Talk:List of editorial cartoonists

Proposed merging
Aren't these two things, 'editorial cartoonist' and 'political cartoonist', basicly the same? Key (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note this has been taken care of. A merger was done. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleting some names?
Shall we perhaps delete those people (in the USA list) who currently have no Wikipedia article? Or at least shall we delete those for whom the listing gives no indication at all of which papers their work appears in, and thus who have questionable notability? I am currently planning to delete those who fall into the latter category. Any comments on this before I do it? Invertzoo (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Added to by myself,Invertzoo (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC) OK, I just looked up Julia Suits and she is legitimate, although I can't find anything for J. Winburn. Perhaps I will leave this for someone else to sort out. Invertzoo (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea. I say, go for it. Keyy (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Too much linking
Since this is a list of editorial cartoonists, we should not link to their newspapers, only to their articles. Any objections, please note here. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing the excess links and adding a note about References. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll voice an objection: Creating guidelines for an article is one thing (e.g. content to be included), but not linking things of relevance (i.e. the papers for whom these cartoonists draw/drew for) is limiting the reach of the article. In fact, in all the list type articles I've seen on WP, I've not seen any such limits enforced and in fact, such an arbitrary list of rules would fall under the 'bureaucracy' subsection of WP:NOT. I understand your concern as an editor for over-linking, but we're not talking about linking ever single paper for every single line item, and you seem to have overlooked another one before you started admonishing me for linking The Plain Dealer. As I mentioned in the edit summary, you ought go back and review the WP:Ownership guidelines, because to go ahead with an unprecedented set of rules (and moreover one that I don't see any consensus for -- let alone any discussion about) in a Wiki article is seems to violate several Wiki-policies. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am so sorry; no admonishment was implied. I take your point, but readers come to a simple list like this to find a link where they can go to learn about the cartoonist, not about the paper or news service that he or she drew for. It may be a personal quibble, but to me it just looks wrong and overly busy to link the newspapers in a list of cartoonists. I would call that WP:Overlinking. Might as well keep this list as clean-looking as possible—much like a WP:Disambiguation page. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No references required?
keeps trying to insert some sort of self-referential exception to the WP:V requirement of inline citations for all materials in articles. WP:V is quite clear on this point: "This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material... This policy applies to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons." Also, Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid is clear that Wikipedia articles shouldn't discuss themselves, but rather their topics. GeorgeLouis, could you explain why you believe this article is an exception to the requirements of both WP:V and Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid? Jayjg (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello. I certainly appreciate the fine attention to detail shown by the editor just above, even if I am not exactly sure what "self-referential" means. That is a new expression to me. Anyway, a note to the reader that the sources can be found on the target pages is very helpful and doesn't hurt anything or anybody. Maybe I am missing something, but just what is the real problem here? Everybody knows that so-called rules can be set aside for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia, and these few simple words do that — maybe just a tiny bit — but they certainly don't hinder the work, and, frankly, I am hurt that anybody thinks that they do, because I did not add them lightly. Thanks for your attention.  Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)