Talk:Sinfest

message: I don't know if anyone who reads this has noticed, but Sinfest has taken a very, very dark path in the last few years.  Ishida has turned it into a mouthpiece of anti-trans, anti-"woke," and now outright, aggressive antisemitic tropes.  It's... bizarre, but there is no mention of the last few years in the article, and I don't have time to research and edit it myself, so I thought I'd bring it to people's attention.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.192.70.106 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very much out of date 

message: Wow, what a well-developed article. -- pne 17:37, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impression 

message: It would be nice if this paragraph, from the older article, were included in the main text: cbraga 22:14, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
:Note that the depth of the characters is similar to the level of detail in their drawings: while Slick and Monique are very detailed the religious fanatic has little more than a circle for a head and lacks detail. The comic has little continuity, and most strips are one-shots.
Okay, the part about the level of detail in drawings is good, I'll work that in somewhere; but I have to disagree with the statement that Sinfest has little continuity. There are often story sequences of strips, as you'll see if you look on the "Strips" page on the Sinfest website. Sometimes these stories can be of more than 40 strips, so I think I'll leave that part out. --Decrypt3 10:03, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
: well done, thanks cbraga
You know, I have to disagree on this.  This concept of "detail in drawing = depth of character" just smacks of original research.  Furthermore, the whole concept seems wholly coincidental to me in the first place.  I'm not going to take it out right now or anything, but unless somebody can come up with a source (a forum post from Tat or something, for instance) it probably warrants removal.  There are some other statements of a similar OR type that I've noticed from time to time, but this one just irks me as being the most egregious, so I figure we should either source it, or remove it. Logical Hare 03:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: detail in drawing = depth of character

message: As for the mentioned date - July 6, 2004 (or July 5, 2004 as it was), there is no comic at all. What real date is meant? --TruBlu 08:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slick 

message: :"Although the site's color image of Monique indicates that she is Asian, this is never remarked upon in the strip."
I've removed this sentence from the section about Monique. The colour-in on the front-page gives no such indications -- the skin colour is the same as Slick's, the physique is the same as in the strips and hair- and eye-colour can't really be indications of ethnicity.
Unless someone can come up with a decent reasoning for this argument, it shouldn't be put back in -- currently this is unfounded original research at best. -- 80.135.196.77 03:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point —Tamfang (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monique 

message: On Monique, but not about her race: Originally, Monique was seen through Slick's eyes as one of his many romantic encounters, but since then she's appeared in strips on her own, which developed her as a spoken word performer, political protester, peace activist, environmentalist, clean freak, feminist and yeah - sexual freedom advocate. The excessive focus of her character entry on her promiscuity, when she's never even been depicted having a boyfriend/fling/whatever, is unbalanced. I'm going to add in some of her more prominent personality traits to the description. Thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.6.217 (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point —Tamfang (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  a question of emphasis 

message: does anybody know if sinfest is on hiatus, since it hasn't been updated for 3 weeks now without any notice.
I think it's on unofficial hiatus. This happens occasionally. Please sign comments with ~~~~. - CorbinSimpson 21:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hiatus? 

message: Throughout the article there are numerous references to 'recent comics'. These point to comics from December 2005, some even older. You can't really call these recent now, and as time passes they certainly won't stay recent. So I propose every 'recent' reference should be reformulated with a better alternative. Unfortunatly, I'm yet to find this alternative... Any thoughts?
*I agree.  "Recent" and other word suggesting a relative time frame should be avoided.  By using them you immediately give the article a shelf life. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 10:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word 'recent' 

message: I see no sign of a redesign.  I've tried a few of the new-style links; they lead to an error page in Keenspot forums.  And Keenspot still lists Sinfest as a member.  I hesitate to revert — perhaps my DNS hasn't updated to show Sinfest's new host, and perhaps Keenspot will update its front page on Monday . . . . Tamfang 19:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I was testing the new links I put in, I noticed the Keenspot error page too, and all the images were gone. I then noticed the page was fine on the home page, it was only on comic pages, and it sometimes leads to the forum error page if there's no www in the url. After a while it went back to normal though, must've been a server error or something. - Zero1328 Talk? 01:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah.  www.sinfest.net is redesigned — but its internal links are to "sinfest.net", no "www", producing the Keenspot error.  Let's hope Ishida notices it soon!  —Tamfang 06:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  amikeenspotornot 

message: I find it odd that Squigley's section is divided into 3 parts. Shouldn't the first two parts be combined into one section and have the popular culture part moved elsewhere?Ivvan Cain 20:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, except that there's no obvious place to move the bit about Spanky Ham.  I removed the excess headings.  —Tamfang 00:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No more than his name is Johnny Squigley (Masterpiece 6) - Its just a joke, restricted to that particular strip/arc. None the characters in Sinfest have last names. vineetcoolguy 14:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squigley 

message: I've read Sinfest for years and think it's great, but this article is a rdiculous exercise in fanboy excess - starting with the dozens of external links to the website. It should be slashed in half, or less ... I have a feeling that if I started, I'll draw the wrath of the faithful. - DavidWBrooks 22:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; this article is five times the length of Ozy and Millie. I'm trimming back now; let the wrath begin. 207.200.116.200 15:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've followed onto your start. It's down to bearable detail now, I think. - DavidWBrooks 21:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The external links should not be removed, but converted into footnotes. 96T 19:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ugh 

message: I've gone and done a rewrite of the Lil' Evil section, which I've always felt read a little awkwardly.  For starters, I've removed the various superfluous instances of constantly referring to him as "the fanboy" or "the devil's fanboy (Lil' Evil)".  The character's name is Lil' Evil, and that is how he is referred to by both himself and by other characters.  It strikes me as awkward to keep referring to him as "the fanboy" simply because he was initially unnamed.  I also removed the mention of his being introduced "recently," as that type of thing strikes me as too relative for inclusion.  It's true that he was introduced later than the majority of the other characters, but since that didn't strike me as particularly important to his character, I've left it out. Also, I commented on the paralell between Lil' Evil and Seymour, a fairly obvious facet of his character which the previous version missed out on entirely.  And finally, I felt that the section didn't really flow very well and was somewhat choppy and disorganized, so I did some grammar and structure editing to fix that problem.  Any feedback would be greatly appreciated! 70.70.210.215 05:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job! Lil' Evil and Seymour strips are my favorites! --Wack'd About Wiki 16:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In #652, Monique calls Slick "Jethro".  Likely a pejorative, not a name.--Czarcastic 17:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, this is not used as a name. I'm removing it from article --Duke B. Garland 15:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lil' Evil 

message: They are NOT a comic with in a comic; consitering that they have appeared with Slick, Monique, Squigley, Lil' Evil, and the Devil, I think it's safe to say they live in the same universe as the rest of the Sinfest cast. --Wack'd About Wiki 16:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad. P&P never appeared with Lil' Evil.
The strip of 2007 Apr 29 is the most explicit yet in indicating that "master" is Ishida himself: the next-to-last frame is captioned SPECIAL BEHIND-THE-SCENES MAKING OF SINFEST FEATURETTE and shows P&P watching as the cartoonist bangs his head on the worktable.  —Tamfang 00:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pooch and Percy 

message: He seems to be something of a fanboy, as he seems to have many "God collectibles" and at various times obsesses over new ones (God's glossey is a perfect example). I think this should go in the article, but I cannot make it sound encyclopedic. Can somebody with better language skills do this for me?
:Thanks in advance,
:Wack'd About Wiki
:12:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seymour 

message: To whoever added in those character pictures, great job!  I think they really add to the article.  If we could get one for each character, that would really spruce the place up.  I do have one minor thing, specifically that I don't really like the Monique picture, and I'd like to suggest a replacement.  Today's comic, "I need my fix" has an excellent image of her in a sex-symbol-ish pose that I think really captures the essense of her character.  Plus, its a little more clear than the current image.  So if someone would consider doing a little cropping and maybe a little colouring, that'd be great.  I'd do all this myself, you understand, but I suck at formatting and layout on Wikipedia, so I generally stick to editing the text (as I did with the Lil Evil Section). Logical Hare 05:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All characters now have images and i've made better quality ones for Slick&'Nique. Whew, that took some time. Now, what does everybody think about adding an image from last panel of 2007-04-29 to the top of the character's description? --Duke B. Garland 15:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work. The new pics look great!vineetcoolguy 03:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: We see Buddha and Jesus squaring off; we see the Dragon vs the Christian God. However, Tatsuya Ishida seems to avoid putting Islam to his humour. This seems deliberate, as he's not shy with the rest of his subjects (queerness, druggies, porn, fundies, etc.). Any comments or facts on this?
132.206.96.94 20:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Original research much? Anyway, Wikipedia talk pages are not forums for discussion about the topic of the article, they are where editors can talk about the improvement of the article. Axem Titanium 21:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any comments on the fact that only the Christian and Buddhist religions seem fair game? 

message: Sinfest appeared in the UCLA Daily Bruin during the 1991-1992 academic year, and possibly before.  Many of the same characters appeared to comment on some aspect of campus life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.175.225.22 (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Except for the fact that it started in 2000. Axem Titanium 21:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can corroborate the above user's claim that Sinfest originally appeared in the Daily Bruin at UCLA. It was a highlight of my weekly reading when a Sinfest comic appeared in the Bruin (this during the 1992-93 and 1993-94 years, on Tuesdays IIRC), and both Ishida's artistic style and the epigrams were already established during this time, and its comedy was often topical on campus issues. Its first publication as a webcomic and its (re-)introduction to a wider audience was in 2000, but it originally appeared in print in the Daily Bruin. This blog entry (found on the first page of the Google search for sinfest daily bruin) provides further corroboration. It's a shame that the Bruin's online archive doesn't extend back to that era, as IMO the comic was even more risk-taking, edgy and, yes, funny back then. 67.49.60.97 06:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That's interesting. It would be nice if we could get a good reference for that on the article, then. Axem Titanium 20:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sure would be nice if I could find some good web content that shows Sinfest's UCLA history, and I'm sure a stroll through the hardcopy archives of the Bruin would uncover some real gems. I guess this highlights one of Wikipedia's weaknesses -- where the last mile of verifiability is offline.67.49.60.97 03:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a "Letters to the Editors" column from 1996 that specifically mentions "Sinfest by Tatsuya Ishida". --Guess Who 06:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So, there is blog entry and mention in "letters to the editor". Cannot neither be counted as a good reference? Anyway, this should be added in some form to the article --Duke B. Garland 15:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The Vol. 1 Dark Horse print edition has Daily Bruin strips included, as noted in a review of the publication here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.231.133.253 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily Bruin and Sinfest 

message: ... It appears likely that there's no permanent change to be expected in Slick's character (Thank God!). Strip from 2007-09-15
I've removed the content for now. If any character development actually occurs, we'll put it back.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vineetcoolguy (talk • contribs) 15:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slick's reformation... 

message: Hmm isn't the Dragon's first appearance on June 1 instead of March 1, 2000? This would mean comic strip #128, instead of #36. I know, a very minor detail, just noticed it... or is the reason for #36 that there is a dragon on the paper wall in the background (third panel)? Although I would not say that this counts as an appearance of the Dragon as a character.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.88.229.32 (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, the whole "first appearance" section is against WP:NOR and should be removed --Duke B. Garland 16:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Original reaserch is okay if you have a credible source (i.e. someone other than yourself or that guy you may or may not know) to back it up. In this case, the "first appearences" is credible information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wack'd (talk • contribs) 19:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Dragon (first appearance)? 

message: I have found no mention of Buddha's (Bood) gender in the comic. If someone could find it and cite it that would be great, because it seems to just be an assumption to me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.8.79 (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddha Gender 

message: I'm against that section being in the article. Those 2 girls were nothing more than a part of particular story arc and cannot be count as "full-time" characters that deserve a section --Duke B. Garland (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm.  You make a point; they aren't developed (so to speak); they don't even have names as far as I recall - although they show up in strips other than the Snatch-O-Gram sequence.  They're recurring extras, and scenery, but I don't know if they even have an official handle.  They're the Devil's default bimbos.  Wyvern (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree. They do not belong in the list. If not left out entirely, perhaps the "Other religious figures" section could be expanded to "Other characters", and the Girls placed there? Gmarsden (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Given that the last panel of that strip is the Devil asleep, maybe the whole "day" is his dream. —Tamfang (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or, that the girl's been doing all of the devil's work while he took a nap for the day. Being the devil, he probably endorses sloth as a greater sin. Why spread evil yourself all the time if you got minions. 24.137.72.181 (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snatch-O-Gram girls 

message: I think we have enough information on most of the characters in Sinfest to be catagorized into its own article. What do you guys think?Stormfin (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I think there's no point.  The Sinfest webcomic is notable, but it's not so major a cultural artifact that we need to split the article into different parts just to accomodate everything.  Unlike, say, Characters in Harry Potter - there, many individual characters have long and involved articles.  Likewise, when I check out the article for Doonesbury I see that there's a spinoff article for characters there.  I don't think Sinfest is to that level of importance yet.  Wyvern (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bodhisattvaspath (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters 

message: Original asian dragons could not breath fire, the clouds around their heads where misinterprited as smoke ~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.133.154 (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dragon 

message: There's a part on the article that says the others characters do not notice he's an Antropomorphic Animal, but in  This Strip, Slick seems to know he is a pig. 201.29.251.119 (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squigley 

message: What about a list of the running gags?
 Batsignal 
 Transformer-style something-otron
 "Mars needs women" alien lands in need of someone
 Godzilla-size caracters
 superhero/ranger portraits
 more?
:Sinfest has SO Much going on, any 'running gag' list would just be fancruft. Lots42 (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  running gags 

message: Earlier this year was a storyline where Percy and Pooch manage to comprehend that the drawings Master makes directly ties into the food that is brought into the house. They try and help Master make a drawing and fail, though they don't figure it out. In conclusion, more evidence Master is the cartoonist. Lots42 (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percy and Pooch again 

message: It seems like certain characters have a particularly meaningful role in Ishida's story-telling; Squigley, in particular, seems to fill a metaphoric role as the sin of Gluttony-- his behavior and appearance back this up. Ishida's flare for metaphor is emphasized by this ( http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2896 ) recent strip, which, in parodying Terminator 2, also demonstrates a perfect metaphor for Jesus' message to Christians. I believe that other characters fill similar roles, but the others aren't quite so clear. Could this be worthy of pointing out? VanGarrett (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unless the author or independent third parties point this out. Otherwise it is just original research. Lots42 (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metaphoric role of characters? 

message: Who -wouldn't- react with worry or panic upon meeting the eviler of Sinfest characters? Confusing! Lots42 (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminy the bookworm's section.  

message: Should this just be a "Other (incidental) characters" section, to set it apart from 'Main Characters' and 'Supporting characters' (or non-main characters) type sections?  Not sure how to handle the various layers of 'characters' Sinfest has, and don't fancy going through the comics adding minor / one-off characters if the section is to get blown away in the end.  Example: Marlon Brado as Jor-El in Superman is a one-off, might not be worth mentioning.  Uncle Sam is currently in just one story arc on politics, having appeared in about five strips, Death has about that number and -is- listed as a full-on character.  Any ideas for criteria? ZeBoxx (talk) 04:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think this section is going to be impossible to complete. If this list is to be complete there will be over a hundred (or even more) entries. I suggest the section be removed. Dontmentionit (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, but the main question was of how to handle characters in general.  As  mentioned, Death had about as many appearances as Uncle Sam.  Yet Death is a 'main' character, while Uncle Sam is not (at this time) - what criteria should be applied here? ZeBoxx (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cameo Appearances section 

message: Removed this sentence:
:In the 2009-03-05 strip, the pink-haired succubus was revealed to be called 'Fuchsia', most likely for her hair and color of usual attire.
for three reasons: a) It's already been mentioned just above.  b) The date is wrong, and c) speculation about why she is so called is not verifiable content.  Rojomoke (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuchsia 

message: -First link at the bottom is broken.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.117.22.135 (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  warning, broken links

message: Why does it say the name is unknown? The comic plainly states that it's Zork.
http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=1649
Kidcorona (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squig's needy planet 

message: The article has accumulated a lot of fancruft and OR, I've removed atleast the more blatant portions of the same. As for the two sections removed (Cameos and recurring jokes) I think we can all agree that neither list can ever be completed and are pretty much fancruft which don't serve much purpose to any person who is not already a big fan of the series. The discussions as relevant had already taken place on this talk page, I guess no one ever got around to removing them. Dontmentionit (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I think it's SinFest, not Sinfest.46.116.184.69 (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  SinFest 

message: That was the best! Lots of interesting details and all well cited. Anyone mind if I just find the last revision and copy it back? --Billpg (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was excessively long with too much in-universe detail, apparently.  Can't say as I disagree with the editor who trimmed it. DP76764 (Talk) 21:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, we were much closer to the ideal back then than the absolutely pitiful section we have now.  --Billpg (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (I'd like to apologise for my intemperate language in my earlier comment.) --Billpg (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Articles exist for those who are interested in reading the information, not those who just want everything to be short and uninteresting to anyone.  Those who don't like it, can easily ignore it.  You can revert anything you disagree with.  Dream Focus 22:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know who did it this, but I heartily agree with her/him. Two sentences or so should be enough for each character. Why? Because anything longer than that is bound to expand into textually disjointed essays over-brimming with information coloured by fanboyesque adoration. It does not make for a good read, that at least is my personal opinion. More importantly: the longer the article, the more potential for disagreement. It's easy to slide into speculations (today I removed something stating that Li'l Evil "may be the Devil's son", and personal interpretations of characters personalities and motifs that everyone may not agree with - spawning edit wars. My point is: Keep it brief, and we will have a text which is a both a better read and reflects what we all agree on.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.249.98 (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you want to keep more details, then someone should create an article similar to List of Firefly characters. • Sbmeirow • Talk •  01:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the characters section? 

message: An image used in this article, File:Sinfestbookcovervol1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 20 June 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Sinfestbookcovervol1.jpg)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Sinfestbookcovervol1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: I don't know for sure which comic number mentioned this, but it was called Sinfest Nights and it showed a lady named Eve, who remarkably resembled Lil'E's mother, being encouraged to dump Adam and eat the forbidden fruit by the Devil. I may be wrong, but I think Lil' E's mother is Eve. I am not going to change anything because, again, I'm not sure that I'm correct, but if anyone confirms my theory they are welcome to change the page and give Lil'E's mother a name.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.155.147 (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  LIl' E's Mother 

message: Two days ago the last strip was posted: 2013-10-29: Broomstick. There’s two more pages, but image for the strip on them is causing a 404 server error:
*2013-10-30: Incantation Words
*2013-10-31: Weaponized Fembot
If this is the end, it doesn’t seem to have been planned that way. :-(  Tuvalkin (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is back! :-) Tuvalkin (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh. Might have stayed that way back then. :-( Still great art, but… Tuvalkin (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  End or glitch? 

message: There is no mention of any criticism whatsoever (st least no clear section), while there is plenty, mostly aimed at the radical feminism employed in the comic. - Redmess (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick google search turned up only a few websites with obsessive accounts of this person's work, especially in recent years. The length and content of the talk page here suggests far greater biases among readers. Squabbles in here or on forums are not notable. Jacotto (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article bias 

message: The comic currently isn't updating because the website has been hacked, see http://sinfest-mod.livejournal.com/1119039.html . – gpvos (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be solved by now. – gpvos (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiatus 

message: A short discussion regarding my rewrite of this article has taken place on my user talkpage. ~Mable (chat) 18:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short discussion regarding rewrite 

message: On the main page sinfest's genre is stated to be "comedy", however many things were changed, and sinfest really is more of a propaganda than anything else. There is a page on badwebcomicwiki.com that has more info about what happend. I don't say we should make this page to only say "sinfest is propaganda and nothing more", but genre stating only "comedy, satire" is really misleading to what sinfest is recently.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.32.58 (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Frustratingly, and somewhat understandably, no media outlet has been reporting on Sinfest at all in the past few years. There are no sources to cite with regards to all the transphobia and community toxicity and stuff like that, making it difficult for us Wikipedians to write about it ourselves without original research. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 16:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sinfest is very obscure now to people who didn't already know what it was, nobody really cares much about it. As such, nobody reports on it. I mean, what outlet is going to talk about some obscure Twitter artist making anti-trans comics? That's on par with reporting on what Shadman is doing. In fact it's even less relevant. Such is the fate of a webcomic. If you want, you could email a few outlets about it and see if they're interested in picking up the story. All of that said, I do think it's silly to report on "community toxicity", as that's generally out of the creator's direct control. I don't believe the page for K-pop mentions how awful their Twitter stans can be, for example. 93.107.149.152 (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, from what I understand, the following of Sinfest is very strongly shaped by Ishida's own behavior. Either way, I wouldn't be surprised if publications simply don't want to touch it, which puts us in an awkward situation where this article is stuck in time. Alas. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what? Considering the vast majority of citations on this page are literally just links to Sinfest comics, I think it's safe to say you can use Ishida's own work as a valid source. Make a draft article citing some of the severely anti-trans work he's done and get input on it, you might get enough support to implement current edits to reflect the TERF nature of Sinfest now. Just try to keep it as objective as possible, start with  "Since 20xx Sinfest has been releasing comics strongly criticizing LBGT culture" or something to that effect. Just don't necessarily say that's bad, we're not RationalWiki, so it shouldn't be obviously biased and actively defending LGBT causes. 109.76.84.43 (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That will be, or should be, rejected as original research. That's exactly the sort of thing ("we editors looked at a bunch of stuff and decided there's a trend") that wikipedia frowns on. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: My relatively fresh IP may mislead you into thinking I'm new to the website, I assure you I've been editing on various IPs for at least ten years. I understand OR is generally very looked down upon, I'm only suggesting it as article already heavily relies non-journalistic outlets. Of the 49 citations, a mere 9 aren't direct links to Sinfest comics, though there has been an OR template warning placed on the article since. If you feel this would be too much of a problem, maybe the entire Characters and Lankmarks sections should be removed? 109.76.84.43 (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, perhaps it should; such lists tend to be more fancruft than informative. Lack of objective sourcing is a common problem, as you probably know, on articles about topics that are just barely notable enough for an article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, maybe it should be rethought whether or not Sinfest even is "barely notable enough" anymore. This article was made in the mid 2000's, both Wikipedia and the internet in general have changed a lot. Webcomics are nowhere NEAR as relevant anymore, an Sinfest certainly isn't one of the few that still are. In fact, I'm not sure Sinfest would be allowed an article if it were being suggested today instead of 2004, even with the current citations in place. There are far more famous webcomics such as Stonetoss (yes, I know it's an alt-right comic, that doesn't change its popularity) that don't have articles and likely wouldn't be considered notable enough to have one. Hell, a lot of the proper citations are generic "Top XX Best Webcomics of 20XX" or "Webcomics you just have to check out!" lists, hardly the most rigorous example of notability even by the standards of 5+ years ago. Of course it's almost impossible to have pages this old removed, it would never get past the deletion proposal stage. What do you think? 109.76.84.43 (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

text: (For the record, if it was my call, I would have removed the "Characters" and "Setting" sections a long time ago. All that original research bothers the hell out of me.) This article has eight proper citations, and that's quite alright, especially for a webcomic. I have written articles on way less, and this article would look pretty good if it wasn't for those two unsourced tables. It's just unfortunate that we can't write about how it is received today. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 21:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The article may have eight citations, but it's the quality of those citations that counts. I've had to expand uncited articles using only two or three sources before, but said sources were often quite robust and detailed. A lot of the citations on this page aren't exactly the best. Regardless, why not remove the tables? They're literally entirely OR, it's pretty hard to defend that, especially considering they're not at all vital to the article. A list of landmarks and locations is something that belongs on a fan wiki, usually only extremely notable pieces of entertainment (e.g. Springfield from The Simpsons) are allowed such a privilege on Wikipedia. 109.76.84.43 (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's a good argument. Ditch them! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately it runs afoul of three wikipedia policies/guidelines: It skirts dangerously close to the rule to avoid using Primary Sources i.e. something the creator said/did, secondly a blog is not a Reliable Source by any means i.e no editorial oversight and fact checking, and third it completely violates the policy of No Original Content i.e. something YOU found.  Encyclopedias are collections of notable mutual wisdom and human knowledge. Seldom is something "i said therefore is true", so you don't generally use primary sources. All too often blogs and internet postings are false, so you want reliable, reviewed, fact checked sources. They are collections of MUTUAL knowledge, not knowledge you found, so we cite someone else who found the knowledge. Having said all that, your citation is an extremely compelling argument, and i'm personally willing to let it stand.  I can't speak for other editors though, we do stuff by Consensus here. Timmccloud (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drastic change of {what sinfest was} vs {what sinfest is now} 

message: In recent years, Sinfest and its creator, author, and illustrator, Tatsuya Ishida, are and have become much more increasingly, noticeably and unignorably transphobic, anti-trans, and aligned with TERFs. All of this should be edited and added into this article extensively, as it is completely indisputable if you ever look at and read the comic's awfully and disgustingly toxic takes on trans issues. ~~Krextzin~~ (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transphobia, Anti-Transgender Activism, and alignment with TERFs 

message: The article is laughably outdated and cannot be updated because there are no sources on the changes that are considered reliable. In fact, many of the original sources should not have been considered reliable in the first place. Recommending deletion. 04:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. There are enough articles to show this topic is notable and worth keeping.Historyday01 (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Notability is not temporary. If an article subject was notable at any point in time, it is always notable even if no further coverage about it ever happens. SilverserenC 20:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that's a good point. Historyday01 (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I may at some point nominate this article for deletion per WP:SUSTAINED, but I think the argument would not be strong enough. Six years of Sinfest impressing journalists followed by six years of no coverage at all is not unusual for a webcomic, after all. But I hope that argument might stick if Sinfest concludes and noone does a retrospective on it. I indeed do think the lack of any coverage of Sinfest evolution into transgender-obsession, and thus our severely outdated description of the webcomic, is a problem. It's a problem hard to solve with our guidelines, as far as I know... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And with the present proposal to delete the article, your comments are even more apt today. Historyday01 (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think an AfD may pass off a lack of sustained notability, the CSD is unfortunately incorrect. After a quick search, all recent mentions of Sinfest seem to be on sites like Reddit and user generated websites. Once the CSD is gone, if the IP editor doesn't put it up for AfD, I likely will. The recent murder mentioned below, unfortunately, doesn't mention the comic directly and I believe putting the image of the perpetrator's twitter & the murder together would constitute WP:OR. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 03:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support the AfD proposal. If I have time to do the research, I might create one myself - there are a lot of webcomic articles like this that probably dont meet modern WP notability standards. HappyWith (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If an AfD is to be considered, it is worth reading the previous AfD discussion which voted to keep the article, just for background: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinfest. In terms of webcomic articles, it can be a challenge to find citations sometimes, but most of the ones I've come across, at least when it comes to those with LGBTQ+ characters, seem notable to me. I will say that if there are nominations, apart from this one, of any LGBTQ+ webcomics, for deletion, I will not be supporting those deletions. Of course, not all articles are the same (and I'd examine each AfD on its merits), but, when it comes to deletion, users must be very careful to not make mistakes and cause problems for readers. Historyday01 (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sinfest is not a LGBTQ+ comic. It's also anti-semetic in the extreme. The only transgendered characters that exist exist for the purpose of being mocked for being transgender. It's an anti-LGBTQ+ comic. 15:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure whether it is or isn't, but I would not oppose an AfD discussion in the case of this article.Historyday01 (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reccomend this article for deletion 

message: Travis Ikeguchi, the suspected murderer of a GLBTQ positive businesswoman in Lake Arrowhead was a Sinfest fan: https://i.imgur.com/sEOxqNu.png
https://abcnews.go.com/US/california-store-owner-shot-dead-dispute-displaying-pride/story?id=102408818
Is there any way to put this information into the article? 22:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid a related tweet is not enough for us to mention it on Wikipedia, per WP:OR. If an independent source mentions it, then yes, for sure. (Also wow that strip... :(   ) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 16:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Yeah, the strip is awful. I'm a bit too busy to nominate it for deletion, but there seem to be some rumblings on this page which could lead to its AfD nomination. Historyday01 (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Sinfest Murder

message: This page should not be speedily deleted because it would not meet the criteria for WP:A7. Pages with a lack of WP:NSUSTAINED should be put up for AfD, not CSD. See WP:NOTCSD:
:: "Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are eligible for speedy deletion only if the article does not give a credible indication of why the subject might be important or significant." 
Best, Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 03:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree with @Schrödinger's jellyfish. A CSD on this makes no sense. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree per my comments in Talk:Sinfest#Reccomend this article for deletion. I have also removed the CSD claim in my recent edit.--Historyday01 (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: Sinfest has recently undergone a massive shift in politics and has become little more than an antisemitic neo-nazi propaganda piece, and yet this doesn't seem to get mentioned in the article at all?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSAH42 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it may have to with reliable sources... very few sources cover this comic at all these days... hence there have been efforts to delete this page... and personally I would not oppose an AfD at this point and time. Historyday01 (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gotten a reply notification on an earlier post. Regarding the first comment by JSAH42 (you can sign your post by using four tildes as such: ~~~~), you can put this in the article as long as you can back it up with a reliable source. Historyday01, if you find that the subject lacks sustained notability (per WP:SUSTAINED), an AfD could be appropriate. I don't see any news mentions past 2016 on Google. jellyfish ✉ 01:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fair point. Historyday01 (talk) 03:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I would likely support such a nomination per SUSTAINED. If the webcomic had ended in the early 2010s, then that would've been one thing, but being unable to cover the changing political content over the course of a decade is a serious problem I think. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antisemitism? 

message: I don't feel good about deleting an article about something that has been worthy of inclusion in the past, but the current article largely overlooking its latter-day history isn't great, either. I've done my best to cite coverage of the strip's evolution (or devolution) using recently-published sources from a range of experts in the webcomics field, including a 2020 academic book by Sean Kleefeld documenting the turn to radical feminism, a follow-up article from his professional site last month discussing the more recent turn to political extremism, a newsletter article by journalist Ryan Broderick on similar ground that Kleefeld references, statements quoted from Tatsuya Ishida via the (now-closed) Sinfest forum, and commentary from The Webcomics Review noting the explicit antisemitic and neo-Nazi content of the last few months. That last one is probably the weakest source-wise, but the author is a well-known webcomics critic and bases his observations directly on Sinfest imagery included in the page. I'm fairly confident these are the most authoritative sources in the webcomics field that have referenced Sinfest's transformation in the recent years; there are other sources that go into more specific detail but those are limited to various Reddit posts, tweetstorms, and other less-reliable sources.
I have partially re-written and re-organized the article to give a more balanced perspective on its overall history, including subdividing the History section into background, pre-2011, and post-2011 eras (as Kleefeld's book notes the sudden introduction of radical feminist themes as the dividing line between the original strip and the new, more polemical version). I have also removed the Reception section and incorporated the few accolades there into the relevant parts of the History section to avoid implying their endorsement of the modern incarnation of the strip. --Jordan117 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt at an update