Jump to content

Talk:Concerned/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Permission

Have contacted the author of the comic, and asked for permission to use an image from the official site. Bjelleklang 17:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Serious air?

Is it just me, or are the comics taking on a more serious air now that Gordon Freeman is on the scene? Freeman killed a Combine Soldier with the Gravity Gun, and we're witnessing the soldiers distraught children and co-workers come to terms with the death ([1] and following). Maybe this should be mentioned? Crimson Shadow 11:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. I think it's just spoofing how the bad guys get killed off in games with little or no thought about them. I'm sure Austin Powers did something similar. Boyinabox20:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible. Let's play the wait and see game to find out. Crimson Shadow 06:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Chris has addressed this in his notes and said this was not his intention. So I believe no change pertaining to this need be made. Thmars10 05:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Things to do

This article is a stub, so maybe we can write what the article needs here. --Henrikb4 15:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  • All the letters Frohmann wrote to Breen
  • The cast
--Henrikb4 15:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


I would disagree that the article should include letters to breen, because they're just part of the comic. It's like saying you should list each time a Combine soldier appears.

--Spinn 21:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

i think it would be a good idea for the letters. just for fan interest86.31.229.44 11:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


hmm... your right

--Henrikb4 20:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It should probably make a reference to father Grigori and the apartment hunt, but IMO it doesn't need any of the letters. What about including a little note as to how the comic is written/created? Bjelleklang - talk 21:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, i was kinda thinking about adding something like that, but I'm not sure if it's redundant after adding the link to Garry's Mod or not.

--Spinn 02:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The Cast

I do think this should contain a cast list.Thmars10 05:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I think having a cast list would be a good idea although there is one on the Concerned website. Maybe someone could write up their own version Pillsy 10:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah a cast list would be helpful but should be rewritten as a Wiki article, not have the funny little text from the Concerned Website (such as Eli's)

Running gags

Should mention something about the G-Man's appearance in every chapter since Chapter One. Another note is that the chapters' names also spoof those from Half-Life 2 (Route Kanal/Route Banal; Highway 17/Bike Lane 17; etc.) ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 19:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC) ╫

Go for it. Maybe mention how the gags tie into Half Life 2. Thmars10 05:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Frohman Not Freeman: why was this deleted, it happpened quite a bit in the comic, but has since stopped, the last one was when "frank" had died and the solider said
"gordon freeman killed him"
"what gordon frohman?"
"no Freeman" 86.31.229.44 11:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem was that the original citations only point to one scene (stretching two consecutive strips), and it didn't seem to be sufficient grounds for inclusion because it would seem to be more of a one time joke than a "recurring gag." Thanks for the clarification, though; I was having a hard time finding another reference to this gag somewhere else in the entire comic. I've rewritten and returned the entry for the trouble. :) ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 14:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) ╫

Ahh thanks, just seemed important to me86.31.229.44 11:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Started A Gordon Frohman Character Page

Sorry for the lack of information, but i will add more soon. and could someone sort out the picture? it didn't come up :S86.31.229.44 11:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What Gordon Frohman character page? Typing "Gordon Frohman" brings you back to "Concerned".Crimson Shadow 12:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The page was redirected to this article, based on discussions that it wasn't in accordance to webcomic article format and that the article is not likely to survive a nomination for deletion. Hope that helps clear things up. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 12:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC) ╫


Concerned Fourm

Should this have some sort of section?

i mean it has quite a culture going on, and of course the cheese is often noted in the comic.Slayerx675 18:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What could we say about it? That it exists? That ll I can think of. On another note, I noticed you entered in a large amount of whitespace. That was not necessary, thus I've taken the liberty of removing it. And remember to sign your comments please. Crimson Shadow 15:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm see what spinn has to say on the matterSlayerx675 18:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

i have made a short one, i would be very happy to see other people contribeute to this section other wise it might be ....baleeted...86.31.236.20 18:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I must to object its inclusion. The comic itself is cited by notable publications, but the forum and its activities aren't, failing all criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia:Notability (web). ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 09:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC) ╫

CS Parody

Should something maybe be added to mention the mini-parodies of Counter-Strike in the comic?--208.104.110.149 20:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Guest Comics

Should it be mentioned? likely to reappear86.31.229.44 11:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Chapter numbering

Last time I checked, the numbers in the game had no chapter 9a, Entanglement was Chapter 10. Or should I post a screenshot? - Sikon 09:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and post a screenshot, I'm interested. The 9a claim is verified from both the Valve Development Community wiki and Half-Life series storyline#Half-Life 2, but I'm still fuzzy with the chapter selection screen, though. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 11:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC) ╫
It's 9a. Try playing the game. Crimson Shadow 16:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It is stated that Frohman's Birthdate (20 nov.) is related to Half-Life release date, which is more likely a day before (19 nov.). Is there a reliable source which says that Frohman's Birthdate relativity to Half-Life's may be actually true?-86.198.75.226 21:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Significant Milestones

This article should probably have a list of significant milestones for the comic. The following could be an example.

  • Concerned #51 "Fist Appearance of Sandy"
  • Concerned #59 "Death of Sandy"
  • Concerned #60 "Frohman Receives His Shovel" (One of the more significant events in the comic)
  • Anticitizen 101
  • Concerned #146 "Arrival of Gordon Freeman

The list would continue something like that. The chapter headings would indicate what chapter the milestone took place in and would only be placed at the beginning of said chapter, not before each significant milestone in that chapter. In the case where teh chapter title appears at the end of the strip, would that indicate that the entire strip is within that chapter or only the last frame? Anticitizen 101 begins this way on strip #146 for example. Freeman appears on the last frame of that strip, along with the title for Chapter Anticitizen 101. What if the significant milestone appears towards the top? Palehorse864 20:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

We could simply sum up portions of these plot points in the Plot section, since this proposed summary essentially contains a redundancy of both the Plot and Trivia sections. Also, of priority right now is expanding the first half of the plot summary first before considering a section dedicated to "milstones," since recent edits had only focus on the second half of the summary, and it makes it hard to gauge the need for a milestones section for now. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 13:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC) ╫

Factual Accuracy - Delete?

Aside from the fact that this is really written in POV and isn't encyclopedic (at the very least, it needs to be renamed and reorganized), is it even really worth mention?

Of the ones remaining (the ones that can't be argued as "true" with a bit of common sense), we have something where the author took an artistic liberty (that Valve later commented on and proved wrong) and two that, while "false" aren't all that important. And in reference to the lack of Decay in the timeline, it is like saying that a parody of a political speech has factual inaccuracies.

And most of all, I feel this is actually disrespectful to the artist in the first place. To nitpick in such a public place is basically saying that it isn't good enough. While this shouldn't be a concern for an encyclopedia entry, the section itself isn't that big of a deal in the first place. If it won't hurt the article (if anything, it might strengthen it by making it more encyclopedic), why not remove it?

Gundato 21:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There are at least two errors that I can identify as being true between the comic and the games, and they must be mentioned at least in brief. Specifically, that of Frohman's task to deliver the test sample, and the suppression field. The rest are actually part of a former list of goofs that I had to cut down for listing irrelevant trivia (spelling errors, disordered scenes and minor errors in minute details were among those removed). Since the list has now shrunken and the rest of the list is now questionable, it would be a good time to merge these two errors in the "Factual accuracy" section into the "Theme" section, and remove the rest. But I don't see how the entire section is "disrespectful" to the author; while the goofs that were removed are definitely nitpicky, the story behind the two major errors that were mentioned had cited explanations, which appear harmless to be mentioned. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 15:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC) ╫
I am just not sure if that deserves an entire section. It could probably be merged into another section, or at least reworded. At the very least, you have to admit that it isn't the most encyclopedic thing.
Done merging. The accuracy issues have been placed as notes for the Theme section, so it doesn't actual hinder the flow of the section contents. The goof on Lazlo's companion isn't worth the merge. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 19:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC) ╫

Comic has ended

I (and others) have updated the article to reflect the fact that the comic has ended. If we missed anything, please edit. --Wiki Fanatic | Talk 08:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Should we remove the paragraph about not being extended into Episode One? It's somewhat moot now. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 14:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty much useful to note that the comic will not explore Episode One or later. You won't know if the lack of the paragraph may motivate fans to make up funny ideas/rumors or not. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 14:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ╫

Ending Controversy

I have edited this line: He realizes this and jokingly says "Buddha" again because he finds the word funny, unwittingly deactivating the cheat code. Because of this, he loses his one health point and dies at the end of the comic. Beacuse it is incorrect. Frohman never gets damaged after he deactivates buddha (deactivating this cheat does not cause you to lose health automatically). I have corrected this line numerous times, please do not reedit this as the above line is incorrect. As for speculation, there is none. In fact, it is speculation that he loses that 1 health point since nothing in the comic indicates that he does. --Wiki Fanatic | Talk 03:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Understood, but how else does he die? --134.219.168.191 17:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Beats me. Some has suggested (this is speculation) that Chris is trying to parody how in HL2 (actually, all FPS's) a person can run, jump, shoot a gun with accuracy, etc. all while being on the verge of death. --Wiki Fanatic | Talk 07:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think somewhere an explanation for that is given in HL. The HEV suit can provide its user with so much morphine that they wouldn't feel it if their arm were ripped off.--216.20.19.253 19:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Episode 1 information: should it be editted?

At the start of the article, there's a bit that quotes the author of the comic stating Episode 1 won't be depicted in the comic. Seeing how the comic has effectively ended, should that information really be in future tense, or present at all? Halfling Daniel 16:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Reworded. Using the entire quote is restrictive to editing and updates. Is the question also referring to whether the EP1 issue should be mentioned? ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 16:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC) ╫

Has anyone else noticed that in one of the ravenholm comic strips, Frohman mentions side quests and heart containers? A sure link to Zelda, so shouldn't it be mentioned? 85.12.80.128 14:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You're thinking of this one. It's a reference to Zelda alright; "Little N64 Legend of Zelda humor for ya" et cetera. I'm unsure though if it warrants a mention though. I won't edit it out, but I won't put it in. Anyone else want to chip in? Crimson Shadow 23:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  Ya it is a reference to Zelda and he also mentions about cuccos so if cuccos are in Zelda then ya it's a link.

Sources

There is only one independent source in this article, and it is only used to support a quote. This needs some serious assertions of notability, and the articles in game magazines need to be verified and cited.--Drat (Talk) 19:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Good thing the article is specific on which issues of the magazines and which parts mentioned the webcomic. It shouldn't be too hard. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 13:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC) ╫

pronounciation

how does one pronounce "Frohman"?

...now you're just ignoring me.

Probably Afro+man with the "A" taken off.

fro-man

Overwatch Soldier plush toy

Someone please put a note to where that is in the Comic, I know I saw it but I don't remember where. (ravenholm?) PS that would be an awesome thing for VALVe to release like the plush headcrabs....

It's in #89 just so you know.

episode 2 injoke

Anybody who played episode 2 notice there is character in white forest before the attack who acts like FrohMan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by QX100 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean the male_07 rebel who made up AR3s? I suppose he acted a bit like Frohman, nothing worth putting in the article though. Deepfatfryed (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed Gordon Frohman

I removed the Gordon Frohman article and redirected it to Concerned because the information in Concerned is both superior and more efficient than this article, thus rendering it useless. Furthermore, oo quote the user TTN regarding another topic, "the character does not assert notability. They either need real world information or they need to be merged. If there are no ways presented that show the possibility for sources, they will be merged here in a few weeks." Considering it's a fan-work spanning all of one game engine, it has even less real-world notability than, say, a page about Gordon Freeman would. Thank you for your understanding. ~ Joseph Collins [U|T|C] 20:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming comic and minor reference to Frohman

Livingston may soon be starting a new comic, called 1fort, which parodies Team Fortress 2. On the "About" page ( http://www.1fort.com/blog/about/ ) he states that Gordon Frohman won't be appearing in it. I'm not sure how best to work any of this into the article so I am just mentioning it here. ~ Brighid 67.84.126.36 (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Name

I have changed the name of the article, per Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (FA). diego_pmc (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Team Fortress 2

Should it be noted that he was planning to do a comic on Team Fortress 2, then cancelled it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.210.241 (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought about that, and I don't think it has any real connection with it, except the author. diego_pmc (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I really have a big problem with those links being removed. Wikipedia indeed is not a collection of links, but those links truly offer more info on the subject, and this is the role of ELs after all; they would also fit very well in a Further reading/Additional material section.
And just for the note, it isn't 'more redundant', please read WP:CITE#Shortened footnotes, example no. 2. That all there is in terms of interviews related to Concerned, and it's doubtful they would become more since the comic is completed for ~2 years now, so the section won't become any more agglomerated (do not read 'the section is agglomerated with the links in it', because it isn't). I find it very helpful to mention those links separately. Besides is there even some kind of policy forbidding using a relevant useful link in EL, if it has appeared as a ref? diego_pmc (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the interests of compromise and good relations over what is in context of writing articles only a small issue, I've re-added them to the external links. I still think its redundant, but hey. -- Sabre (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Some major changes

I have restructured the page, removed unnecessary detail from some sections, added missing info, and referenced the article better.
I have also move the article to the comic's full name. Guess I have to explain myself for this. The last time it was moved from "Concerned" to "Concerned: The Half-Life and Death of Gordon Frohman", the reason given was 'Removing subtitle from name per WP:NC-BK'. I get the impression that policy does not apply here, as the comic's full name is not all that long. added to this, by simply calling the article "Concerned" could lead to a lot of confusion from people not that familiar with what this Concerned might actually be. Another example aof a FA using its subject's full name is Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. diego_pmc (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The restructure is good; I've made some further tweaks to the article, integrating the rather large amount of bracketed statements, as well as some reference formatting bits (hlcomic is merely Livingstone's webspace, its not a publisher, so the publisher field should not be used. Thus it has been replaced with Livingstone in the author fields). I've also tried to explain a few HL universe terms a bit better, some of them were simply in there with no explanation as to what they were, which isn't great for readers who haven't played the games. I'd recommend adding some more to the introduction though, as it lacks anything on reception. I still don't agree with the subtitle being in the namespace title, as WP:NC-BK applies to all literature, of which this falls under, and length of subtitle is not an issue in those guidelines. Plus, Borat is a film, not a book, comic or otherwise literature, and thus is dictated by separate guidelines. However, I'm not going to push the issue at the moment, it can wait. -- Sabre (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
On the subject of article title, it seems to me that both WP:NC-BK and WP:NCC apply, in which case, if "Concerned" is considered de facto ambiguous — and I do agree with that assessment — the conformant resolving title would be "Concerned (comics)". Pi zero (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure Concerned should even redirect here. Maybe it should redirect to Concern, where a link to this article would be placed. The word "concerned" sounds like one a person would not necessary look for, expecting to find this comic, but maybe the actual word. 'Maybe' that is. At any rate I think the word is ambiguous enough not to use it as a title. Besides, doesn't WP:NC-BK say "The only exception to that is short titles"? I think this is pretty much the case. diego_pmc (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the short exception was meant for situations where the subtitle isn't significantly longer than the very short title, like Orlando: A Biography. Since "Concern" is a disambiguation page, it does seem reasonable to send the reader from "Concerned" first to there and only then to "Concerned (comics)". Pi zero (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't as short as the short example, but I would rather categorize it as short, when taking a look at the long example: A History of Western Philosophy and Its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day.

I also see no particular reason why it should be shortened. The page title looks good even at 1024x768, the lowest I have, except 800x600 - the later doesn't look fantastic, but then again I doubt anyone is still using *800x600 for their desktop.

Also, what about WP:IAR - while shortening the name would give no real advantage as it still looks good on all commonly used resolutions, keeping the full name would have the advantage of removing any potential confusion regarding the subject of the article. diego_pmc (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

All confusion should be removed with the first eight words, where the full title is given anyway. -- Sabre (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought the article names themselves should be self explanatory. diego_pmc (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO, "Concerned (comics)" is self-explanatory. Pi zero (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but is there any good reason to use this alternative name, when the actual one doesn't do any bad? diego_pmc (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, the choice isn't between an alternative name and the actual name; it's between the actual name plus a disamgibuation phrase, and the actual name plus a subtitle. There's no question that it's a subtitle, that's very clear from the image on the page, with "Concerned" in big letters all across the top, and the rest in fine print underneath. The disambiguation phrase clearly conforms to WP:NCC. The subtitle is an abnormal practice per WP:NC-BK. The limited explicit exception for short subtitles is for disambiguation purposes only, and the example given is one where other disambiguation measures cannot be used; that is not the case here, so it's not at all clear that that explicit exception applies even if the subtitle is short enough. Exceptions can always be made with a common-sense reason under WP:IAR, but if the sense isn't sufficiently common, IAR won't stand.
Is there any good reason to use the subtitle, when the fully conformant disambiguation phrase doesn't do any bad? Pi zero (talk)

You say keeping the subtitle isn't common sense, however, if it were so there should be at least one example that could be given of some harm done if the title was kept. Unlike the very long example of a subtitle I gave above, this one has a perfectly reasonable size, which doesn't cause any esthetically problems on any of the normally used screen resolutions. I fail to see any bad it might do for several reasons mentioned several times above. And I tend to disagree to the fact that the disambig doesn't do any bad. There is no reason to use a diambig title when the actual one (+ reasonably sized subtitle) could be used. diego_pmc (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignore all rules only works if it is sufficiently justified - "it doesn't do any harm" is not a real justification. There are, unfortunately, at least two editors here who disagree with your argument that WP:NC-BK should be ignored. You point to a really long subtitle that's been removed, but the same style guideline also includes smaller examples, shorter subtitles than Concerned has, which have none the less had their subtitles removed: The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right, The Hobbit, or There and Back Again are two such examples on Wikipedia (one quoted by the style guideline) where subtitles of similar length to this and slightly smaller have been removed: adding them to the article namespace also wouldn't do any harm there either, but the style guidelines are there to create a professional presentation with consistency across Wikipedia. As said, the guideline's examples define a short subtitle with one of only two words, ie Orlando: A Biography. -- Sabre (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand you did not read/pay attention or ignored some of my arguments. "Concerned" the word, is pretty ambiguous, and people might not be looking for the article on the comic, but rather concern. That is also why I suggested that it might be a good idea to redirect concerned to concern, and then place a link on that disambig page.

The reason why that subtitles (rather alternative names) were removed from the examples you gave was because of probably the most important part of the WP:NC policy, specifically that of naming articles after the most commonly used title of the subject. Indeed people don't call the comic by its full name, and simply use "Concerned" (that is normal), but I said above why i think this isn't a good idea. Added to this, while do to the ambiguity of the name might lead to confusion, using the full title would erase any such possibility.

There probably was a similar reason for Borat not being named [[Borat (character}]] and the movie article usigng the full name. I know what you said about this before, but I can't see any particular reason why it wouldn't be the same same for movies as it is for books, when it comes to subtitles. Such an entry was probably not written at WP:NC-movies because most films have short titles.

Indeed for the sake of professionalism of WP, articles should tend towards uniformity, unless of course in rare cases uniformity creates other problems which damage the professionalism of the project. I believe this is such a case, for reason stated above (ambiguity). That's is why I believe using a subtitle that

  • does not cause display issues on any normal screen resolutions
  • facilitates identification of the subject without the need to read any passage from the actual article
something which is also recommended inside articles, where short descriptions of several terms should be included, where needed, for a better and quicker understanding of the subject (in articles it's at a larger scale, but it's basically the same principle)
  • is very well known to anyone remotely familiar to the comic, unlike other works like The Hobbit

... is the best choice diego_pmc (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You may have missed my first comment in this thread, as we were almost certainly editing comments at the same time — your second comment in the thread has a timestamp only one minute later than my first. We are in agreement that disambiguation is needed, as "Concerned" is confusing. Other technical points I've made may make more sense in this light. My proposal is this:
  • This article moves to "Concerned (comics)", which of course makes the title+subtitle a redirect.
  • "Concerned" redirects to "Concern", which is a disambiguation page and therefore a natural clearinghouse for such things.
  • "Concern" gets a link to "Concerned (comics)". Pi zero (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me, you have my support for that. -- Sabre (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems we agreed that Concerned should redirect to Concern. If we were to choose this title, with the disambig phrase, I would say Concerned (comic), or Concerned (webcomic) would be better. It isn't really a set of multiple comics. I'm pretty much fine with both, but I still want to ask if there is a particular reason why the full title shouldn't be used, except the policy preferably.:-)
Also, should it be the full title, with a backlink to the actual title, or the disambig title on the Concern disambig page? diego_pmc (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Re the choice of disambiguation phrase — Left entirely to my own devices, I too might have gravitated toward one of those others; but there's this passage in WP:NCC:
Following extensive discussion of naming conventions for comic book characters at Talk:List of Marvel Comics characters and Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Comics, the agreed general disambiguation phrase used for articles related to comics, including creators, publications, and content, is "(comics)".
This says that consensus was not only reached, but was hard to reach. When an issue has demonstrated its ability to generate that level of controversy, it's in the interests of civic harmony, not to mention self-preservation, not to prod the sleeping dragon. Therefore, "(comics)".
As for particular reasons other than the guidelines — If I really had to come up with some good ones, I'd try the archives of discussions that made the guidelines what they are; I haven't been tempted to go to that effort, thus far, exactly because conforming to the guidelines doesn't a priori need to be defended. So far, I just don't see that there's any hardship in "Confirmed (comics)". That said, since you do ask, here's one small thought, as a for-instance: References from other articles should go directly to the referenced article, rather than to a redirect. That means that every reference anywhere else is going to have to write out [[Confirmed: The Half-Life and Death of Gordon Frohman]], or, what's even worse (and I think technically in violation of a guideline somewhere), [[Confirmed: The Half-Life and Death of Gordon Frohman|Concerned]]. That's going to clutter up the code of the referring articles, making them harder to read (at least when editing) as well as harder to write. Not to overblow that, a shorter article name is certainly going to make the references easier to read and write.
I would say that the link from the Concern disambiguation page should give the title+subtitle (I honestly do consider the full title to be "Concerned"), but I see that in the meantime Sabre has already done that. Pi zero (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that policy refer to say something like The Amazing Spider-Man (comics), when there actually are multiple comics, even multiple series (I think). As for Concerned, it's just this single one, there aren't multiple series/comics entitled Concerned. diego_pmc (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as WP:NCC goes, this is definitely where the "common sense and occasional exception" clause comes in. Clearly this is only a single comic, it is not a series or otherwise a set of comics. Thus if we go down this line, it should have "(comic)" rather than "(comics)". -- Sabre (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not convinced of that. I had assumed the intended meaning of the phrase was "in the comics genre", so that it doesn't matter whether there was only one. That looks to be how it's interpreted by all but two articles listed at Category:Comic_book_titles, one of which is a stub and the other of which is tagged for {{Notability}}. Oh, and there's also Crisis (comic book), but that's because Crisis (comics) is already in use for a disambiguation page. Pi zero (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, genre implied rather than actual item, that's an intriguing (and still perfectly acceptable) way of looking at it. I didn't think of that. -- Sabre (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously Crisis uses comics since the disambig page lists several comics. For the example I gave above (Spider-Man), even the intro points out that the article is about a series of comics, not just one ("[...] American comic book series"). Here's an example of an article using just "comic": The Big Country (comic) - the article is a stub, so it might actually be a series of comics, so the title should be changed, but from all the info presented ATM in that article, it's not a series of comics, just one comic. diego_pmc (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
EDiT: Sabre, yes, might be, thinking of it, but then where did the uniformity scope go? All other categories of articles use "film", "song", "video game", and not "films", "music", "video games". diego_pmc (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My intent in pointing out that that one's a stub was to suggest that it hasn't undergone any meaningful scrutiny and therefore isn't an example worthy of imitation; and the tagged one hasn't even got sorted out on whether it's worth an article, so it's not worthy of imitation either.
Here's another way of looking at it: The phrase "(comics)" is presented at NCC for application to a wide range of articles, so presumably it means the same thing in all those cases. When applied to a character, it doesn't imply that the character is a series of comics; so it doesn't imply that when applied to a book, either. Pi zero (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Doubt it, but wouldn't it be safer to ask them? Hope they'll answer. diego_pmc (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long.
"(comics)". Pi zero (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved it. diego_pmc (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Apostasy

This isn't exactly related to this article, but does anyone know if Apostasy is notable enough? I'd like to do an article about it too. At a first look it would seem it's pretty well known, and there are a few interviews with the author, one even made by Chris Livingston, but then again I didn't do any proper research yet. diego_pmc (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you post a few of the interviews? I'm struggling to find them in a quick seach, but if you can, I can give you a decent opinion as I'm not too familiar with the comic. However, if you feel that there is enough third-party material from reliable sources to sustain the real-world information of the article and so meets the requirements of WP:N, go for it. The more the merrier, so long as WP:V is complied with. -- Sabre (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It would seem it appeared in the UK FHM[2][3], something in German here. There also are a few other magazines in which he appeared, mentioned here. diego_pmc (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe FHM is used for some film reviews here on WP, so I imagine that it could be used. The other magazines mentioned should be sufficient enough to provide further reception and development information if you can get hold of it. Go for it. -- Sabre (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, if the last update was two years ago, and one year ago the author would have said that the comic isn't dead, what would you make of that? diego_pmc (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The status of the comic's completeness shouldn't have any effect on its notability. If its notable now, it will still have sources attesting to its notability even if it hasn't been updated for two years or so. -- Sabre (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Article title

I'm bringing this topic back here, because I don't think we should impose on Wikiproject Comics anymore; they graciously helped out with the interpretation of their disambiguation guidelines, and the discussion has now gotten back to specifics of this article.

As I understand it, diego_pmc is suggesting that since Concerned is now a redirect to Concerned (comics), there is no reason for a disambiguation phrase, so the article itself should go back to Concerned. I'm not sure I understand that — I don't see a connection between where Concerned redirects to, and whether or not it would be a confusing title for the article.

Pending some clarification of diego's position that brings to light a factor I hadn't thought of (always a possibility, obviously), I'm opposed to renaming the article to remove the disambiguating "(comics)", because I believe links from other articles to Concerned would be intrinsically confusing. That is, I think it is preferable that other articles have links that look like this, [[Concerned (comics)]], rather than like this, [[Concerned]]. I could go on about my position on this, but before I get into details of my position that might be entirely beside the point at hand, I'd like to understand diego's position better. Pi zero (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerned redirects here now, right? And you put that note on top of the article, so that it would point to Concern, in case someone as looking for something else. Since Concerned redirects here, and that note is placed on top of the article, why should we keep the disambig phrase?
Here's an example. that article red has a note that points out to Red (disambiguation), in case someone is looking for something else. Is there a reason why Red should be called Red (color), since it has that note? It wouldn't help clarifying the subject anymore than if the note was there. diego_pmc (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
My preference is that this should be at Concerned with a hatnote to Concern.
If it was felt that Concerned should redirect to Concern (and there is no good reason I can think of for it) then yes keep this at "Concerned (comics)". However, if Concerned redirects here there is no reason things couldn't be simplified by having this there. (Emperor (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

I'll try to clarify my position.

  • The particular example of "Red" seems to me to be a nearly opposite situation from what we have here, in that if someone saw a link [[Red]], or entered "Red" directly, they would expect to be sent to an article about the color. Even a disambiguation page under "Red", from which they could be taken to "Red (color)" would seem a bit odd, since the color is the main sense. (I'm apparently not the only one who thinks so, since "Red" is not a disambiguation page.) If "Red" took them to an article on another topic, with a hatnote to a disambiguation page from which they could get to "Red (color)", that would seem very strange.
  • Here, though, if you found a link [[Concerned]], I think it would look strange and a bit perplexing. Sometimes people turn ordinary words into Wikilinks (whether as vandalism or simply though a misunderstanding or miscalculation of standard procedure), and [[Concerned]] looks, on the face of it, like that sort of inappropriate link. Perhaps they'll do a double-take, and decide to test the link to see if it's really as silly as it looks, and they'll find that the article really is about the webcomic (that they'd probably deduced, from the context of the link, was the subject that the link ought to go to, if anything — only I certainly would at least check an odd-looking link like that if I found one, and probably some people would just summarily delink it). My point is, there's no need to choose an article name that's going to cause all that double-taking and the rest, when simply calling the article "Concerned (comics)" in the first place is still very short indeed and will cause not so much as an extra blink, let alone a double-take, when people see [[Concerned (comics)]].
  • Note that when people enter "Concerned" in the Wikipedia search box, that's a different case. Wikilinks from other articles use the name of the article rather than a redirect, but it's expected that if you enter some plausible variant of the article name, Wikipedia will take you to the right place, or at least to somewhere from which you can get there. So if you really are looking for "Concerned (comics)", you might enter "Concerned", hoping that'll take you there without all those extra keystrokes (and extra chances for a typo) and figuring that if it doesn't, you'll be able to get where you actually want to be by clicking on links from where it takes you. Pi zero (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


I'll keep it short, as it is late over here.

  1. Red was just an example to clarify what i emant, not that it was the exact same situation.
  2. As Concerned redirects here, this argument isn't all too valid, since whether the article is called Concerned, or Concerned (comics), they would still end up viewing this article.
  3. That would be just as valid if it was named simply Concerned.


:-) diego_pmc (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


As long-winded as this post is going to be, it's actually only parts of what I wanted say. I'll probably mess things up dreadfully by saying too little about too many things.

  • 1. I appreciate that "Red" was only an example to clarify what you meant. My own comments were intended similarly.
  • 3. On the result of entering "Concerned" in the Wikipedia search box, the point I was trying to make was that that is a separate case, independent of my current concern about the article name. We are in agreement that the result of entering "Concerned" in the search box has no bearing (for now, anyway) on which of these two names the article should have.
  • 2. There are two different kinds of confusion that one might choose to talk about here, and I think you may have been talking about one while I have been talking about the other.
    • Confusion could result from "Concerned" not taking the reader where they thought it would. I'm not worried about that. If they enter it in the search box, as I said before, what happens under either article title is reasonable; and if they follow a link from another page, either they get what they expected to get, or that link should be changed.
    • Confusion could result from the fact that a link on another page is called "Concerned". This isn't about what happens when someone clicks on the link. This is about what happens when an editor sees the link. In the earlier post, I tried to describe in detail some of the problems with links [[Concerned]]; its possible I could do that better, but in the interests of space I won't try. The essential point is that a suspicious-looking article name in a link can create cognitive dissonance, and more work, for editors who pass by, and we can save them from all that simply by keeping the dab phrase in the article name.
  • There is actually another, very different way of describing my position, one that looks more at the big picture, rather than at specifics of what editors do when they see a link. (This may make more sense to you, or sound like gibberish; this sort of reasoning appeals strongly to some people but not to others, I realize.) It's just this. A provision of WP:DAB says that if there's a primary topic for a term, much more used than any other, the unadorned term should be the name of that article, with a hatnote to a separate dab page. The difficulty here is that there is a primary, well, meaning for "concerned", but it will never have an article, nor even a dab page because "Concern" is already a dab page. At the moment (until something else comes along that's also called "Concerned"), it seems quite reasonable to have "Concerned" redirect to "Concerned (comics)", because there doesn't seem to be any very likely reason the user would enter "Concerned" unless they wanted the comic — but actually putting the comics article under the name "Concerned" would be violating the principle that the unadorned title shouldn't be assigned to something other than the primary meaning. This is why I said the "Red" example was opposite to "Concerned": with "Red" the question is whether to put the primary topic under the unadorned name, whereas with "Concerned" the question is whether to put something other than the primary meaning under the unadorned name. My earlier point about what an editor thinks on encountering [[Concerned]] is a sort of concrete realization of this conceptual problem with assigning the dab-less name to the comics article.

:-) Pi zero (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

About your last point: well, of course, but at this very moment there is no article that would require the name "concerned", and as such there is no conflict. In case such a conflict should arise, we will simply sort it out through dabs, however until then the dab on this article's title is of no use whatsoever, it only produces a longer title, which can't be a good thing, per reasons stated in the last discussion on this. diego_pmc (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't what I was (no doubt inarticulately) saying. I agree, and said above, that there is no article for the primary meaning of "concerned", and there never will be anything like one; the closest thing there could be to it would be a dab page, and I don't think there ever will be a dab page called "concerned" because even if, sometime in the future, there were multiple content articles associated with "concerned", "concerned" would simply redirect to the dab page at "concern". My big-picture point was that it is undesirable to have a content article whose name is a single word that is also a common word in the language; a dab phrase should be used. One could say that that is both of the points I've been trying to express: the last point of the above post says it from the high-level perspective, while the reiterated point from the earlier post describes specific mechanical consequences of an editor looking at a link whose name is a common word of the language, but they're just two ways of looking at the same problem — looking down on the problem from above, or looking up at it from below.
As for whether a longer title can't be a good thing: I suppose you mean simply that there is always some price to pay for increasing the length by adding a dab-phrase. Under generic circumstances, that seems a very solid proposition — that of course, there must be some price to pay, and the question is whether the benefit outweighs that price. For example, if you've got an article called "Deranged cow", there is clearly a price to pay for lengthening the name to "Deranged cow (comics)", so that you wouldn't add the dab-phrase unless the context of related articles created a positive net benefit to doing so. However, if you have an article whose name is sufficiently common in the language, it may be intrinsically awkward to use the dab-less name, in which case the "price" and "benefit" become hard to separate from each other. That is, you no longer have to refer to the context of related articles in order to find benefit to using the dab-phrase. This effect seems to me to be very strong if the dab-less name would be a common word in the language. (A much-diluted form of this blurring could occur even with very common two-word phrases, though the blurred-together net benefit would probably favor the dab-less version. Imagine naming an article on a comic book called Fruit juice.)
  • I would be very interested to see what has been done in other cases of naming an article whose dab-less name would be a common word in the language that wouldn't otherwise have an article at all (not even a redirect — I'm guessing there was no article "concerned" before the article on the webcomic was created). Presumably there are other cases of this improbable combination of factors, because Wikipedia is... well, huge scarcely even seems adequate. It's rather big, anyway. Of course, the other examples may be more very-low-quality articles that oughtn't be imitated, but we can't judge that until we find them, and I'm not sure how to find them. There aren't any examples under Category:Comic book titles, but that's just a drop in the bucket. What makes the case of "concerned" really odd, it seems to me, is the fact that it's a commonplace inflection of a more basic word; so the fact that the basic word, "concern", does have a dab page doesn't really help. Pi zero (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

An example of such an article would be Risen. For the note, this Risen is made by me, but before this, there was another Risen, which used no dab phrase initially, but which I moved, as the game seemed to be more prominent than the album.

About "concerned" being a common word, you're absolutely right, however, this article was named initially Concerned, and in two years there's been no such mistake with someone placing a link to this article, when they meant something else. It is highly unlikely that something, somehow will suddenly change that now and erroneous links to Concerned will start rising all of the sudden. diego_pmc (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a couple of very minor comments, and one big comment.
  • "Risen" — I like this example. Perfection cannot be asked for, but it fits the situation here pretty closely.
  • I actually didn't mean to suggest that the link name "concerned" would result in mistaken links to this article; I really wouldn't have expected it to. I was suggesting that it would push editors to do extra work to check such links because the link name would look odd. However,
My main comment. The following passage appears in WP:NAME, and seems to bear directly on my concern about confusion by editors:
The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
Since I stand by my agreement that entering "Concerned" in the search box goes to this article, it follows logically that the simpler article name should be preferred, "Concerned".

Well, this ended nicely. Now we need to ask an admin to move the page. diego_pmc (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the way it's done is to ask an administrator to delete the existing redirect page that's in the way — I got that from WP:MOVE, here. Pi zero (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
(Sorry, I've never had occasion to do this before.) I'm adding a {{db-move}} tag to the redirect page. Pi zero (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on the FAC

Here's my take on what might be done to improve this article further, based on my interpretation of weaknesses suggested by the FAC. If not preempted or otherwise dissuaded I imagine I'll probably get to all of these sometime in the next few weeks (unless it's days or months). The third of these is pretty straightforward, but the other two really aren't.

  • The prose of the article as a whole should be polished further. FA criterion 1(a) is that "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". The professional standard part seems to be providing cover for mundane things like ungrammatical or unencyclopedic content, and I don't think that's an awful lot of a problem for this article by now. Engaging, though, is subtle and will take some deep thought. Ideally, a reader who knows nothing about the subject will find the article an interesting and enjoyable read right from the start (the start being all they'd ever see if it didn't grab them there), and may quite possibly keep reading all the way through to the end.
  • The plot summary, in particular, should probably be overhauled, to make it more... engaging. It's now a long sequence of events open to criticism as rather meaningless to someone who hasn't either played the game or read the comic. One might rewrite it based on a different strategy of presentation; simply cutting it down might work, but would probably require taking out anywhere from a quarter to a half of what's there, and the prioritizing involved would amount to rewriting anyway. Possibly, the way to go about this could be to ask what about the plot one wants the reader to take away other than a sequence of events. More deep thought.
  • There is a specific problem with primary sources appearing too prominent in the discussion of themes. Whether it's only an appearance doesn't change the need to address it in the article. My guess at what's going on here is that Livingston included discussion about the comic with each strip, and citations of these meta-discussions look just like citations of the strips — which makes them look like original analysis. If I'm reading that right, a solution that might redress the objections is to somehow change the forms of the citations of these meta-discussions so that it's obvious when reading the citation that it's citing a statement by Livingston about the strip, not citing the strip itself. Maybe something like title "Commentary on Issue #053" instead of just "Issue #053"? (Or maybe something other than "Commentary on" would be better?)

Pi zero (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The only one I am able to address, and which I did was the 3rd one. I said "Notes on", just like in the other cases. About the prose, I feel kinda embarrassed, but ATM this is my level of English. I'll ask User:Tony1—I noticed he has extremely good English skills, which are rare even among natives. Maybe he'll be able to take some of his time to help us with Concerned. Diego_pmc Talk 19:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Half-Life 2: Episode 2 reference/cameo/appearance/thing

I remember HL2:EP2 contained a reference to the Concerned Comic (warning, humor-spoiler: I think it was the section with the mechanics talking about escaping the dystopian job or whatever, someone was named Frohman and showed Freeman to the... something)...

Anyway, I'd add it myself, but I obviously don't remember it. And, if added, would it simply be put in a trivia section? How would it be worded? "Valve showed their appreciation for the Concerned comic by including an allusion to Concerned by naming a character".... or "Frohman makes a cameo appearance" or... well, what?

DEMONIIIK (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's some reliable source that talks about that, it should't be included in the article. Also, as you've said, it's pretty much just trivia. Diego_pmc Talk 09:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Concerned. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Tone?

@Rickraptor707: Could you be more specific about the tone issues this article is suffering from? I don't really see the problem, but I'd like to see if I can fix it. ~Mable (chat) 08:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


Well, for starters, this paragraph reads more like a publicity blurb on the back cover of a book or movie than an encyclopedic explanation of the comic.

"While Half-Life 2 takes the player through a dystopian future as protagonist Gordon Freeman, Concerned follows a similar path through the eyes of Gordon Frohman, a hapless, lethally clumsy oaf who arrives in the setting of the game a few weeks before Freeman. The comic's dark humor is derived from its contrasts with the game, and through references to the game's shortcomings. On several occasions in the comic, Frohman becomes the cause of various disastrous circumstances that Freeman will later encounter."

Rickraptor707 (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I suppose the main issue there was the "colorful" description of Frohman ("a hapless, lethally clumsy oaf") and the somewhat emotional phrase "... takes the player through ...". I hope this is better? ~Mable (chat) 09:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Concerned. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Concerned. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Concerned/Archive_1&oldid=1261489747"