User talk:Wickning1

Welcome!

Hello, Wickning1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Kimchi.sg 00:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verfiability and webcomics

Hi, I saw your comment on that webcomic AfD that it "Doesn't quite seem notable enough within the webcomic community. WP:V arguments are silly in this case though, what's to verify? Applying WP:V to a webcomic is like applying WP:BIO to the battle of the bulge." Well, unlike WP:BIO, WP:V applies to all articles on Wikipedia. Basically, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales explains it here: [1] "Yeah, notability is actually a very controversial requirement within the community simply because it’s so subjective. What’s notable enough? So what we prefer to do is more or less shy away from notability, just because it ends up being a pretty unproductive discussion, and focus really a lot more on things like verifiability, whether or not the information can be verified. ... a simple example would be references to published books, academic papers, that sort of thing. That makes information verifiable. You can say, “I found it in this book.” An example of something that might or might not be verifiable would be something like a Web site about a band. So lots of little garage bands have very puffy Web sites about themselves that they made the Web site themselves, but you can’t find any reference to the band anywhere else. Not in any newspaper, not in any music sites, and you realize, Oh, this is just somebody who made a Web site and so the information that’s contained within that Web site is something that you really can’t verify."

If you substitute "Web site about a band" with "Website for a comic," tehn you get the idea. Webcomics that can only be verified through their website or other similar trivial sources really aren't verifiable. Does that makes sense? -- Dragonfiend 01:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response No, it doesn't really make sense. With a band, the subject of the article is a band that exists offline. Their web site is an unverified source with info about them. WP:V helps us figure out whether we can trust that info. Do they actually exist? Are their descriptions of their music accurate? Is the music they've posted actually created by them? Is this actually their web site? And so on. With a web comic, or any other web site article, the site IS the subject. All of those verifiability questions become trivial - go to the site. That's why we have WP:WEB for notability. Web sites are a special case for which WP:V is an obtuse and incomplete solution, at best. Note that under WP:WEB I ended up coming to largely the same conclusion that you did (though my notometer is set at a somewhat lower setting I think). (edited this whole thing for clarity.) - Wickning1 05:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- You're right, we seem to have reached the same conclusion from two somewhat different directions. But they're not that different. WP:WEB, among other things, looks for "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself ... This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms ... " Reliable refers to WP:RS, which says "The two policy pages that discuss the need to use sources are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability." So we're right back to verifiability. To get back to your example, you write "With a web comic, or any other web site article, the site IS the subject. All of those verifiability questions become trivial - go to the site." I don't think this is true. We have no idea if something we find on the web is actually what it claims to be unless it is verified in reliable sources. How do we verify that there really is a person named Shaenon K. Garrity that makes a webcomic called Narbonic? Because a website tells us so? No, because the New York Times and Publishers Weekly tells us so. -- Dragonfiend 07:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review of List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs

If you're inclined to insert your input on whether or not to restore the foredeleted article, please do so thereon that link above. DrWho42 17:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sup

Was in the neighbourhood :)

My page on Myth's dev history was deleted :(

(The Elfoid 04:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]