Talk:Attitude: The New Subversive Cartoonists
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Merges edit
I've reversed an attempt to merge, and it's being battled a bit, so here's the discussion - the books are obviously noteworthy on their own, and can easily be expanded, and they shouldn't all be here. I oppose this sort of action on these books. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, I had no intent on "removing sourced material," as all the sourced material, I believed, was in the individual articles. I was incorrect, and I've since moved that material to those articles, so we're still talking a lot of information duplication. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, maybe actually reading the articles before jerking them around would be a good idea. --Dragonfiend 19:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps if you hadn't just redirected them, it wouldn't have been a problem. It was somewhat of a bold move that you could have assumed would be somewhat contentious, no? I made a mistake, I owned up to it, I fixed it - the subject at hand at this point is whether merging is a good idea. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia! The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles, and merging is a normal editing action, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. That said, five editors have already supported this merge, and you're the only one who doesn't based on your "putting the word 'obviously'" in front of your own opinions schtick," which, as usual, obviously aren't obviously obvious to the rest of the wikipedia's editors. So, OK, we have five editors for merge and one sloppy editor who can't be bothered to read articles before jerking them around and who has an admitted unfamiliarity with the subject matter who is against a merger because he thinks his opinions are "obvious." That's great! Meanwhile, I won't be wasting any more long hours at the library looking up sources for this topic just so self-proclaimed Captain Obvious can revert them out of the articles he apparently thinks he owns yet can't be bothered to read. --Dragonfiend 20:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Or you can be a dick about it. That works too.--badlydrawnjeff talk 20:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- What a coincidence, the D-word was what came to mind when I saw you ignore the opinions of five other editors and then remove seven sources I'd added to Wikipedia, but I find using the D-word to be uncivil. Since it seems you don't, I'm going to disengage from you, right after I delete your profane comment from my talk page. --Dragonfiend 20:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, because your "Captain Obvious" comment was definitely worthwhile. Yes, please disengage from this topic, it's apparent it gets you too fired up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I know that reading comprehension, or even bothering to read at all, doesn't appear to be your strong suit, but I'll point out that "disengage from you" is pretty different from "disengage from this topic." Unless you are actually one of the Attitude books, in which case I stand corrected. In other words, I will continue to discuss this topic, but not with people who call me the D-word several times. --Dragonfiend 20:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but my suggestion was that you disengage from this topic, since it's apparent that it's causing you much more stress than necessary, up to and including continuing to make false statements about fellow editors. If you don't like my qualifiers, fine, but considering the numerous statements you made about me, you may want to pick up a mirror. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I know that reading comprehension, or even bothering to read at all, doesn't appear to be your strong suit, but I'll point out that "disengage from you" is pretty different from "disengage from this topic." Unless you are actually one of the Attitude books, in which case I stand corrected. In other words, I will continue to discuss this topic, but not with people who call me the D-word several times. --Dragonfiend 20:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, because your "Captain Obvious" comment was definitely worthwhile. Yes, please disengage from this topic, it's apparent it gets you too fired up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- What a coincidence, the D-word was what came to mind when I saw you ignore the opinions of five other editors and then remove seven sources I'd added to Wikipedia, but I find using the D-word to be uncivil. Since it seems you don't, I'm going to disengage from you, right after I delete your profane comment from my talk page. --Dragonfiend 20:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Or you can be a dick about it. That works too.--badlydrawnjeff talk 20:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia! The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles, and merging is a normal editing action, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. That said, five editors have already supported this merge, and you're the only one who doesn't based on your "putting the word 'obviously'" in front of your own opinions schtick," which, as usual, obviously aren't obviously obvious to the rest of the wikipedia's editors. So, OK, we have five editors for merge and one sloppy editor who can't be bothered to read articles before jerking them around and who has an admitted unfamiliarity with the subject matter who is against a merger because he thinks his opinions are "obvious." That's great! Meanwhile, I won't be wasting any more long hours at the library looking up sources for this topic just so self-proclaimed Captain Obvious can revert them out of the articles he apparently thinks he owns yet can't be bothered to read. --Dragonfiend 20:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps if you hadn't just redirected them, it wouldn't have been a problem. It was somewhat of a bold move that you could have assumed would be somewhat contentious, no? I made a mistake, I owned up to it, I fixed it - the subject at hand at this point is whether merging is a good idea. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, maybe actually reading the articles before jerking them around would be a good idea. --Dragonfiend 19:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Support for merge edit
Five editors at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_21#Attitude_3:_The_New_Subversive_Online_Cartoonists have expressed support for this merge: Nifboy, Hahnchen, Dr Haggis, Tedzsee, and myself. The badlydrawnone seems to be the only one interested in revert warring back to unsourced articles with unsourced claims. --Dragonfiend 19:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- For the third book, sure, and without information on the first two that we have now. I've explained my error regarding the "unsourced articles" above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- As previously posted, I like this merge. If in the future the page gets too big, we can split it off, but currently the series is best treated (IMO) as a whole. -Dr Haggis - Talk 19:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- To merge it, however, is not how we normally treat a book series. Especially a series like this, which has three distinct topics, is better handled and referred to individually, regardless of consistency with other book series. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Some book series have only one article, such as Chicken Soup for the Soul, our Mouse Guard. Some do not. A numbered book series can easily be handled in one article. If the single article becomes unwieldy down the road it can be split then. I much rather have one full article then three stublettes. -Dr Haggis - Talk 19:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Chicken Soup may be sensible, given the lack of general distinctive qualities. Mouse Guard isn't a traditional book, it's a comic book series. What about The Sword of Truth? How about The Clique series? Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yep some book series get separate articles, some don't. This is a numbered anthology series. When we have three articles worth of content, we split it, until then one serves. One complete article is better than three stubs. Do you really think we have enough content on this subject to warrant 3 articles? -Dr Haggis - Talk 20:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I do think we have more than enough content for three articles. It's working fine, and it's the general way we run the books anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yep some book series get separate articles, some don't. This is a numbered anthology series. When we have three articles worth of content, we split it, until then one serves. One complete article is better than three stubs. Do you really think we have enough content on this subject to warrant 3 articles? -Dr Haggis - Talk 20:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Chicken Soup may be sensible, given the lack of general distinctive qualities. Mouse Guard isn't a traditional book, it's a comic book series. What about The Sword of Truth? How about The Clique series? Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Some book series have only one article, such as Chicken Soup for the Soul, our Mouse Guard. Some do not. A numbered book series can easily be handled in one article. If the single article becomes unwieldy down the road it can be split then. I much rather have one full article then three stublettes. -Dr Haggis - Talk 19:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- To merge it, however, is not how we normally treat a book series. Especially a series like this, which has three distinct topics, is better handled and referred to individually, regardless of consistency with other book series. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I still want to know what the three spin-off titles mentioned in the lead are. I'd also like to ask the usual suspects to stop bickering (or at least bicker less). Nifboy 15:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've got Atttitude Featuring Stephanie McMillan and Atttitude Featuring Neil Swaab, not sure about any others. --Dragonfiend 15:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- The third is Atttitude Featuring Andy Singer, according to the front of Attitude 3. --Dragonfiend 15:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Attitude: The New Subversive Cartoonists. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930014955/http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/departments/syndicates/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003597459 to http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/departments/syndicates/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003597459
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612115234/http://www.rall.com/buy.htm to http://www.rall.com/buy.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)