING SHIT. Ohemgee 05:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You people who delete everything because you can really make me POed, just because it is not that notable doesn't mean that it is not worth anything XAlannax (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WCCA establishes Notability[edit]

Web Cartoonist's choice awards have been ruled as an adequate source of notablity.Interpretivechaos 18:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notiblity?[edit]

I don't think this should even exist as a page, but if this is going to stay surely someone needs to edit this articule, namely make it more balanced in terms of adding more to the critisms to include the mention of its 2-d characters and badly conceived story lines.FSAB (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if anybody of NOTE in major media makes such a criticism, I'm sure it will be, until then, stay NPOV please. (Also: it's spelled "Notability"... "article"... and "criticism".)68.202.85.105 (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some possible sources[edit]

--Dragonfiend (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody track down the Wizard Magazine interview, perchance? It's probably the most obviously high-profile coverage (note: this is not to say that Wizard Magazine is "better", simply that more people have heard of it outside of the general comics community. as it appears on regular newstands with fair regularity) 68.202.85.105 (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update frequency[edit]

This comic has never ever updated once a week, nor will it in the foreseeable future. However, pointing this out is original research, while the comic's own blatantly false claim of once a week is truthery by default, right? --213.67.23.49 (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the comic's entire run there's been one episode every 26 days on average. More fairly, for the current plotline the average update interval is 22 days. So yes, 1.5-3 weeks is closer to the mark. I don't want to judge Diaz personally, but he's received some widespread criticism (not to say ridicule) for announcing a much higher tempo and then going on as before. --213.67.23.49 (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big edit[edit]

I have restructured the page to be less complicated and less subjective. Therefore, much of the previous conversation is moot. Webmaren (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News and Scholar sources[edit]

Google news and scholar searches of "aaron diaz dresden" returns two potential sources that do not appear to be in the article nor here in the talk page. Here they are in case anyone wishes to expand the article.

  • Al Kratina's 2008 article Internet liberates comic book artists in canada.com mentions Diaz use of "unlimited canvas" and the comic's scientific concepts.
  • Aubrey de Grey's editorial comments on Diaz's essay A Thinking Ape’s Critique of Trans-Simianism attached to this 2007 episode. Aubrey de Grey wrote that she sent the essay to Hava Samuelson for comment and briefly touched on the reactions of academics and non-academics.

-84user (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Those sound like good sources indeed. When I get the chance, perhaps I'll go and add them a bit. 68.202.85.105 (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dresden Codak. 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, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dresden Codak. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dresden_Codak&oldid=1201654613"