Talk:Calvin and Hobbes/Archive 6

message: I'm not currently seeing a clear consensus here that the policy at WP:EL be ignored.  I'm also somewhat confused by comments in the edit summaries that the links remain until there is consensus to remove them.  This is contrary to Wikipedia policy.  As a rule the fall back is that the policy position is used.  Can people explain why they keep reverting the position established by policy?  I am not going to engage in an edit war, but I wish to point this out:  Wikipedia policy is formed from a consensus of many editors, and should not be disregarded as easily as this.  I would also point out no demonstrable consensus to link to fan-sites exists even on this talk page.  I would ask that people consider their reasoning before reverting edits made in clear line with established policy. I appreciate people may wish to see fan-sites listed, but Wikipedia has clear guidance that at best one fan site should be linked too.  This article is a featured article, and should be held to the highest standards.  Wikipedia works best when we all assume good faith in each other.  Let's not lose sight of that fact. Can I also remind people of WP:3RR.  There are a number of editors who are close to breaching this policy.  I am still not clear why edits made in good faith and in line with policy are being reverted.
*Is it fair to say there is no consensus to ignore the directions at WP:EL with regards the fan sites? Happy editing! Hiding  talk 13:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We seem to be at a dead heat at the moment. Should I try to find others to participate? Mjg0503 20:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to misunderstand my question.  Do you accept there is currently no consensus to ignore the policy at WP:EL?   Hiding  talk 20:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, I agree that we stick to the WP:EL guidelines. There's going to be quite a debate over which fan site gets the lucky one external link though. --OscarTheCattalk 20:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not a consensus not to remove it either. Can you offer any other type of solution other than doing it the exact way you want to? In my opinion, the article should offer links to other sites that users would find interesting, and more often than not, fan sites are more useful resources than official sites or newspaper articles. And there are many other excellent articles (e.g. Scooby-Doo, Cheers) that have links to various fan sites, because they are quite useful to users. A good example of this is the Calvin and Hobbes Hideout. Without the link on wikipedia, I would never have known it exsists, and I find it to be a very useful reference, and just all around fun to visit for the C&H fan. I'm open to compromise. - Mjg0503 20:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've read over the policy and it said that it was a guidline not a strict, no flexability poicy. It also said that an article should not be soley a collection of external links, not that it can't have a moderate sized link section after an extremely large article like this one. - Mjg0503 17:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Remembering that voting is evil and that wikipedia is not a democracy, of course. - brenneman{T}{L}  02:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, see Wikipedia is not a democracy.  We need to reach a concensus here.  Wikipedia policy dictates that external links are kept to the bare minimum, as User:Hiding is saying. One fan site gets linked, which I suggest has itself a directory of further links. --OscarTheCattalk 10:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds a little like we're making up policy as we go along.  Any useful content on the external links ought to be alluded to in the C&H article, with a  reference added to the article.  That way, the pertinent external links are referenced in context rather than a plethora of "External links" at the bottom of the article. I've done a minor edit to the article, showing how this approach is used for a reference to C&H Magic On Paper, where discussion of collectable items is documented, early in the article. --OscarTheCattalk 12:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I couldn't agree more with this approach.  Hiding  talk 13:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, grand.  I've re-jigged the article to make use of the more usual reference style.  I hope this encourages Michael and everyone else to add references as necessary, in an effort to reduce the external links section. --OscarTheCattalk 16:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are doing? Are you saying that if a site is in the external links, that some portion of it should be referenced somewhere in the article? It's not exactly what I had in mind, but it sounds like a good compromise. I think,however, that we should leave maybe a couple of un-referenced links for further research, but if nobody agrees with me, we don't have to do that. I'll see if my site, or any of the others, have anything to add to the article and reference them later today when I have time. If they don't have anything to add, we can delete them. - Mjg0503 17:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Great.  I've had a look at your site and am sure you'll have content that should be referenced from wikipedia.  And as you say, those external links with nothing to offer will then be removed, to keep the main article concise.  --OscarTheCattalk 18:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've cleaned out the EL section. I left links to three fan sites, Calvin and Hobbes Hideout, Magic on Paper, and the Jumpstation (which can be considered more of a directory). Simply Calvin and Hobbes may be a good reference tool in the future because of its weird facts section [], but for the moment I have removed it, along with my site, until they have something referenced in the article, which should be put in the references section anyhow. - Mike"mjg0503"talk 21:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Respect policy

message: Looking at the EL as they stand now, is it safe to say that everything is cool now? There are links to the official sites, three fan sites and a few articles and a radio show. - Mike (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no harm in including fan sites provided that their quality/content is good, but i think the link verification dates can be removed. If someone finds a broken link, then he will removed it. -- vineeth 16:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any harm in it either, but if you read over this disucssio you'll see that others, most notably Hiding, feel very strongly about having them removed. So, OscarTheCat came up with this compromise. - Mike (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite think this was the compromise Oscar came up with, and I've also removed the Magic on Paper link since it displays interviews which are copyright, therefore violating copyright, as I discussed on your talk page, where I made note of the copyright notice within that issue. Hiding  talk 21:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Magic on Paper is in the references. Is it all right to keep it in the references, since a large amount of the info is from there? - Mike (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where a site is the source of the information, for example A Concise Guide To All Legitimate (and some not-so-legitimate) Merchandise, it is okay to use it as a reference.  Where a site reposts an interview or article, we should not link to that site in the reference if the site hosts the information in violation of copyright; the source is not the site but the original source itself.  This is for two reasons: first, the violation of copyright, and second, in the verification of the source.  It may be that the site has transposed the article incorrectly; something which can only be gleaned from checking the original text.  The original text is what we cite as our source; it is therefore the one we should list. If people want to post links to the talk page noting that such and such an interview is online at blah blah blah, I don't think policy as yet precludes that. Hiding  talk 22:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links agreed upon?

message: I have been accepted as the editor for the Calvin and Hobbes listing  at DMOZ, so now all of the links are up to date. Plus, I've added links to some better sites. Anybody here with a contribution should submit it! I'm going to add it to the links now, since it is up to date, and better quality. --Mike (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ODP Listing

message: Phew! I merged all of the character stubs into secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes, moved Calvin's alter egos to Calvin's article, wrote an article on Hobbes based on what was here. I then abridged the character sections of the main article. It is now down to 59 kilobytes. The secondary characters article may require some cleanup. Happy editing! - Mike (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Splendid.  I've done a dozen or so edits, just fixing some minor typos and added a ref or two. --OscarTheCattalk 22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I did my best to go through and fix grammar and duplicated points, but I coudn't catch all of them John oh has a habit of repeating himself, it seems. I also reworded a few sections, and updaed the wikilinks - Mike (talk)] 23:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character articles merged/written 

message: Since Calvin and Hobbes is published worldwide, would it be a good idea to create an article on different translations?
An early translation in Dutch changed the names to 'Casper and Hobbes.' Later translators would have to keep these changes in. Though the names of minor characters were later corrected again. The name of Susie Derkins was 'Ilse' in Dutch and ms Wormwood was 'mevr Wormhout.'
Sincerely,
Kaye (in The Netherlands)
-  145.7.182.188 12:31, March 14, 2006 (UTC)
:See Calvin and Hobbes in translation - Mike (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations 

message: The article still is 59 kb, and should probably get down to around 50. Outsourcing the characters cut 11 off. Does anybody know what else we can outsource? I would think that the books would be a good idea, we could just create and link to another article caleed List of Calvin and Hobbes Books. Sound good? - Mike (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea, it will be good if we do this. --vineeth 05:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, good idea.  If we can get it down to less than 50kb, that's a reasonable article size, per WP:SIZE.  One thing I want to add though : should we consider creating an article per book, as was done with Dilbert#Media.  (Just want to cover all bases before we commence work on this) --OscarTheCattalk 16:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don;t think every book is worthy of its own article, except for maybe the Complete collection. However, I would be for adding more information about them in the books article. Typical mergist ideology, I guess! - Michael Goonan"mjg0503"talk 21:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, grand.  I'm sure there's significant extra content we can add about each book, eg the Watterson intro, particular themes (e.g. the beanie hat). --OscarTheCattalk 21:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Good, shall we commence? I have copied the table to the new article, but I want to make sure there  is a concesus before I do anything to the main article.- Mike (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I went ahead and removed it. The main article is down to 53K now.  Feezo  <FONT SIZE="-2">(Talk)</FONT> 01:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further outsourcing?