Talk:The Oatmeal

A fact from The Oatmeal appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 July 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the website The Oatmeal, with comics of subjects ranging from zombies, to horse care, to English grammar, receives over 20 million hits a month after existing for less than a year?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/July.

Wikipedia

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Comments[edit]

we would like to see the revenue :) --Infestor (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it is not disclosed. Gary King (talk · scripts) 16:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal[edit]

5 Very Good Reasons To Punch A Dolphin In The Mouth is an orphan article with poor refs, and doesn't include much that isn't already in The Oatmeal#Merchandise. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Small article that would comfortably fit in the "Merchandise" section of this article. More than half the content in that article is already mentioned here. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 10:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

The Oatmeal and FunnyJunk legal dispute has just been created, covering a (rather silly) legal dispute between The Oatmeal and Funnyjunk.com. Notability of that topic is questionable; if there's no further developments to the story (like one party actually suing the other), I don't think it needs a separate article, and can be entirely covered as a subsection of this one. I propose that that article be merged into this one. Please comment on this proposed merge below. Robofish (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge is absolutely justified, but I'd give it a week or so to develop first. It provides a focal point for contributors interested in editing about the dispute, is under some active editing at the moment, and new events in the dispute may occur in that time frame (most notably, the donated amount will continue to increase). Dcoetzee 01:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the notability of the topic comes from the rather large charity fundraising that has come from this legal dispute. I'd say wait to see where it goes. Fall Of Darkness (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating, but ultimately not notable enough (at present) for a stand-alone article. On the other hand, merging it here will create WP:UNDUE problems. So I'm inclined to agree with Dcoetzee - merge it here, but don't rush the merge. In the meantime, a link and a couple lines here is good, especially since it can divert newcomers intent on discussing the issue. Guettarda (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my previous response. Not so sure any more about my original response - there's a lot more there now. Guettarda (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support this merge. I browsed to here from the Charles Carreon page, which also probably ought to have the Oatmeal section removed until long term notability is established. -- Renesis (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it. Undue weight issues would only arise if the complete content were moved here, which of course shouldn't be done. I'd usually consider most of it crufty and cut it way down, which doubles as removing the encouragement to edit that way. That's traditionally speaking. Dcoetzee's progressive stance has some merit... leave the article for now since people like it and it's a draw, even though it might be for the wrong reasons and such edits wouldn't usually stand? I could get on board with that. The argument could be made that bad habits will have been formed, but I can't really predict. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:07, 13 Jun 2012 (UTC)

My thought was that people will tend to add things to story as (if) it develops, so even if the initial text is chosen carefully, it's very likely to grow. Guettarda (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, it's an extremely popular new story among regular internet users at the moment and may lead somewhere towards the end of the legal dispute. Searching "Funnyjunk wiki" on Google will result in that Wikipedia article being displayed on the first page. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 07:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's notable according to Wikipedia. Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To an extent it does - to elaborate on that, as the notability guideline says popular topic does not necessarily mean it's notable but popular subjects are supported by numerous reliable sources which means that it will satisfy the other notability guidelines. Not always true but generally it is. What I was actually trying to convey in my last post is that the article itself is popular and of a pretty good standard hence merging it should not be a top priority, usually sub-articles are created if content in an existing article diverges attention from the main topic which this legal dispute may do if it the outcome is unprecedented. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 15:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think an immediate merge and redirect would be fine. I doubt anyone who would edit The Oatmeal and FunnyJunk legal dispute wouldn't edit The Oatmeal. If this actually goes anywhere, and if such a trial has an interesting or important verdict, then maybe it could be split off. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Independently, it fails WP:EVENT, more specifically WP:PERSISTENCE. While it has been widely covered, a lot of sources found are just rehashing what's already been reported (see WP:DIVERSE). And while it may become notable at some point in the future, it's not Wikipedia's job to speculate on whether or not that's the case. See also WP:INTHENEWS and WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to keep, or don't merge, or whatever the equivalent is. When I made this comment a week ago, it appeared like the issue would die down rather quickly and not become a larger story. This, however, is no longer the case. None of my prior arguments are valid any longer, as given the large amount of sources provided from various, unrelated sources (not to mention the continuing story that appears to keep developing) it appears to now satisfy WP:EVENT and should remain independent of this article. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the reporting on this issue has already given signs of it being notable as more than a regular news story. Specifically, Inman's response to the legal threat has sparked a lot of discussion about the power of the online community and other issues that make it more worthy of notice than your average case. At this point our concern should not be whether it has independent notability, but whether there is enough information to justify an independent article. I think the Funnyjunk article at present could be expanded considerably from where it is presently with the coverage it has notched up.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, the latest action(s) is/are being brought by Carreon in a personal capacity. If so, that would not fall directly into the orbit of any future FunnyJunk article. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. In addition to being highly entertaining, this story is continuing to develop in a more serious direction and to attract more coverage. It has gone beyond a threatening letter and a sarcastic response and it is looking more and more like there will be a real court case. Maybe it hasn't got to the point where the separate article is unequivocally justified but I feel it is heading in that direction so lets wait and see what happens. Unless it all blows over soon, I'd say that the separate article is likely to be justified. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting Merge It's not notable (per Elektrik Shoos), and I can't see it ever becoming notable. Easily covered at Charles Carreon and The Oatmeal, it only needs a few sentences. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 11:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per precedent. We cover all Carreon's sex.com litigation in the sex.com article. Jokestress (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This is very nearly a content fork, given that the new legal dispute is now a personal matter between FunnyJunk's lawyer, acting Pro se, and The Oatmeal. Putting all that content in one place serves all the articles and their content better. Roodog2k (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Merge The explosion of news in the last week makes it obvious that this story is notable. 29 sources including MSNBC.com, CBS News, Ars Technica, a Forbes contributor, TechCrunch and Techdirt. CallawayRox (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge Extremely notable with many reliable sources. --Guy Macon (talk)

Oppose Merge The Oatmeal vs. Funnyjunk dispute is its own thing, seperate from either of the aritcles. --Dennydoo4 (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge It's separated, which is reason enough; and also, Theoatmeal article will grow due to large and various content regarding that website. Legal dispute is something other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AurgelmirCro (talk • contribs) 05:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait This case may end up having significance over internet discussions, freedom of speech, and the like. What the end of it all ends up being remains to be seen, but it will probably end up being quite a significant set of events. As such, the article can get quite large as is, and may have significance in the future. With that in mind, until such a time as the true significance of the events are known, I would recommend keeping this article separate. Once all is said and done, a discussion about merging the article can be brought up again if needed. -- Jkstark (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge For the reasons argued by Jkstark T3rminatr | Talk 19:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge For the reasons argued above Jkstark Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.70.245.243 (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait I would wait for now to see if the court adds anything that sets it apart more than just the small issue it is. If the court just toses it with little legal movement then I would say put a small blub in each article. So leaning toward Merge depending on what the court says/does. 216.81.81.82 (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla museum[edit]

Should there be a section about the Let's Build a Goddamn Tesla Museum fundraiser? I know the article about Nikola Tesla himself discusses it. Amphicoelias (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and merged the info from the Nikola Tesla and Wardenclyffe Tower articles and added it as a new section to this article. - M0rphzone (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. It's probably better if it's done by someone whos native language is english (ergo: not by me). Amphicoelias (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Age[edit]

The reference in the article does not give a date. Considering http://theoatmeal.com/blog/30 it's apparent that Inman was born in 1982, so he's definitely not 27 now (he was when he created The Oatmeal though). Maybe it can be clarified? Flameeyes (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive focus on profit?[edit]

I think Inman makes a fair point in this interview: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/31/tech/oatmeal-inman-web-comics/index.html. It is very unusual for an article to begin right away with income figures instead of other things. 190.103.69.82 (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you're unhappy with it, just rewrite the intro yourself. You should be able to: the site isn't protected (weird considering the amount of critics he has). As long as you don't remove any information from the article (i woudn't remove the amount he makes completely) or make it completely POV (wikipedia speak for biased) i doubt people will have a problem with your changes. Amphicoelias (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Oatmeal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100411050101/http://www.thisisbrandx.com:80/2010/04/cover-story-the-oatmeal-hes-a-cereal-killer.html? to http://www.thisisbrandx.com/2010/04/cover-story-the-oatmeal-hes-a-cereal-killer.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hiatus is over.[edit]

It's been over for at least a year. He also posts new comics regularly on Twitter. 2601:601:D480:538B:5041:1037:F0F4:8301 (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]