Talk:Erfworld

message: Erfworld is said to be a webcomic while Book O is actually a novel and Book 2 is a mix between a webcomic and short storie.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.83.12.16 (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Novel and webcomic

message: Seems to be a bit of a hole in the flow of the article.  Right now you've got <Description of layout Format> followed by <Characters>.  There should be <Premise> as brief summary between the two, something akin to "Erfworld follows the adventures of magical teenage rockers on their quest to conquer the moon..."  Only I'd recommend using an actual summary of the premise, as I am unfamiliar with this particular webcomic. Bitnine 22:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already present in the article, in the location you've inidcated.  However, it is part of the same paragraph describing the format, and if I had any skill at styling things, I'd fix that.  i kan reed 22:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hole 

message: Since this article was (wrongly) deleted, the discussion page for the earlier version of the article seems to be lost. Are discussion pages of deleted articles archived somewhere, or has it simply vanished altogether? In any case, I re-raise my concern: Should there be a bit more emphatetic mention that the 'webcomic' Hamstard is in a way 'fake'? It's actually drawn by the creators of Erfworld in order to create some nice post-modern intertextuality effect. Matti Nuortio, Oulu, Finland 13:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: contents of deleted pages are only accessable to administrators.  Also, sure you can write that about hamstard if there are any reliable sources on the matter.  i kan reed 14:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been confirmed by the authors themselves. Naturally, this was on GiantITP forums, which are basically an unreliable source, but on the other hand you can't get much more reliable than direct confirmation from the author. Also, someone already added a sentence about Hamstard. Thanks for that. Matti Nuortio, Oulu, Finland 21:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion page of deleted article 

message: Does someone want to post pictures of the cast, a picture for the infobox, etc?
Thanks!Belril 19:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got the infobox picture up; working on cast pictures. Gitman00 15:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: EDIT:Okay, I've uploaded the cast pictures.  Not sure if they're too big, but I'll leave them at full size for now.  I figure the biographies of the characters will grow to fit the pic sizes.  Thoughts on developing a separate cast page? Gitman00 16:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I never noticed this section.  Just keep in mind that fair use images are to be used only where necessary.  i kan reed 17:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I notice the pictures were deleted, with a note on breaking the page layout.  Possible compromise: We can restore the pictures but make them smaller.  I'll go ahead and do this if I don't see any objections in the next couple days. Gitman00 19:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: EDIT:Never mind.  After some experimentation, I discovered that making the pictures small enough to fit within the article's layout would make them too small to be meaningful.  I'll wait until the character biographies expand a bit. Gitman00 18:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures? 

message: It's great that someone took the time to add a detailed synopsis, but remember that this is not the Erfworld site. The plot synopsis only needs to summarise, not reprint the entire course of the comic... and more importantly, please keep speculation out of it. Even stuff that seems obvious, like Jillian being attracted to Ansom, is still speculation until stated otherwise. And if you feel the need to clarify with "It is very likely that", "suggests", "probably", "it is possible that", and more... it almost certainly doesn't belong in the article.
Will try to clean it up and pare it down.
Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 12:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit: done paring it down. Some could probably be restored with a bit more effort than I applied, but personally I don't think too much more is needed to get a good idea of what the plot so far is. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 13:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive synopses 

message: In the character description of Lord Hamster, it is mentioned that "He is a skilled leader, but severely lacking in modesty. His crest is a radish. He carries the Arkenpliers, though he is not attuned to them, and thus cannot use their full abilities."  Obviously, this is supposed to be about Prince Ansom.  If someone could separate these out and make a section for Prince Ansom, it would be for the best. -- 155.33.148.136 03:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A glitch in the coding for one of the references screwed up the page formatting and combined the two.  It's fixed now. Gitman00 17:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ansom and Hamster Confused 

message: I would like to see a list of the various jokes, either as a separate list, or threaded throughout the page.  There are many jokes that I did not figure out for a long time, and thus I am sure I am still missing many.  For example, until I read this Wikipedia entry, I didn't get the joke of the name "Bogroll"; I suspected a joke of some sort, but I was thinking it was a pun on "blogroll" or something.
Here are a list of jokes I think I have found:
Wanda Firebaugh -- in the "Elmer Fudd" dialect that turns "dragon" into "dwagon", the word "fireball" might come out "firebaugh".  Thus "Wanda Firebaugh" sounds very much like "Wand of Fireball", a classic magic item from fantasy games.
Prince Ansom -- last name sounds like "handsome".
Jillian Zamussels -- last name sounds like "the muscles", suitable for a barbarian
ORLY birds -- based on "O RLY?" snowy owl
cloth golems -- the giant teddy bear and other plush animal units
magic words -- to make something disappear into a hat, "hoffa"; to make it appear again, "livingston"... but the magic word used to summon Parson Gotti, "scruby" was so obscure I had to use Google.  (Answer: scruby) (I still wonder why the sound effect for Parson arriving was "PLOT"?)
:I assume the sound is "PLOT" because it's obviously a plot turn.
visual gags -- the "portal room" was clearly based on the transporter room from the original Star Trek; when Parson was summoned, everything looked like TRON...  
Perhaps some of this material should be in the main article, but I think ideally there would be a separate list, so people who want to try to spot all the jokes could avoid reading it. -- Steveha 06:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, this sounds like it would be more at home on a fansite or the official forums. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A list of jokes doesn't sound encyclopedic to me. That would be much more suitable for a fan site. However, an example or two of the type of humour in the comic might be a good idea. It gives a reader who doesn't know the comic a good idea of what the comic is like. -Sensemaker
As a total offside, I'm very fond of the fact that naughtymancy/numbers magic, the cutesypoo equivalent of evil arcane, happens to be called "deletionism." One or two examples sounds like a good idea, would have to be fairly limited to keep it from growing fast. (Not that growing fast is a reason not to have any, just slightly more troublesome.) --Kizor 01:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Bear in mind that for *any* pop-culture references to be included, you'd need confirmation from the authors or a review from a "reliable" third party source, or you will have people removing it per the no original research policy. Yes, even if it's a completely obvious reference. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Jokes 

message: Nice work on this section, but considering we only have specific data on a small number of sections of magic isn't this catagory a bit overly large?  Is it stands, the magic section is over one-fourth of the entire wiki but only six of the "schools" have been mentioned past their location on the axis.  Perhaps a table showing the positions on the axis would be better, with sperate mentions for anything actually known? --Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried my best to condence it as much as possible, but I don't know how to make or really work tables outside of putting the information in them, so I'll have trouble helping on that part; if you can make a table for this, I will fully support you. But I must mention that tables already exist on the second Klog page, so we might put those in the page as images as opposed to just making tables. I'm not sure however, if we should just put them up or ask Rob and/or Jamie before doing so. (Justyn (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That second table is a perfect example of what I meant; Ihave zero clue as to the best design for such a table, hence why I didn't make one.  Something like that would be a lot better than the pages of scroll we have right now.  Then a simple paragraph or two containing anything specifically known at this time. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur that the second chart would be a VAST improvement to the long list of relatively unimportant magic types. Also, given RBalders comments on this very page, do I sense a barb tossed Wikipedia's way in the "Deletionism" magic type? Ig8887 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magic 

message: Hey all.  I editted this section because it was missing some early references and also made it sound like only a single unit, the crap golem, could make use of the word as opposed to the word by itself.  Mainly I'm bringing it up in talk page because, though I think the new title is not inappropriate (it does cover what the entire section is about), I figured discussion would not hurt.IMHO (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boop and crap 

message: Someone added the deletion template, which I promptly removed.  This article has already been deleted and undeleted once. I think that a webcomic named as one of the 10 best of the year by Time magazine is sufficiently notable.
Also, I REALLY do not like anonymous users proposing deletions.  Henrymrx (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion? 

message: Recent edit claims the line "the Sofa King is Sofa-King finished here" somehow works around the censorship of Erfworld.  How is that?  What is it being said in exchange for?  I'm leaving the line up for now, because I don't even understand the meaning on it's face, unless it was a typo.  But if there is no explanation, the line in the article should be removed.  IMHO (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be blunt (because I can't think of another non-silly way to explain this), it is because "Sofa-King" when said aloud sounds like "So Fucking".  So the intended "work around" in that line is due to the fact that when spoken you will hear "The Sofa King is so fucking finished here."  That clear enough? *chuckles* --Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is this related to Boop? 

message: Yes, but why does it? The word is not used once in the article. If there's a good reason, please add an explanation to the article. If not, the redirect shouldn't be there in the first place. 86.158.191.109 (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tcotchke redirects here" 

message: I added some information about the Arkendish from Summer Updates 46 (http://www.erfworld.com/2009/10/summer-updates-–-046/)
If someone could do that fancy ref or cite note number thing next to the info until I learn how to do so, I would be ever so grateful.  PaperClip OF DOOM (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Arkendish information 

message: First the bibliography.  The general guideline about writing fiction in such a way that treats the plot, setting, and characters as real is covered in the wikipedia manual of style.  In particular it's under Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction).  As a guideline, this is not a hard and fast rule about how articles must be written, but a tool to help editors understand how to best approach writing an encyclopedia article.  Exceptions can and should be made when inarguably necessary.  I placed a notification regarding this policy at the top of the article.  This was reverted in an action I personally feel was overzealous, but I'm going to complete my argument for it before restoring the template.
Now to the nitty-gritty.
The most serious problems that can be addressed to dramatically improve this article are under the subsection WP:WAF#The_problem_with_in-universe_perspective.  
Now, this idea is usually bipassed for a single plot summary section, but everything past the introduction suffers from this.  Below listed are the particular issues writing about fiction are supposed to avoid.
===Disregarding all or most aspects of a work of fiction as a creative endeavour===
For an example, look at the characters section.  Nothing describes any character's creation process, impact, or style (Please note that simply changing the article to list your own interpretations of such from the source material is a violation of WP:OR even if it seems obvious to you).
:To assert that the information you name is omitted to "recreate or uphold the illusion of the original fiction" is both speculation and assuming bad faith. To my knowledge, no such source for that information exists, and the author not knowing of one either is a reasonable assumption. If there is information, well sourced, that you feel would be good to include, then refactoring it to include such information would be a great idea. Namegduf Live (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Going on WP:RS and WP:GNG would suggest if such sources do not exist, the information is not encyclopedic at all.  While I think completely removing the section would be an overreaction, it does need to be pruned down to the essentials.  I know wikipedia is not paper, but it's also not an indiscriminate collection of information either, and secondary sources and cultural relevance are really critical factors for the inclusion of fiction.  People who really want to know the details of the characters can actually read the comic.  I stand by my original interpretation of this clause entirely, as I can't really agree with your counter-argument.  Also assuming good faith is about interactions with editors, I'm addressing the content of the article in the hope to improve it.  I don't think anyone involved in writing it had bad intentions.  i kan reed (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The information lacking sources would be unencyclopedic, perhaps- probably an explanation as to why it's omitted. The information which is there now is unaffected by such a judgement either way. Such a situation would easily create a section biased towards the information which had sources, without editors disregarding other information where it was available. This being a perfectly reasonable possibility, I don't think whatever flaws you'd consider it as an instance of the phrase "disregarding all or most aspects of a work of fiction as a creative endeavour"; they aren't what that phrase means in English. The "not an indiscriminate collection of information" part seems to be the bulk of the complaint; maybe make a new section for that if there are guidelines for what information should be included in an article about a work? General notability requirements for a page to exist don't really work as guidelines for page content, in my view; discussing only the minimum needed to establish notability does not seem to be the consensus for how articles should be written. Namegduf Live (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Take another look in particular at WP:RS.  That's the one that's really at issue here.  Primary sources shouldn't represent such a majority of the supporting references to an article like this.  Other articles about fictional subjects are not written this way.  The few that are are tagged for improvement.  I know there's not a consensus here that anything's wrong, but please take a look at other articles about fiction, especially the featured ones listed on the manual of style.  It would not hurt this page in the slightest to "suffer" some codensing of the irrelevant "facts" included.  When you look at a work of fiction and go "I think that's important because I like it" you can transcribe the whole piece of fiction while drowning what an encyclopedia reader is going to be wanting to know in a sea of irrelevance.  That's why secondary sources matter so much, it represnts an outsider publishing highlights of what matters.  I'm rather sure those TIME Magazine references included will make mention of some of the important plot and setting elements.  Those are the areas the summaries should focus on.  The original material can, and very much should, be used for some supporting context around those for reader comprehension, but just picking "whatever" from the source material is indescriminate.  With that, and some basic context images if license could be aquired from the auth, this article could be B class.  i kan reed (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Comparisons with articles on fictional subjects with larger audiences are only helpful so far. More interesting is comparing this page to articles with similar sized audiences and number of secondary sources; do they have less information than Erfworld's page does, or more primary references? I suspect a mixture, but a fair amount of the latter. Issues with sources are irrelevant to "drowning" readers in "irrelevant information" to what they're looking for, and as with everywhere else, this is solved with basic organisation, not stripping information out of Wikipedia, so I dispute that there's a problem there. Works everywhere else. Namegduf Live (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Could you provide an example of what you feel is a well written plot synopsis? While the plot synopsis does make it clear the characters are fictional, the section concentrates on its subject after that. I do not see the utility of restating that everyone is fictional, and cannot think of any information outside the in-universe plot which would fit well and be useful to add myself. I disagree with the "copyright infringement" claim. Namegduf Live (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually after reviewing featured plot synopses, I'm forced to agree.  This one isn't bad at all for a C class article.  Consider this point withdrawn.  i kan reed (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

text: While I initially didn't see much wrong myself, looking at your example and argument, I agree this section could use improvement. More information on each character's apparent history, covering apparent relationships via the description provided by initial exchanges, and how such exchanges vary over time (if they do), rather than simply stating them. Discussing their resemblance to character archetypes also seems useful, as does describing them via quotes. The briefness of each character's description makes this tricky to do without a format change; the paragraphs are already overly long. I have no complaint with a tag on this specific section as wanting attention. Any particular ideas about how to go about this? I disagree that information should be stripped out; actions by the characters as relevant to the character's development and personality are useful to include, as used in the linked example. Namegduf Live (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing the point.  Apparent relationships and more information about what they've done in the story is exactly what the article doesn't need.  That's in-universe information and doesn't matter to the real world.  Such details are supposed to be provided as necessary to add context to literary interpretations, reception, impact, and generation.  Kind of like how the Moby Dick article describes ahab's behavior so that his role as a tragic hero in american literary tradition can be understood by the reader.  The fact that parson convinced stanley that "tool" was a term of respect is completely irrelevant to anything non-fiction discussed in the article, for example.  i kan reed (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I follow. Looking at the entries on the linked page (Moby Dick) for characters other than Ahab, as a source of guidance for characters not focused on so heavily by a story, the descriptions seem to start with a personality and role in the story summary backed by quotes, followed by history, followed by significant defining events for the character, then followed by real world references and sources of inspiration or naming. The earlier parts do not seem to be cut down to the minimum needed to support the last. Are you saying that in-universe information should be omitted except as required for the real world references to make sense, because they "don't matter"? If so, could you point to a guideline on the subject and maybe a more illustrative example than Moby Dick for more minor characters? I don't support removing information just because it "doesn't matter" in someone's opinion. (On the Tool thing, it's more significant than it looks; it's held as the primary representation of Stanley's role in the story as a take or twist on the incompetent boss stereotype. No way that could have been known without the section discussing that, though.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namegduf Live (talk • contribs) 10:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

text: That example is written poorly and in fact is writing inappropriately from an in-universe perspective; the "known" is in-universe. Cleaned up. Agree that it isn't too relevant in general. Namegduf Live (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Are there any relevant guidelines or essays on how this should be enforced, where the lines are, and the general spirit of the guideline and its purpose? In many works major facts about the setting are only mentioned briefly due to the nature of stories as stories, rather than essays. Such facts can and often are used to establish a general state of the world key to the reading of the story, and the consensus does not seem to be to deny them all inclusion. Namegduf Live (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Key to reading the story?  Maybe.  Key to the article about the work of fiction.  Definetly not.  The point I'm trying to drive home here is that the story is not the most important part of what the article should be covering.  It's somewhat relevant as it provides context, but not every tidbit that means something to a reader is going to be academically relevant.  People reading the story can read the story.  People wanting to know what promted the creation of the webcomic, what styles it pulls from, how critics reacted, what related publications exist are going to be looking somewhere different.  i kan reed (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Key to it as a work of fiction? Absolutely. To take a simple example, consider a story of an incompetent office environment. Its critique of society, potential effect as an influence, and take on the sources it pulls from are massively influenced by whether they're alone as such in the story's setting, or whether the story describes all the world as similar- and such a fact would be lucky to be directly described at all. You can't significantly alter the reading of a story without significantly altering the way it builds on existing styles, its role as a critique of the world, and its effect as an influence on other works. I agree all these things are important too, but the way a work reads is perhaps the most important way the work determines them. Namegduf Live (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah? Says who?  Just because you think an interpretation exists, doesn't mean everyone does.  Well understood interpretations are going to have documentation.  The end. i kan reed (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm obviously not arguing for any specific interpretation of any specific thing, so I have no idea what you're thinking with that reply (saying something is a prerequisite for asking who's saying it to matter). I'm pointing out that one off comments can be as relevant as long paragraphs of explanation in terms of providing information, and requesting any source explaining that how that guideline should be applied. Namegduf Live (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I am unsure the example above is referencing fictional timing over real world timing; time/events are only discussed in it to mention that they occurred simultaneously. This isn't generally the case for the real world timing, due to the small unit of content that each comic contains, so a sentence like "In the next comic, X happens, while Y does something interesting." can't be used. Are there other examples where in-universe time is referenced where real-world time would be a valid alternative you can point to? Namegduf Live (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, I think this somehow got under the wrong section heading.  i kan reed (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I disagree with the claim that the whole article suffers from issues throughout, and would favour a label on the character section alone; the majority of the text is not from an in universe perspective; "It is explained in the second Parson's Klog", "The laws of nature governing Erfworld are similar to the rules of a turn-based strategy game.", "In the final page of book one" followed by a discussion of an event and its symbolism, and such. While I would not claim the rest to be perfect and am sure examples of faults exist, that section is the only one whose general style and format could use improvement via more out of universe information being added. Namegduf Live (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  In universe writing 

message: For an example, look at the characters section.  Nothing describes any character's creation process, impact, or style (Please note that simply changing the article to list your own interpretations of such from the source material is a violation of WP:OR even if it seems obvious to you).
:To assert that the information you name is omitted to "recreate or uphold the illusion of the original fiction" is both speculation and assuming bad faith. To my knowledge, no such source for that information exists, and the author not knowing of one either is a reasonable assumption. If there is information, well sourced, that you feel would be good to include, then refactoring it to include such information would be a great idea. Namegduf Live (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Going on WP:RS and WP:GNG would suggest if such sources do not exist, the information is not encyclopedic at all.  While I think completely removing the section would be an overreaction, it does need to be pruned down to the essentials.  I know wikipedia is not paper, but it's also not an indiscriminate collection of information either, and secondary sources and cultural relevance are really critical factors for the inclusion of fiction.  People who really want to know the details of the characters can actually read the comic.  I stand by my original interpretation of this clause entirely, as I can't really agree with your counter-argument.  Also assuming good faith is about interactions with editors, I'm addressing the content of the article in the hope to improve it.  I don't think anyone involved in writing it had bad intentions.  i kan reed (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The information lacking sources would be unencyclopedic, perhaps- probably an explanation as to why it's omitted. The information which is there now is unaffected by such a judgement either way. Such a situation would easily create a section biased towards the information which had sources, without editors disregarding other information where it was available. This being a perfectly reasonable possibility, I don't think whatever flaws you'd consider it as an instance of the phrase "disregarding all or most aspects of a work of fiction as a creative endeavour"; they aren't what that phrase means in English. The "not an indiscriminate collection of information" part seems to be the bulk of the complaint; maybe make a new section for that if there are guidelines for what information should be included in an article about a work? General notability requirements for a page to exist don't really work as guidelines for page content, in my view; discussing only the minimum needed to establish notability does not seem to be the consensus for how articles should be written. Namegduf Live (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Take another look in particular at WP:RS.  That's the one that's really at issue here.  Primary sources shouldn't represent such a majority of the supporting references to an article like this.  Other articles about fictional subjects are not written this way.  The few that are are tagged for improvement.  I know there's not a consensus here that anything's wrong, but please take a look at other articles about fiction, especially the featured ones listed on the manual of style.  It would not hurt this page in the slightest to "suffer" some codensing of the irrelevant "facts" included.  When you look at a work of fiction and go "I think that's important because I like it" you can transcribe the whole piece of fiction while drowning what an encyclopedia reader is going to be wanting to know in a sea of irrelevance.  That's why secondary sources matter so much, it represnts an outsider publishing highlights of what matters.  I'm rather sure those TIME Magazine references included will make mention of some of the important plot and setting elements.  Those are the areas the summaries should focus on.  The original material can, and very much should, be used for some supporting context around those for reader comprehension, but just picking "whatever" from the source material is indescriminate.  With that, and some basic context images if license could be aquired from the auth, this article could be B class.  i kan reed (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Comparisons with articles on fictional subjects with larger audiences are only helpful so far. More interesting is comparing this page to articles with similar sized audiences and number of secondary sources; do they have less information than Erfworld's page does, or more primary references? I suspect a mixture, but a fair amount of the latter. Issues with sources are irrelevant to "drowning" readers in "irrelevant information" to what they're looking for, and as with everywhere else, this is solved with basic organisation, not stripping information out of Wikipedia, so I dispute that there's a problem there. Works everywhere else. Namegduf Live (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Disregarding all or most aspects of a work of fiction as a creative endeavour

message: The first sentence of the plot synopsis makes an attempt at avoiding this.  The rest is just an accounting of the story.  It's also worth pointing out that this may be potential copywrite infringement as the overall flow of a story is considered a creative element and plot summaries have had successful lawsuits against them in the past.
:Could you provide an example of what you feel is a well written plot synopsis? While the plot synopsis does make it clear the characters are fictional, the section concentrates on its subject after that. I do not see the utility of restating that everyone is fictional, and cannot think of any information outside the in-universe plot which would fit well and be useful to add myself. I disagree with the "copyright infringement" claim. Namegduf Live (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually after reviewing featured plot synopses, I'm forced to agree.  This one isn't bad at all for a C class article.  Consider this point withdrawn.  i kan reed (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: A plot synopsis written like a historical account

message: I already touched on this, but each and every character is listed this way.  There's a lot more to most fictional character's impact than just who they are in the story.  For an example of what a better summary might cover, I'd refer you to Ahab_(Moby-Dick).  As it stands the character's section focuses on irrelevant minutae.  
:While I initially didn't see much wrong myself, looking at your example and argument, I agree this section could use improvement. More information on each character's apparent history, covering apparent relationships via the description provided by initial exchanges, and how such exchanges vary over time (if they do), rather than simply stating them. Discussing their resemblance to character archetypes also seems useful, as does describing them via quotes. The briefness of each character's description makes this tricky to do without a format change; the paragraphs are already overly long. I have no complaint with a tag on this specific section as wanting attention. Any particular ideas about how to go about this? I disagree that information should be stripped out; actions by the characters as relevant to the character's development and personality are useful to include, as used in the linked example. Namegduf Live (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing the point.  Apparent relationships and more information about what they've done in the story is exactly what the article doesn't need.  That's in-universe information and doesn't matter to the real world.  Such details are supposed to be provided as necessary to add context to literary interpretations, reception, impact, and generation.  Kind of like how the Moby Dick article describes ahab's behavior so that his role as a tragic hero in american literary tradition can be understood by the reader.  The fact that parson convinced stanley that "tool" was a term of respect is completely irrelevant to anything non-fiction discussed in the article, for example.  i kan reed (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I follow. Looking at the entries on the linked page (Moby Dick) for characters other than Ahab, as a source of guidance for characters not focused on so heavily by a story, the descriptions seem to start with a personality and role in the story summary backed by quotes, followed by history, followed by significant defining events for the character, then followed by real world references and sources of inspiration or naming. The earlier parts do not seem to be cut down to the minimum needed to support the last. Are you saying that in-universe information should be omitted except as required for the real world references to make sense, because they "don't matter"? If so, could you point to a guideline on the subject and maybe a more illustrative example than Moby Dick for more minor characters? I don't support removing information just because it "doesn't matter" in someone's opinion. (On the Tool thing, it's more significant than it looks; it's held as the primary representation of Stanley's role in the story as a take or twist on the incompetent boss stereotype. No way that could have been known without the section discussing that, though.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namegduf Live (talk • contribs) 10:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Fictography – a fictional character article or section written as if it were a biography

message: Not really too relevant, but perhaps subtly present in lines like "There are four Arkentools known to exist, but only three have appeared in the comics."
:That example is written poorly and in fact is writing inappropriately from an in-universe perspective; the "known" is in-universe. Cleaned up. Agree that it isn't too relevant in general. Namegduf Live (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Trying to reconcile contradictions or fill gaps in a fictional continuity, rather than reporting them as such

message: Absolutely suffering from this.  Reference number 7 for example.  A one of comment by a character is almost invalid as a primary source reference, which in turn should be fewer than the secondary references.
:Are there any relevant guidelines or essays on how this should be enforced, where the lines are, and the general spirit of the guideline and its purpose? In many works major facts about the setting are only mentioned briefly due to the nature of stories as stories, rather than essays. Such facts can and often are used to establish a general state of the world key to the reading of the story, and the consensus does not seem to be to deny them all inclusion. Namegduf Live (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Key to reading the story?  Maybe.  Key to the article about the work of fiction.  Definetly not.  The point I'm trying to drive home here is that the story is not the most important part of what the article should be covering.  It's somewhat relevant as it provides context, but not every tidbit that means something to a reader is going to be academically relevant.  People reading the story can read the story.  People wanting to know what promted the creation of the webcomic, what styles it pulls from, how critics reacted, what related publications exist are going to be looking somewhere different.  i kan reed (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Key to it as a work of fiction? Absolutely. To take a simple example, consider a story of an incompetent office environment. Its critique of society, potential effect as an influence, and take on the sources it pulls from are massively influenced by whether they're alone as such in the story's setting, or whether the story describes all the world as similar- and such a fact would be lucky to be directly described at all. You can't significantly alter the reading of a story without significantly altering the way it builds on existing styles, its role as a critique of the world, and its effect as an influence on other works. I agree all these things are important too, but the way a work reads is perhaps the most important way the work determines them. Namegduf Live (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah? Says who?  Just because you think an interpretation exists, doesn't mean everyone does.  Well understood interpretations are going to have documentation.  The end. i kan reed (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm obviously not arguing for any specific interpretation of any specific thing, so I have no idea what you're thinking with that reply (saying something is a prerequisite for asking who's saying it to matter). I'm pointing out that one off comments can be as relevant as long paragraphs of explanation in terms of providing information, and requesting any source explaining that how that guideline should be applied. Namegduf Live (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Using throwaway comments or jokes as a source of information

message: This is especially relevant.  Example quote(plenty more):
"Parson quickly puts some defensive plans into action. Parson contacts Charlie, and asks him to switch sides; Charlie declines but agrees to sit the fight out. Also, as Ansom's forces scout the mining tunnels under Gobwin Knob to find weak points, Parson orders Sizemore, Stanley's dirtamancer, to ignore all but the scouts closest to the city, but to strike those with overwhelming force. This ploy tricks Ansom into thinking he has found an unguarded route to the main city garrison."  At no point in this paragraph is there any context that highlights that this is a work of fiction.
:I am unsure the example above is referencing fictional timing over real world timing; time/events are only discussed in it to mention that they occurred simultaneously. This isn't generally the case for the real world timing, due to the small unit of content that each comic contains, so a sentence like "In the next comic, X happens, while Y does something interesting." can't be used. Are there other examples where in-universe time is referenced where real-world time would be a valid alternative you can point to? Namegduf Live (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, I think this somehow got under the wrong section heading.  i kan reed (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Referring to the fictional events or dates which occur in the story, rather than the fictional works themselves

message: I was going to write up a section regarding original research, but I feel if the in-universe concerns are mitigated sufficiently, the OR/Synthesis issues would probably be minimized.  I would like to reiterate that for several of these "don'ts" nearly the entire article is in bad form.  If anyone seriously contests this, we can talk about it before I restore the in-universe template, but I can't seriously believe that the unambiguous state of the article is contentious as is.  Also, please address concerns about particular requirements in the above sections and general concerns below.  If more examples need to be given, please request them in the particular section that you feel isn't adequately demonstrated.  i kan reed (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the claim that the whole article suffers from issues throughout, and would favour a label on the character section alone; the majority of the text is not from an in universe perspective; "It is explained in the second Parson's Klog", "The laws of nature governing Erfworld are similar to the rules of a turn-based strategy game.", "In the final page of book one" followed by a discussion of an event and its symbolism, and such. While I would not claim the rest to be perfect and am sure examples of faults exist, that section is the only one whose general style and format could use improvement via more out of universe information being added. Namegduf Live (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: Substituted at 14:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Erfworld. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215200303/http://secondarysource.tumblr.com/post/58821755119/david-hahn-is-the-new-artist-for-erfworld to http://secondarysource.tumblr.com/post/58821755119/david-hahn-is-the-new-artist-for-erfworld
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Erfworld was discontinued as a webcomics on October 11, 2019 due to "horrific and unbearable events" in Rob and Linda Balder's personal lives. The Erfworld webpage says that more details will be given privately (after logging in) to a group of specific supporters and friends. The page does not say what kind of information has been provided. I believe the Erfworld wiki page should not contain unsourced information about the reasons why the comics was discontinued. It violates the Wikipedia core policy on verifiability. As the policy asks to "immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced," I took the liberty of cleaning up some recent revisions. The reason is that the cited events are clearly sensitive and personal, as stated by the authors themselves. However, if there are any citable sources that provide information on the subject, let's discuss them here, please.
Calluin (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Balder's step-son, Andrew Thorin Macht, AKA Thor Macht, died on October 1st. https://dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/richmond-va/andrew-macht-8883965 He was a small time actor. https://amarketnews.com/2019/10/14/what-happened-to-erfworld-after-thor-macht-death/ He had an IMDB page. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6721767/ He was arrested and charged for having carnal knowledge of a minor back in March https://www.nbc12.com/2019/03/11/henrico-man-arrested-accused-having-sex-with-child/ and was booked in the local jail https://www.bailbondsearch.com/virginia/henrico-inmate-MACHT/000480198 . That's all public information I could find online. Someone leaked the audio that Balder shared on his website which has additional details, some of which could probably be verified from his death certificate, but I don't think that's available online, so unless someone wanted to order one from the county clerk, you'd have to find a newspaper article or something (which I've been unable to find, and which may not exist - Macht took some pictures for the local paper over a couple years, but I can't find any information about his death on there), and given that some of the events that were going on aren't, as far as I know, a matter of public record, I don't think that the behind-the-scenes legal resolution (or lack thereof) has any meaningful records. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discontinuation