Talk:Erfworld

Novel and webcomic

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)

Undeletion of this article

Given the nature of deletion and recreation, allow me to pre-emptively elabourate my reasons for recreating this article, with modification to satisfy WP:N and WP:RS.
1) Without making any attempt to determine if in fact Erfworld is a well-known webcomic, the original deleter speedy-deleted the page, leaving no visible place to discuss it. After some discussion on a 3rd party forum, it seemed to me the simplest thing to do would be to recreate the article with WP:N and RS satisfied since these are the common complaints in any deleted webcomic article. If it was deleted for some other reason, I may never know... it was speedy deleted, leaving no record that I am aware of. I've not had to deal with speedy deletions in the past.

2) Regarding WP:RS, there are numerous blog-type reviews and references to Erfworld, as now mentioned in the article. These satisfy WP:RS - namely:

When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; second, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

Off-topic... I don't want to soapbox, but I would just like to say that the utter lack of care for a major part of internet culture - namely webcomics - on Wikipedia lately has really worried me. Erfworld has quite a sizeable readership after only two months of comics, is the product of a notable syndicated author, and has been recommended by one of the largest names in webcomics today, Rich Burlew... in fact, Mr. Burlew has recognised it to the degree that he is hosting it on his own site. If these are not criteria for notability in and of themselves - which clearly the speedy deleter did not believe - then it is nearly impossible for a webcomic to be notable on wikipedia. This is a bit absurd, since webcomics are widely recognised as one of the important phenomena of the modern internet. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 11:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Note the key phrase in WP:RS: "these may be acceptable as sources" (emphasis in original). This clause means that truly exceptional blog posts have a chance at being considered reliable sources, not that any given blog post does satisfy WP:RS. 216.52.69.217 20:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My bad for removing the emphasis. I have put it back in... forgot to CP from the "edit" mode.

I am aware of the specifications about blogs, but in this particular case one can easily see that these blogs are noteworthy, and make pretty noteworthy mention of Erfworld. Howard Tayler, Rich Burlew, and Lev Grossman are not small names in webcomics and/or journalism, nor is there any rational doubt that they made the comments about Erfworld that they did. They pretty clearly meet the spirit of RS: claiming that their comments are not RS simply because they are posted on the web is... strange, to say the least. Especially for something as subjective as a webcomic: it is not like we are citing astrophysics theories here! Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 23:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note vote to keep article 208.165.251.17 17:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I read the thread on the forums, and as a wikipedia anal-type, I thought I'd chime in. Given the recreation of the article, I thought I'd go ahead and ask... does anyone know of any print(or Television) sources mentioning this comic or it's author/publisher? That would guarantee a keep in almost every debate, the only exception being a copyright violation. I know Rob thinks this is an extension of the print war on webcomics so this will probably seem related, but that is the #1 notability and verification test. Media attention, books published by major publishing companies, and academic papers discussing erfworld just don't exist(yet). The fact that the article is sourced with multiple references is much better than most articles headed for AfD debates. As a side note, the Erfworld article is more in line with wikipedia policies the OotS article is. i kan reed 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was just talked about in Dragon Magazine. I or someone else will get the ref as soon as we can. If we're lucky it won't be speedy deleted and salted before that.

I have to question your motive though. I mean, think about it critically: why is print any more notable, in the case of a web-only presence, than multiple online reviews and mentions by major figures in an appropriate field? With a scientific paper, I can understand it, but Wikipedia's attitude to "verification" of things that are clearly there (webcomics, websites, cultural phenomena) is honestly becoming a laughingstock, possibly soon outdoing the mockery of basic vandalism. I like wikipedia, I like what it stands for, and this makes me sad.

Not only that, but major print discussion is not enough to guarantee survivability. There is a New York Times article almost 2/3 about the Web Cartoonists Choice Awards, as well as an aired television show about them, yet their article was speedy deleted. Frankly, I would say the only way to be certain your article will not be speedy deleted without any debate or warning is to have it a referenced scientific page, or have it a trivia article about a television show. That is one of several things that has, frankly, turned me away from wanting to contribute. WP's increasing verifiability bias only allows those things which are easily and regularly printed about to have strongly defensible articles. Kinda silly in an online community...

Since I am no longer a regular wikipedia contributor (haven't even logged in since November, though I still make anon edits) I realise I am not heavily involved in policy. Still, if you have some critically thought-out arguments, I would like to hear them. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 23:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You have 2 different objections here. One I can't answer for because it really is a growing problem that may need to be addressed. The other I can answer for.

1. Speedy deletion on wikipedia is becoming misused. It started with {{db-bio}} which was ok because wikipedia was spammed with people making articles about themselves, you know things that obviously are better off in myspace than an encylcopedia. This started becoming a problem when people would nominate things for speedy deletion that really did need that third pair of eyes, that one google search, or those 5 days to be cleaned up so that the signifigance could be understood. This is exacerbated by new users who don't understand the process and remove speedy deletion templates instead of making a case on the talk page, and administrators who don't give things a second chance. This problem half derives itself from the recent tendency of editors to tag things for speedy deletion rather than deletion, and half derives from the fact that wikipedia editors are human and make mistakes.
2. Print sources are more important that non-print. The usual reasons for this being the way things are, are that 1. Print sources can't change. Once printed, a book, newspaper, or academic paper will be the same, there might be newer versions with corrections or a host of other differences, but the fact that one can be certain the material will still be there is quite distinct from an online directory that can go 404, or change their statements about something. 2. Print sources(at least the kind considered verifiable) are almost exclusively done by professionals. Newspapers are written by journalists who are trained(at least in theory) whereas a blog can simply be someone's view of something or own assertions regarding facts. This happens in newspapers, but popular opinion stipulates it happens less, because of 3. reputation print sources(again of the kind considered verifiable) have the repuations of a major entity behind them whereas blogs and other such sources do not. National news sources, like Time, will fire people over bad enough errors. An online article by a noted(a bit self-referential here) expert would carry as much weight as a paper one. Again, I'm not sure how much of this I agree with, but the reasoning is not invalid. i kan reed 00:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The trouble, as I see it, is that traditional media, being traditional, are slower to react to web phenomena than the web itself is. On the one hand, this can be seen as impending dinosaur-hood for traditional media: if the newspapers are so entrenched in their ways that they can't recognize a self-publishing Renaissance happening right under their noses, why should Wikipedia rely on their coverage to determine an article's fitness for inclusion? On the other hand, that traditional sluggishness helps to filter out the flashes in the pan that propagate like lightning on the web: things that seem revolutionary and popular and hilarious when everybody is talking about them are often revealed as insignificant in hindsight, and the slow reaction time of print publications smooths out the spikes, if you will.

Personally, I have more sympathy for the former view. If you let the traditional media determine significance, then the most significant thing that happened this week was the death of Anna Nicole Smith. I just saw a bit of a major CNN report on The Secret, which is a piece of soon-to-be-forgotten self-help nonsense which, nevertheless, warranted a major investigation on the premier 24-hour news network, and thus "deserves" a Wikipedia article. I think the mainstream media do miss the point an awful lot, and can't really be relied on to choose wisely what does and doesn't merit a Wikipedia article. But that's a complaint with the deletion policies that I'm sure has been voiced before. --Jere7my 01:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jeremy, you voiced what I was thinking before I consolidated my reply.

There IS a valid reason for prefering print articles in a lot of subjects. However, and I know this isn't really the place to debate it, it seems massively inappropriate for many internet phenomena. Sure, a print article about webcomics is a noteworthy source, but Howard Tayler or Lev Grossman reviewing a webcomic on his blog-type site where he is the obvious attributed poster is no less noteworthy. If the material was changed or disappeared, the reference would simply become invalid. As wikipedia is dynamic itself, not print, this is not a problem! That is something most editors seem to have troubles with.

As a scientist this is important to me... the nature of refering is changing, and wikipedia seems like the first place where understanding should keep up. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 02:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that this is not the place to discuss it. That would be Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. What does need to be done, is someone needs to get their hands on that review in dragon and see exactly what statements in this article are verified by it. I'm affraid my local hobby shop went out of business so I can't track down a copy.

Also the comixpedia link needs to go. Other wikis are 100% not reliable sources. If the reference comes from a location anyone can edit, then it doesn't verify anything any more than another wikipedia article does. i kan reed 03:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The link in question is not from an article anyone can edit, as comixpedia is not exclusively a wiki site. However, feel free to remove it and post in here. You're as much an editor as anyone else. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 04:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I brought it up on the talk page first because it looked like a wiki. If it doesn't act like one my objection is meaningless. i kan reed 05:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hole

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)

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)

Discussion page of deleted article

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)

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)

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)

The other potential confirmation would be the domain name records indicating that Rob Balder (author of Erfword) has registered the hamstard.com domain; however, domain name records aren't all that permanent and include info (e.g. address) that seems like an unnecessary privacy issue. SMBrinich 21:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Pictures?

Does someone want to post pictures of the cast, a picture for the infobox, etc?

Thanks!Belril 19:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Got the infobox picture up; working on cast pictures. Gitman00 15:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Massive synopses

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)

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)

Update April 25th 2009: I condensed the synopsis heavily (by 50% or so) to focus on the flow of major plot points in the work, glossing over or eliminating all minor details (many of which would necessitate writing in a very "in universe" style if you included them). I also worked to remove a lot of speculation and put in some words like "probably" and "it appears". Discussions of character backgrounds and world mechanics were moved to the appropriate sections and deleted from the synopsis. It is still not cited (maybe I will find time later) but I believe I got it far enough that the flag could be removed. user:npatchett

Original Research

There's all kinds original research, fan speculation, and unsourced synthesis going on in the characters section. I'd say no more than one or two sentences per character are actually attributable. I know if I stubified the section it'd be reverted, so I'm taking my concerns here first. I know it won't help stop more crap from being stuffed in, but I've tagged the section. i kan reed 18:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"There's all kinds original research, fan speculation, and unsourced synthesis going on in the characters section." Examples? "I'd say no more than one or two sentences per character are actually attributable." Actually, it looks to me as if no more than one or two sentences in the entire section lack a clear attribution link supporting the factual assertion made. That being the case, the tag is clearly inappropriate. SMBrinich 20:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's start from the top and I'll give every example I can

1. "a mysterious tool of divine origin, resembling a toy hammer". The reference does for that line doesn't even begin to assert that it resembles a toy hammer. This one is sufficiently obvious that this is not a concern, but no primary source, nor any secondary source, nor anything states that it looks like a toy hammer. This is the interpretation of an editor.

deleted the "toy hammer" part Gitman00 15:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Not the appropriate response. The concern is unfounded. The resemblance to a toy hammer is obvious, as I am sure i kan reed would even admit. If a cite is truly needed, use the toy that the hammer was modelled on: http://www.supercoolstuff.com/items/misc/nv680.htm RBalder 07:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Point taken. It's a pretty nitpicky point by i kan reed, admittedly. Now that I look at it again, it seems the concern is not with the statement itself, but with the reference. Gitman00 21:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

1. "Stanley objects strongly to being called a "bad guy"" again a case of obvious implication, but it's still an interpretation. The author never said this. No review ever said this. This is simply not how primary sources are are supposed to be used.

It certainly is. If this assertion is "obvious," then its veracity is not in doubt, only its significance. It does not need to be proven via a secondary source, because there is no reasonable question as to its truth. For example, if someone added "the characters communicate via top hats which are black," then the color of the hats would not need any more cite than the page on which the hats are depic ted. Because the fact that the hats are black is not self-evidently notable, it would not add to the quality of the article and should be edited for that reason, but not because it fits some creeping definition of original research. RBalder 07:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

1. "warlord she summoned (Parson) did not match Stanley's expectations". The concern here: it interprets a character's motivation. This is a serious problem on numerous wikipedia entries on fictional works. An encyclopedia is not an English paper. Also, again I'll indicate that the lack of secondary sources is a problem.

If there is a problem, the problem is with policy and application thereof. Interpretation of what is actually going on in a fictional work is not a serious problem with article quality in most cases. In the Britannica article on Hamlet, for example, the editors see nothing unencyclopedic about saying, "Polonius is a pompous courtier whose meddlesome and garrulous nature eventually brings about his death." If you were editing that article, I take it you would scream bloody murder (pun intended). As relates to this article, unambiguous characterizations of the actions and words of the characters in this comic do not violate policy when there is no reasonable chance the editor is misinterpreting. RBalder 07:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

1. "His name is an anagram for "Protagonist". This one asserts signifigance to this fact that is not substantiated by any piece of fiction nor comment from the author. Merely being true does not warrant its inclusion in this article or section.

It certainly does. It's not original research to note a self-evidently true fact about the comic. The anagram is clearly intentional on the part of the author (Do you doubt that? And wouldn't it be even more remarkable if accidental?) It is worthy of note because it is not immediately obvious to a reader, yet knowing it increases the understanding of the subject. It sheds light on the author's intent for the character, and serves as a concrete example of the subtle style of the work. Removing this fact degrades the quality of the information in the article, which is not the intent of the policy you cite (or any editorial policy, though many WP policies are misapplied). RBalder 07:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

1. "She has an unrealistically oversized sword." Whose claim is it(going to WP:ATT here) that the sword is oversized?

Added reference Gitman00 15:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not an appropriate reference. The concern was attribution. I've seen the sword in question, who's idea is it that that is "oversized"? who said that the size of her sword is even moderately relevant? As far as I can tell, no one but the editors who put that into the section did. Thus the original research concern. i kan reed 18:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It is an entirely appropriate reference. Read the "Strengths" section of Jillian's bio: "Unrealistically Oversized Weaponry". Gitman00 19:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm getting tired of listing examples right now, but this is the kind of thing I mean. A lot of things that editors think is important is going in and 10 thousand equivalently reasonable statements could easily be made. Now, I'll give you that erfworld is really young and secondary sources are just lacking right now, but that doesn't make the unreasonable synthesis ok. I severely doubt anyone can do anything about these concerns except by cutting right now. I just want it to be clear the particular ways this article can improve when secondary sources are available for referencing. i kan reed 21:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

These examples you cite are wholly reasonable synthesis. Characterizing them otherwise is a misinterpretation of policy, and demonstrates a willingness to put your own views about editorial policy ahead of the worth of the information in the article. Please think before removing information you believe to be true and relevant, merely on the basis of how you perceive it to be sourced. That is not the purpose of the policy, and it is not helping anything.

As you may guess, I am the author of Erfworld. I have neither created nor edited this article, and won't. I have not personally directed any of the editors who did. But I do wish to participate in the discussion of the article. I created this account to do that.

If i kan read has some suggestions as to other ways that I can protect the true assertions made by editors of this article, perhaps by keeping a separate blog in which I personally verify the claims, then I am open to them. I just consider that silly and unnecessary, considering he doesn't even dispute the accuracy of any of these claims, merely their sources. I am certain that i can reed and I share the same goal for this article, namely that it contain high-quality information which is true, accurate, significant, encyclopedic, and verifiable. RBalder 07:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize Mr. Balder, for what may seem a personal slight, but secondary sources are important. You'll also note I removed the OR template already. You really shouldn't do anytrhing for the specific purpose of providing information for wikipedia. The reason the OR claims come up is editors shouldn't be the ones deciding what kinds of details are important. There's no doubt A meg's worth of details in the erfworld story already. Randomly picking a few out is what is concerning. For older things, there are numerous noted published materials discussing the subject matter by experts. If one looks at the articles on say... Penny Arcade and scrolls to the references section. Most of the sources aren't comics. The reason I put the OR template on the section in the first place is the desire for this article to be the best possible article on erfworld there can be. If I notice something about the article that needs improving and I don't know how to improve it myself, it's going on the talk page or as a template to help guide other editors who are perhaps more knowledgeable in the subject matter. I think that the addition of the template improved the quality of the article especially thanks to the help of User:Gitman00. I won't hesitate to point out that you have a conflict of interest in this matter. There's a whole world of reason why original synthesis isn't allowed, but that might be something that'd be better discussed between 2 people. Suffice to say, please don't be angry with me for wanting to improve the verifiability and attribution and accuracy of an article about a webcomic I like from a good author. This is about the article and not about erfworld. i kan reed 21:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

At some point, the editors always will decide what is important. You have to do so in order to write an article about any subject. It seems to me that you are creating disputes about the importance of particular facts where none should exist, by means of invoking the original research rules (which are an abominable failure for new media subjects, anyway). If the choice is between the article being stripped of a fact that I know to be significant, or having to provide some kind of dispute-settling outside verification that the fact is significant, then I'd rather jump through the hoops. I'm one of two final authorities as to whether or not something about Erfworld is significant. But as I say, that would not be necessary if you were not calling into question the source of common sense observations such as "the Arkenhammer resembles a toy hammer." Why would you invoke the most stringent applications of policy in order to remove true and significant information from the article? Is that the goal of an editor? Does a cop pull over everybody who goes 56 mph in a 55 mph zone, or does s/he exercise some judgement and apply enforcement of the laws, in a sensible attempt to support the ovearching goal of public safety? The overarching goal of every policy on Wikipedia is to provide quality information. The sad fact is that editors here quickly decide that the policy is the point, and fight the wrong fight, over and over again. I can't change that, but I can protect this article. Maybe that means I'll have to publish a periodical printed summary of significant developments in Erfworld and register it with the Library of Congress. I'd like to keep this sensible, but it wouldn't surprise me if I had to do something like that. Wikipedia is not a sensible institution by any stretch. Can we get on the same page here, i kan reed? RBalder 00:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Trying to get on the same page. Take a look at the five pillars of wikipedia as they are called. Lack of original research is actually one of the "unbreakable" rules. I'll give you that this article had:

1. less original research than most articles of the same age.
2. presently lacks decent secondary sources.
3. it's often good to avoid bureaucratic nonsense.

and those are all good points that have been made on thousands of articles, but as wikipedia is edited anonymously, these(specifically what defines synthesis and original research and et al.) are the kind of guidelines and rules that serve the purpose of creating an idea of what is acceptable and what is not. Wikipedia isn't a random collection of information. It was never intended to be. It was always intended to be an encyclopedia. A lot of what I'm trying to say about this is covered under Wikipedia:Trivia, which is not policy, but rather an essay explaining how trivia relates to policy. The answer I could give to your example is "it looks like a toy hammer, so what? Why should that matter to someone reading the article." Citing a lot of policy is not going to get me on your good side, but pointing you to what wikipedia is not regarding this particular subject doesn't seem too far out. Wikipedia isn't a random collection of information. There does have to be a reason why something is included.

I'm not a cop. You're comparison is inapt, because rather than dolling out punishment, all that anyone is trying to do is improve the article. I wasn't trying to argue with anyone, and I'd prefer not to argue with you. I saw something that needed some correction, and flagged it. This happens with other articles from Science to God to even Master of Magic. Noting room for improvement, even minor, pushes articles to be better, not worse. Yes my concerns are minor, but that doesn't mean that they can't be fixed. I appreciate your concern in this matter. I'm no stranger to backing down when I'm wrong, but this issue is functionally already settled. I noted something I perceived as needing improvement for other editors. Then it got fixed after a little discussion. Yes it's a trifle, but that's hardly an excuse not to fix it. If you have any other concerns, especially about how I personally am interpreting wikipedia policy, it'd probably be better to leave a message on my talk page. Looking forward to tomorrow's 'klog(if there is one), i kan reed 01:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'd like to point out that there is a large gap between "Original Research" and "Blatantly Obvious". Your examples are not specifically referred to (in the sense that no one has yet said "hey, that hammer looks like a toy"), but that does not make any of them less obvious. What you are doing is attempting to follow the letter of the law to the point where you are entirely ignoring the purpose of the law. If you were actually a cop (Which, incidentally, it should have been rather obvious was not the intent of RBalder.) then following the letter of the law is more to be expected; but as you so stated, you obviously are not. And just as you are not a police officer, the rules of Wikipedia are also specifically made to make the purpose of the law more important than the word of law. --Human.v2.0 00:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of beating a dead horse, I'm ressurrecting this discussion after 4 years now. This article still has massive problems with in universe writing and a lack of verifiable sources. If this article were compressed to the strictly factual(as in not fictional), verifiable(as in from reliable sources) statements. I would basically ammount to "A well recieved fantasy webcomic." It's been four years since this article was made, and wikipedia has moved on from having every fictional subject discussed as though it were real. This article is about 80% plot, setting, and characters. No history, relevance and impact, criticism, production or similar sections appear. For reference, look at Star Wars or Penny Arcade for an example of a well done focus for a fictional subject. Due to these concerns, I'm placing a {{multiple issues}} template on the article. i kan reed (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the assertion that it has "massive issues". Writing about fictional subjects is not a matter of information valid for inclusion, it is a matter of writing style when including it, which you have not discussed at all. If you have specific issues with it, bring them up,or even fix them without removing information. The original research tag also had no examples or specific issues named, it had no explanation whatsoever aside, again an assertion that there's a "lack of verifiable sources", also without examples. As such, I have reverted your template. Name specific problems and they can be solved; name a large number of examples, none of which whose validity is dubious, and a tag for systematic faults is sensible. Please be constructive. Namegduf Live (talk) 06:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

So how is this not original research? This article's overall quality is terrible, deals with meaningless minutiae instead of addressing the subject of the article in a serious manner. I can cite hundred of examples of original research in this article. WP:OR cautions heavily against using primary sources, as well as making syntheses like "It is clear from Parson's reaction that this is an in-universe mechanic." How can you read that sentance and decide

1. This sounds like something important and meaningful about how this work influences the world.
2. This is something a reliable source would publish
3. This is not some arbitrary conclusion reached by a reader.

The whole article, after the summary is full of this sort of thing. Rather than continue to cite other examples, I'm just going to cite everything after the summary. A plot synopsis is fairly consistent with the structure of articles about fiction, but there's a huge gulf between having a small section describe the content for context, and that being the entire article. I would issue a counter-challenge to your claim that I didn't cite any examples of original research, and plead that you cite an exmaple of anything after the summary that's not original research. Any sentence. I don't buy that you can have read the guidelines in WP:OR and think there's nothing wrong with the article as it stands. Specifically, please check the sections on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources as well as the section about synthesis. i kan reed (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You've given one example of claimed WP:OR. I agree "it is obvious" is poor phrasing for a Wikipedia article, and have adjusted the named example to "Parson's reaction shows". It was, however, not "original research". Reactions are a form of language akin to any other, and understanding their meaning is no more "original research" than documenting speech. In complex cases, as with poor quality audio speech, it may be unclear, in which case the article should indeed not speculate, but that was not such as case. That singular example invalidated, I return to awaiting "a large number of examples, none of which whose validity is dubious", as stated previously. As for primary source usage, WP:OR says "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.". Count of use of such sources does not appear relevant; meeting that criteria does. If you feel that there are uses of primary sources which do NOT meet that criteria, then I invite you to name them so they can be improved, constructively. If you feel there are a large enough number to be a systemic problem, I await "a large number of examples, none of which whose validity is dubious" there, too. This should not be hard if there are so many as you claim. Namegduf Live (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the repeated position of "the article has too much information about the piece of fiction's universe" doesn't have any relation to claims about WP:OR or source issues, so could you leave it out of future discussions of potential problems here? It makes the discussion harder to follow. Namegduf Live (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot going on here so I'm going to start 2 new sections below to address the two major issues involved. I don't like how contentious a fairly basic interpretation of a couple of wikipedia guidelines are getting on this article. I repeat that almost. I wanted to use just one example to describe how the problem worked without having to be comprehensive and go through the entire article, which is essentially suffering the same problems. For now, please see the below sections. i kan reed (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ansom and Hamster Confused

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)

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)

List of Jokes

{{Unanswered}} 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)

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)

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)

Perhaps a more discriminating list of "References to Popular culture" (such as the Knights In Stanley's Service) might be more appropriate? -Tar7arus 10:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I normal edit science articles but I am not at all paranoiod of having to much stuff on an article, hence I concur that a section on the jokes, or more correctly references, and it does not fall under trivia. I wanted to see if I missed something. Geek-references section must be added.

• in the article vinny is said to be a reference to someone but I think it is without a doubt to Vincent valentine a vampire in final fantasy 7!
• Archons are an angel race in D&D, hence Charlies' angels
• Leroy Jenkins is a World of warcraft youtube star
• In star wars galaxies (before Wow), crap was not filtered (whereas nazi was) and became widely used

Minor things like Elvis=titans (there is a cult that worships elvis as a god, but I think it is not that), Saline IV (a smart joke, but he explains it just in case) and that Prince Ansom rides a carpet but rolled up (it seems just a joke nothing more complicated) etc may be exessive and would get a tag by those editors whose minds I will never comprehend (actually I do, talk to any Corporate department staffmember in any industry) Thanks to whoever writes the list --Squidonius (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

For everyone's info: quoting Wikipedia:Trivia_sections: There are a number of pervasive misunderstandings about this guideline and the course of action it suggests:

This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all. This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format. This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies. --Squidonius (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I started a tread in the forum as people there might have more. [1], What is an erf? --Squidonius (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Magic

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)

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))

I agree that this section has a low information-to-length ratio. Perhaps simpler one-sentence listings for each class (e.g. "Hocus Pocus incorporates the element of Life, and is divided into Findamancy (Erf axis), Predictamancy (Fate axis), and Mathamancy (Number axis).") followed by specific comments on the disciplines of magic that have actually been described in the story would be more suitable. SMBrinich (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I figured out how to make tables (to a degree) and I think these might work:

Life	Motion	Matter	Class
X			Hocus Pocus
	X		Spookism
		X	Stuffamancy
X	X		Eyemancy
X		X	Hippiemancy
	X	X	Naughtymancy
X	X	X	Stagemancy
			Clevermancy

	Erf	Fate	Numbers
Hocus Pocus	Findamancy	Predictamancy	Mathamancy
Spookism	Turnamancy	Dollamancy	Weirdomancy
Stuffamancy	Dirtamancy	Changemancy	Dittomancy
Eyemancy	Lookamancy	Thinkamancy	Foolamancy
Hippiemancy	Flower Power	Signamancy	Date-a-mancy
Naughtymancy	Shockmancy	Croakamancy	Deletionism
Stagemancy	Hat Magic	Carnymancy	Rhyme-o-mancy
Clevermancy	Luckmancy	Healomancy	Moneymancy

What does anyone have to say, should these replace any classes or disciplines that we have no specific information on? (Justyn (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

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)

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)

Boop and crap

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)

Deletion?

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)

I don't have a problem with the person being anonymous, but he/she should have addressed what's already been raised in the topmost topic and recognition secion of the article. Along those lines though, anybody have further reviews from outside sources, say like further articles from Dragon Magazine? I haven't kept up with it myself in a long time. Also, did the Time article make it into a print copy and if so, can we get the sites? I agree it shouldn't have to be done, but it makes the deletion nazis less likely to come stomping in. IMHO (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

How is this related to Boop?

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)

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)

"Tcotchke redirects here"

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)

Additional Arkendish information

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)

In universe writing

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.

"An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info."

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

A plot synopsis written like a historical account

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)

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)

Fictography – a fictional character article or section written as if it were a biography

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)

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)

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)

Anyway the description of the relationship between Wanda and Jillian is blatantly missing the master-slave relationship that Wanda created during interrogation (which is mostly left off-panel, and quite deep for a mainstream comic). I tried to correct that but was reverted for "vandalism".41.83.12.16 (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Description of fictional places written like a geographical account

Not really relevant as there isn't section focusing particularly on this, but where locations within the fiction are discussed, the information is discussed in this way.

Using past tense when discussing the plot or any of its elements

Not occurring to my knowledge.

Trying to reconcile contradictions or fill gaps in a fictional continuity, rather than reporting them as such

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)

Discussing a fictional topic's appearances in major works and obscure spin-off material in equal detail

Not really relevant, no one has included erfworld in anything else fictional to my knowledge.

Placing spiritual successors in the same continuity as the works that inspired them

Same.

Using throwaway comments or jokes as a source of information

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Using infoboxes intended for real world topics

N/A. Only infobox is the webcomic infobox, used appropriately.

Using image captions for film stills and screenshots asserting that what is depicted is the character, rather than a film scene depicting the character

N/A. No character images in article.

Referring to the fictional events or dates which occur in the story, rather than the fictional works themselves

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)

Whoops, I think this somehow got under the wrong section heading. i kan reed (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ordering works by their fictional chronology, rather than the actual order they were published

N/A fictional chronology is identical.

Summary

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)

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)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Erfworld/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This is a webstrip that is increasing in popularity not only by word of mouth, but also as I won several recognitions and despite still being incomplete, was recognised as a top ten comic book by a ranking made by time magiazine in 2007[2]. It contains several in-jokes and other easter eggs, hence the need for the lenght of the article.

Last edited at 15:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Discontinuation

Erfworld was discontinued as a webcomics on October 11, 2019 due to "horrific and unbearable events" in Rob and Linda Balder's personal lives.[3] 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)

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)

I found and added a citable reference to a journalistic article on the discontinuation of Erfworld. --Cayzle (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)