Talk:Neurotically Yours/Archive 1

Earlier versions
I'm positive there was an older article on Neurotically Yours that actually had a picture of Foamy, discussed the various characters, who provided the voices for them, and gave more specific information like the year it was started. This article's history only goes back to August 2009, so what gives? Why was the original article deleted in favor of this stub? 141.210.236.104 (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Multiple versions of this article have been created and then deleted for lacking reliable sourcing. How long will this version last? SMP0328. (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't showing in the above box, but it was up for AfD last month and was kept. Articles_for_deletion/Neurotically_Yours_(2nd_nomination).--Milowent (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Last year the consensus was for deletion. Apparently this article became notable during the time in which it didn't exist. SMP0328. (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that it was deleted because subsections with full descriptions of the different characters were repeatedly added to the article despite being unsourced. To delete Neurotically Yours entirely for this reason seems disingenuous, though I agree that the subsections were inappropriate. You can go to your local mall and find T-shirts with Neurotically Yours characters for sale and probably even DVDs as well. There is definitely notability, perhaps past editors simply haven't provided the sources to prove it.
 * And it's worth reminding you, SMP0328, that the article you quote as being deleted last year was the biographical article for the creator of Neurotically Yours, not the Neurotically Yours article itself. --141.210.236.124 (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The deletion was of the "creator" article and of the Neurotically Yours article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right. Sneaky. --141.210.236.124 (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing
How would I source DVD credits? I know on the original page, there was an ongoing argument about the name of the Pizza Guy and The Star-schmucks guy, and while their names are never mentioned in the series, on the DVD, they are credited as Anchovie and Franklin, respectively.184.17.64.201 (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Reboot Button
In the latest episode the series is restarted. What effect should that have on this article? Should the article be restarted? Much of the information in this article is no longer accurately describing the series. SMP0328. (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, you can't say that the article isn't accurate in its nature as of yet, for the sole reason that you don't know how much will change. Perhaps Germaine will be the only character incurring any sort of a change. That said, I came to address a similar issue I had with the article. One that I now believe is relative to your question. I would propose a section covering story arcs across multiple episodes, and a brief synopsis for the series as a whole. That said, maybe one could briefly touch on the general flow of the topical rants, and the like. That's assuming the community approves of such an endeavor. I'd personally be willing to make all this happen. If it were to, I think this would eliminate the issue you have presented. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would support the changes you propose. If this is a true reboot, maybe we should create a new article dealing with this webtoon post-reboot; this article would cover it pre-reboot. SMP0328. (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't create a separate article. I'd simply make two separate headers. We can tackle that when the time comes. I'll take the opportunity to write something up for the article in the mean time. Keep an eye on the article for the next few days, as this will be when I'm working on it, and upload it to the wiki. Thanks for the input! -Poodle of Doom (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Consider the changes, as outlined above, officially made. Comments anyone? -Poodle of Doom (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A thorough description of the webtoon's run, especially regarding Germaine. I've made a few very minor tweaks. Please remember that punctuation comes before a footnote. You did a very good job. SMP0328. (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why thank you very much. I thought I was slightly lacking regarding the card cult, and Foamy, though they both seemed to be strongly tied to Germaine. That said, I've seen the minor tweaks, and agree completely with them. As I'm sure you've noticed, I've made several throughout the day. I've even made a couple rather recently. This is the first official piece of anything I've written for wikipedia, so the idea of adding footnotes after the punctuation was new to me. Thanks for that bit of info, and I'll make sure to apply it in the future.


 * At this point, depending on tomorrow's episode, and what changes are implied, there may still be one issue to address. As we both noted above, there is the possibility for the extended characters to change to some degree. May I suggest a possible rewrite in the future of the section regarding the characters in the future, based upon the outline, discussing the differences between the characters both before, and after, the rewrite? I'd also be willing to take this up to, if you agree that it would be something of value.


 * Thanks again for reviewing my work, and the kind comments. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The characters' descriptions should not be removed. Instead, if necessary, split each description into pre- and post-reboot. SMP0328. (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This was what I was trying to get at. Again, it would only depend on the changes being made as each episode is released. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added the Post Reboot section as well, considering we had one rant from Foamy, and an episode to go by. Thoughts? -Poodle of Doom (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

External links section
I had added an external links section to the page, which I had the intent of adding other links to, though it was removed by one user, which prompted the following discussion:

"I don't want to be one of those super annoying people, but I noticed you removed my external links section, which is completely fine with me. Would you be bothered if I readded it, possibly with the youtube channel, Facebook page link, and Twitter link, as well as the home page link? -Poodle of Doom (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That section was redundant, because that link is already provided in the article's Introduction. A Facebook or Twitter link would likely be considered spam and would certainly not be reliable sources. Such a link would definitely be removed. SMP0328. (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The only reason why I'm interested in creating the section is because many other similar topics have one. This would seem standard for most articles of a similar class. Having just browsed similar topics, I've noted that in all of them the site is used as it is currently on the Neurotically Yours page, and still listed as an external link. The main difference between this section on other pages, and here, is that they also include places like amazon.com, newgrounds, and the like. Now, I could provide shop links, newground links, and various similar official sites (or semi official depending on how you look at it). Not to mention, pages that are directly controlled by JIM. I think these pages are definitely worth mentioning. But I digress,... If you think they aren't worth mentioning, I'll leave them out. I simply think there's enough credible, and fairly official pages to link to. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Having cut my thoughts short, I'd also like to point out that the youtube channel has been used as a reference, and that reference had been made to the Facebook page (though it wasn't cited). -Poodle of Doom (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The link is also provided in the Infobox. An "External link" section is not required, so there's no need to add one just for the sake of having one. SMP0328. (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the youtube channel, facebook, twitter, and official newgrounds pages (all of which host official Neurotically Yours content) are not linked to in the infobox at all. The only thing referenced there was the illwillpress site. Again, I refer to the fact that there are several sites hosting official Neurotically Yours content that could be linked to, and used as an official source of establishing information in the article at a future date if need be. These sites seem relative to the articles development. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Read this. This is why I believe using Facebook or Twitter as a source would likely be disallowed. SMP0328. (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ''And I quote:
 * "There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source."


 * Since the information contained there in is published by the individual who's content the article is about, and through use of the information you have cited, I'd believe that this kind of information could be used in this article (though I personally wouldn't). That said, I'm not looking to use these as source material, but to create an external link section. It seems even more appropriate now. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)"

This conversation spawned the idea of doing a little research on the subject, of which I have found some valuable information here, and here.

The first thing I would like to point out is that the overview of identifying reliable source states the following:

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."

The section that I would particularly like to draw from is the part stating that we should only publish the opinions of reliable authors. As I understand this, we should not only use this for "opinions", but for facts, figures, and relevant information in regards to edits made. As I see it, as far as reliability is concerned, it is no more reliable that content published, via whatever means, by the original author whose work is being written about.

With that in mind, the next piece of information I'd like to address is as follows:

"Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

The above quote can be found here. The reason I bring this up is due to the fact that many of these sites I am about to propose be added to the External Links Section I am looking to create are contained self published material (i.e., information coming directly from Mathers himself).

Continuing on, in the next section of the same article, I'd like to quote another portion of text:

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1.the material is not unduly self-serving; 2.it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); 3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5.the article is not based primarily on such sources. This also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook."

Now, the content I am looking to suggest will not provide any material that is not unduly self serving, will not make claims about third parties, only offers information directly related to the subject matter, and is not based on sources that would cause this to be anything other than an accurate statement in the future. Further more, considering the content of such sites comes directly from the author, whose content the article is about, we have no reason to doubt it's authenticity.

In regards to what constitutes a reliable source, I quote the following:

"The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability."

Again, the content I will be suggesting for this proposed section contains all of the above information. It shall include the work itself, content coming directly from the creator of the work, and published by the original author.

At this point, I would like to suggest that an external links section be added; containing links to the homepage of Neurotically Yours, the Facebook page, Twitter page, and Youtube Channel. At this point some of you may be asking why it is I have quoted all of the above information regarding sources, and what any of it has to do with the four links I am looking to add. This is all relative due to the need to maintain, and update, the article as time moves forward. As I see it, the content contained within each of these suggested "External Links" can be considered a reliable published source from a reliable author (Mathers himself). Furthermore, though controlled by the original author of the work, the works themselves, and various content, and information, is being published on a third party source. It maintains its reliability due to the relationship the author maintains with the sites, and controlling the content being portrayed. At that, as I have previously stated, the content I am looking to add will not provide any material that is not unduly self serving, will not make claims about third parties, only offers information directly related to the subject matter, and is not based on sources that would cause this to be anything other than an accurate statement in the future. Further more, considering the content of such sites comes directly from the author, whose content the article is about, we have no reason to doubt its authenticity.

My point on the most basic of levels is this: These sites, being the official Facebook page, the official Twitter page, the official Youtube channel, as well as the homepage site (this link will be included to help bulk up the section) all contain information directly published by the author, and may contain relevant information worth including in the future. They are reliable sources, which can be used to verify information. Current standards seem to allow for third party sites (such as Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube) so long as the information therein contains verifiable, reliable information, which they do, as the information comes directly from the author. At that, the Facebook page has been made reference to in particular sections (though not used as a source). Many of the older cartoons are hosted on Youtube, and many of the citations link there. The Twitter feed could possibly contain information worth using in the future to expand upon the article. To beef up the section, I'd personally add a link for the homepage to make it look bigger. That said, if these sites are not listed in an "external links" section, and personal knowledge of the official site for future editors aside, whose to say to these people that the various youtube references are capable of being used? Or that the references to the Facebook posts were an accurate reflection of what really transpired? My point is simple. If we create an "external links" section, then this shows relevant source material to future editors, and maintains the validity of the article in its current state. Furthermore, it gives reletive source material for future use.

I'd like to extend this as a discussion to the wikipedia public. I know that it's only four links, and I know that it's not particularly that big of a deal. However, I do see it as being extremely relevant, and worth having. It seems like a bit of a standard to most articles. What do you all think? -Poodle of Doom (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you raise this issue at here and/or here. You will probably get more responses at either of those talk pages than you will at this one. SMP0328. (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. I will copy this discussion over to both of those spots, as well as leaving a copy here for possible discussion. While you're here, what are your thoughts on the subject? I mainly brought this up here, as you didn't give me an official response to what I had said on your talk page. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Article needs a rewrite
This article needs a lot of work - it relies too much on primary sources, reading the facebook page (we don't care what fans of the series think - that stuff should go) and direct viewing of the show. As a rule of thumb, if third party sources don't care enough about an aspect of the show to write about, then why are we? The first most important job is to find reliable independent sources - if they don't exist, a lot of this content needs to go. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, being the person who rewrote the article, I take a bit of offense to what you just said. Have you browsed the history of the page? I'd ask that you take note of how it was before the rewrite. At that, other users thought it needed a lot of work prior to these revisions being done, as shown above, which inspired the article to turn out as it did.


 * Second of all, I don't think you actually check the references. Of the references, 1, 3, 4, 6-19, 21-25, 37, 46, 48, 53, and 62 are all fan based sites, and published articles. (That's 27 out of 63 sources, or approximately half.) I do believe they constitute secondary sources. That said, many of the videos linked to from the original site could be changed to point to other sources for the information, without actually changing the content of the article. As for how the article relates to primary sources, I personally had a hard enough time trying to find sources that didn't draw directly from the original content anyway. This is why I attempted to use the material from fan sites, and the like, to draw reference to.


 * Third, the article includes sections about the reboot button in order to reflect notable changes in the series (as talked about above), including a response that Mathers issued in regards to public opinion regarding the changes. The general tone of the opinions were included (not the actual opinions themselves mind you) to put Mather's statement in context, and keep the statement from potentially looking like a jackassery on his part towards his fans (which could be considered bias if misconstrued). But alas, that's just me. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

''Of the references, 1, 3, 4, 6-19, 21-25, 37, 46, 48, 53, and 62 are all fan based sites, '' - they should be deleted, they are not RS. Fansites are not RS. If I have the time later, I'll start checking them.

''I personally had a hard enough time trying to find sources that didn't draw directly from the original content anyway. This is why I attempted to use the material from fan sites, and the like, to draw reference to.'' then maybe the article needs to head back to AFD - if we can't find reliable sources to write from, then we shouldn't write about a subject. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * AFD likely wouldn't help. This article has been deleted before (it was coupled with the deletion of a related article). Following that deletion I had the article salted. That was circumvented by someone creating this article, naming it Neurotically yours and moving it to Neurotically Yours. If you attempt to delete it again, fans of this article will vote to "keep" it and so it won't be deleted. Note that the one time this article was deleted, it was done secondarily to another deletion. The two times this article was the primary target of an AFD attempt, the attempt failed (see top of this page). It's better that we try to make any needed repairs to this article than to try to delete it again. SMP0328. (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur. This is actually why I tried rewriting the article. It seemed lacking before, and in need of an improvement. I believe that an appropriate course of action would be to edit the article further, in hopes of refining it to a satisfactory level.-Poodle of Doom (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't care about any of that, it cannot influence the need for this article to comply with policy and the basic standards that we expect an article to reflect - regardless of the history, either reliable sources are found or the options are stubbing the article or sending it to AFD. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk is cheap. Get up and make it happen. If you want changes to be made to the article, make them. With all due respect intended, you've literally spent more time complaining than I spent writing it. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering the nature of the original argument, I don't particularly take to well to this edit, mainly due to the fact that it makes the article seem under sourced, and potentially lacking authenticity. It makes me wonder if the OP had made the edits simply to build a case for deletion? -Poodle of Doom (talk) 06:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No I've made those edits because fansites are not RS and should not be the basis of an article - what is hard to understand? Above, you complain I am simply complaining and should get on and edit, here you are complaining that I am editing the article. I suggest you go away, have a cup of tea ,get your arguments straight in your own head, read up on policy. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, pissy pissy. You're absolutely right that I suggested that you edit the article. I meant in a constructive way, not a deconstructive way. But what the hell ever dude. Seems to me like people will piss and moan wether the article is a stub or not. Who cares at this point? On a seperate note, I know it's not policy, but isn't it the norm to indent when replying to someone? -Poodle of Doom (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For arguments sake, I checked the rating of the page. Since you've removed so many links, the trustworthyness, objectiveness, and completeness have all dropped by one point each. Good job.... -Poodle of Doom (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I rated it after I edited it, so that's more than likely down to me as well. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ratings
I just submitted the page for ratings since we currently have none. I thought that it would be a good indication of where the article is going in the future. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Character descriptions
The character descriptions are obsolete. Germaine is no longer anything like she's described; that part of the article needs to be rewritten. The other human and every squirrel character other than Foamy has not appeared post-reboot. Maybe we should move the material about the characters that have not made a post-reboot appearance from the Characters section to this talk page. We can restore each description to the article as a character makes a first post-reboot appearance. SMP0328. (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we find a third party source for this? That seems like a valid, and appropriate update to the characters section, though citing the original site seems to be a bit of a no no. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The descriptions currently in the article came from that website. So if that website is not a reliable source, then those descriptions should be removed on that ground. SMP0328. (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, though I think that the section adds to the article. Perhaps one of the two of us can scower google, and find an appropriate third party source? I may be able to do it later on tonight,... -Poodle of Doom (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Image
There is an image on the Foamy the Squirrel website (also owned by J.I.M), and was wondering if we could add it to the article. The image can be found here. I'm not sure, as I imagine it's copyrighted. How do we get an image to use, under fair use, and add it to the article? I noticed the above critic suggested that one be added. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, I don't think that image is appropriate (raised middle fingers). As for the copyright issue, I would go here. SMP0328. (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I do think it fits in terms of fair use. Though I'm not 100% on that. At that, it is the site logo, in a way, which gives it encyclopedic value right? -Poodle of Doom (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There have to be images of Foamy without him giving the double salute. SMP0328. (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How about something like this? -Poodle of Doom (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Much better. Just make sure there are no copyright issues. SMP0328. (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for a late reply. How is it that I would go about doing that? -Poodle of Doom (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would recommend contacting J.I.M. regarding possible copyright; however, I'm not sure whether the logo is appropriate for the article. Not because of the raised middle fingers, but because it's not really an official logo. Technically speaking, the 'ENTER' text below it suggests it is meant to be used as a button on a home page to 'ENTER' the main page of a website (this given from someone who has a way with HTML), which means it isn't really even a logo. I would recommend that, if an image needs to be placed in the article, that it be an official logo or banner. I am Quibilia. (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I didn't notice the second link. As for the second image, again, I would recommend something official. I am Quibilia. (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Could I ask that some alternitive suggestions be given? In the meantime, I think it's best that we settle on what we would like to use before contacting J.I.M. I would be willing to try to do that after I have something specific I can reference. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a 'portrait' of sorts of Foamy and Germaine? I am Quibilia. (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything in particular? Is there something specific you had in mind? At that, and I didn't think of this before, but perhaps when we contact J.I.M, we could see if he's interested in creating something specifically for this article? -Poodle of Doom (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend, aside from the official logo I've added, that images of Foamy and Germaine be added to the article; not necessarily at the top, perhaps a picture of Germaine next to her description in the Characters section, and a picture of Foamy next to his, etc... For example, perhaps for Germaine? I'll leave it up to you about getting something original for the article. I am Quibilia. (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Chibi series?
This article makes almost no mention of the Chibi series. (The only reference is Ollie, Germaine's grandfather.) This information needs to be added by someone a) familiar with Neurotically Yours and b) with references. — Molly-in-md (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)