Talk:Pibgorn (webcomic)

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 February 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Webcomics.

Not sure about the characters[edit]

March 13, 2006 While Egea certainly looks like Gran from 9 Chickweed Lane, I still can't see Thorax within the Theseus role (glasses: yes; hair: no; size: yes; anything else? no). And I think that it's even more of a stretch to see Seth or Isabel as Demetrius or Hermia.

But you may be on to something. We'll see. BayBoy 03:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The strip confirmed that Thorax played Theseus on March 9.[1] John M Baker 14:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pibgorn discontinued?[edit]

I just got an email from Comics.com, saying that Pibgorn was being discontinue tomorrow. Anybody know anything about this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Croberson (talk • contribs) 20:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

McEldowney has sent the following response to email queries:

With United Media's announcement that "Pibgorn" is to be discontinued, I have been inundated with e-mail, much of it agitated and distressed. I'm very sorry you had to get the news in this rather dispassionate way. That I may answer your central question forthwith, I've composed this response for everyone – so please forgive me if I seem impersonal.

"PIBGORN" WILL CONTINUE.

There. That is the main thing I wanted to say. Comics.com, however, will, as they have announced, no longer be the source. Nothing dramatic happened, really. I simply came to feel that the editorial needs of comcs.com and those of "Pibgorn" were becoming more and more divergent and incompatible. For this reason I asked to be released from my contract with United Media in order to secure a new online home for "Pibgorn." United Media most graciously, and reluctantly, agreed. In short order I hope to get Pib back up and flying.

Meanwhile, you have seen the most current installments of "Pibgorn." Hold that thought. We'll be back.

24.73.178.142 22:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting the information. I'll keep checking back here to see where and when Pibgorn is back on the net.

I realize this is very significant, but does it need to be in the article 3 times?-jlp

I just added a link to McEldowney's LiveJournal[edit]

... which will track his progress in finding a new home for Pibgorn.

Fair use rationale for Image:Crewth Small.jpg[edit]

Image:Crewth Small.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Maurice Small.jpg[edit]

Image:Maurice Small.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 03:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Drusilla Small.jpg[edit]

Image:Drusilla Small.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 22:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Luciano Small.jpg[edit]

Image:Luciano Small.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 01:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Gaggot Small.jpg[edit]

Image:Gaggot Small.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 04:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Oognat Small.jpg[edit]

Image:Oognat Small.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 06:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Geoff Small.jpg[edit]

Image:Geoff Small.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 10:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pibgorn Small.jpg[edit]

Image:Pibgorn Small.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summaries Needed[edit]

January 7, 2008 Deleting the plot summaries and referencing them in a non-existent article diminishes the quality of this article. If the summaries need to be re-formatted for clarity, then let's do that rather than eliminating them altogether. Without them, the article is little more than a stub. ccdesan (talk) 02:17, 08 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for that, but since they were added all-at-once by a single author and comprise a great deal of text, cleaning up what's there is a monumental task. It's as though someone decided to build a house and instead just dumped a huge pile of lumber on the lot where the house was to be. I, for one, am not willing to go through all this stuff and format it properly. In my opinion it's better not to have the pile of lumber taking up space while we decide how to build the house. HiramShadraski (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Story Arc section has been here for almost as long as I've been looking at this article, which was during the "Midsummer Nights Dream" sequence. But what possible reason could there be to delete a whole section, and replace it with a link to a non-existent article? Carlo (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add the broken link. I deleted the massive text clot. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pibgorn_%28webcomic%29&diff=182253884&oldid=181568311
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pibgorn_%28webcomic%29&diff=next&oldid=182253884

Again, I fully agree that story arcs / summaries are a good idea, but they should take some sort of reasonable form. Perhaps the original author will rewrite them with paragraphs and other standard textual elements, or someone else will take up the challenge. Heck, if I can get to it this weekend, I'll start on it myself. HiramShadraski (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summaries Redux[edit]

Actually the summaries were added by several different people, but if you're concerned more about the formatting than their existence, I'm sure we can get them cleaned up and formatted properly. ccdesan (talk) 02:17, 08 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text I'm referring to was added all at once. Again, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pibgorn_%28webcomic%29&diff=182253884&oldid=181568311

I'll see what I can do this weekend. HiramShadraski (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Thorax Small.jpg[edit]

Image:Thorax Small.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the unofficial tribute page[edit]

This link was removed by one editor and restored by another. The initial editor User:Amatulic responded to a query by pointing to the external linking guidelines. The link appears to contravene two standards: a) linking to "personal web pages" and b) "linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent". This page was originally conceived as a repository for the full-length story arc synopses which didn't survive WP's content standards, and grew from there. The page is informative and useful to those who are looking for additional information about this particular webcomic; I'd be interested in the opinions of other editors. Rather than being told yet again what can't be done, I'm more curious to hear what can be done to make this link acceptable. ccdesan (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see what the problem is.

1) Define "personal webpage." Every webpage is owned by someone. Do they mean that only corporate webpages are allowed, and any webpage maintained by an individual is banned? I doubt that. The webpage isn't ABOUT the person who does it, which would seem to me to be the only definition by which the prohibition makes sense.

2) The second criterion seems rather silly, since if it's useful, it's useful, if it's not, it's not; it doesn't matter who links to it. It's sort of like an ad hominem fallacy. But if that appears to be a problem, it was restored by ME, and I don't own it, maintain it, or represent it.

If a website is genuinely useful and non-commercial, I don't see why it's a problem. Carlo (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is where this was left almost four months ago. I fail to see the problem. The fan page is informative, and the other page is a forum. Carlo (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't link to fan sites, or to discussion forums. That's why it's no problem; we just don't do it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether we keep the link, or delete it, that needs to be decided here first. I have just warned two editors for edit warring and violation of WP:3RR. Mark Shaw (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though they are correct and you are wrong? I'm not fond of edit warring, so I won't participate, but the links clearly are inappropriate. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links to fansites are deprecated, not forbidden. It's a gray area. But the point is that continual reversion is absolutely forbidden except in very specific and narrowly-defined circumstances. The editors in conflict (and others who are interested) need to work this out here.

Note that I have restored the version with the link; not because I'm invested in keeping it specifically (I don't have much of an opinion either way), but because it represents the last change made by the one editor who seems to be open to discussion. Mark Shaw (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. You participated in an edit war and warned someone against edit warring. Generally not a good mix. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to WP:CIVIL. If you feel I'm edit warring, please feel free to report me. (And: just as a point of order, I warned two people.)

Now, then: you seem to be of the opinion that one or both of the links in question should be removed. What is your argument for this? Editors who would prefer they stay in: what is your argument? Mark Shaw (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to "report" anybody; if someone is acting sufficiently poorly, I take action myself. I've already made my argument; our style guidelines, though they are not hard and fast rules, work toward making a better, more reliable encyclopedia; and this means we generally do not link to fan sites and forums; I see no reason that this article should be treated any differently. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fan site in question contains legitimate information, such as summaries of story arcs, that are too detailed to be part of the encyclopedia article, and which don't seem to be available anyplace else. The forum link I have no feelings about one way or another, but the fan site seems to contain real and useful information that might interest an article reader who wants more info; it isn't just some guy cooing about how awesome something is. As a side note, I want to point out that the person I was having the "edit war" with deleted the links and then vandalized the article under an IP address, then created an account to delete the links again. And has yet to comment. Carlo (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I've had a chance to look at the two links under discussion. Here is my opinion:

The link to the Comcast page ( An unofficial Pibgorn tribute page) is barely acceptable, as it does have some character description (although much of that is a repeat of what's already given on the article page).
The link to the discussion forum (The official Pibgorn discussion forum at Talk About Comics) is over the line; certainly not acceptable for an encyclopedia.

My vote is to remove the second, and maybe the first. As far as any allegations about what other editors have done in terms of vandalism or sockpuppetry, I have no opinion. Mark Shaw (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(more than a day later) There's been no discussion on this, so I'm removing the link to the discussion forum per WP:EL. I'd suggest that any editor who wants to keep the other link speak up soon. Mark Shaw (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wel,, I've already said that I thought it should be kept, since it was created as a place to keep information that was too detailed for the article. Carlo (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I propose that the article Pibgorn Rep: A Midsummer Night's Dream be merged into this one. It's about a single storyline of this comic, which was published as a book, but doesn't seem to have any independent notability in its own right. I doubt it would survive if taken to WP:AFD, but instead of being deleted it could be merged here to preserve the content. Robofish (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Some references discussing this subject can be found at Google News archive:[2]. Edison (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases, fan sites, and internet comments are not reliable sources. The other mentions are trivial, not significant. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post is a fan site?

Are you trying to make an objective determination, or reach a pre-determined conclusion? Carlo (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A number of the WaPo hits are actually comments to the post rather than WaPo actually covering the comic, and I don't think any of the rest constitute significant coverage. If you think you've found better sources, why don't you link them?

Please remain civil and assume good faith. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stan and Henmellyn[edit]

I've added notes on Stan and Henmellyn; I think these are brand new characters, but I'm not sure so I didn't say so.

Poihths (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add dated links to gocomics.com?[edit]

This article contains many dated references to specific Pibgorn strips, almost all of which could be accessed by a direct link to gocomics.com. For instance, the earliest strip at gocomics.com is dated 2002-03-11. This could be directly accessed at http://www.gocomics.com/pibgorn/2002/03/11. But, I'm not clear about the best way to do it unobtrusively and yet not surreptitiously.

Options:

Modify the date to be a link, e.g. "2002-03-11". Benefits: very unobtrusive. Concerns: link rot, and could be seen as endorsing comics.com.
Include the URL as an explicit link, e.g. "2002-03-11 (http://www.gocomics.com/pibgorn/2002/03/11)". Benefits: very clear. Concerns: ugly.
Include the link as a reference, e.g. "2002-03-11 ^[1]". Benefits: probably the most encyclopedic. Concerns: difficult to get from the reference in the text to the actual page on gocomics.com.

Any ideas on what would be appropriate here? -- Dan Griscom (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.gocomics.com/pibgorn/2002/03/11

File:Pibgorn (comic).JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Pibgorn (comic).JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

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

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]