Talk:Sinfest/Archive 1

Archive 1

Impression

Wow, what a well-developed article. -- pne 17:37, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

detail in drawing = depth of character

It would be nice if this paragraph, from the older article, were included in the main text: cbraga 22:14, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Note that the depth of the characters is similar to the level of detail in their drawings: while Slick and Monique are very detailed the religious fanatic has little more than a circle for a head and lacks detail. The comic has little continuity, and most strips are one-shots.

Okay, the part about the level of detail in drawings is good, I'll work that in somewhere; but I have to disagree with the statement that Sinfest has little continuity. There are often story sequences of strips, as you'll see if you look on the "Strips" page on the Sinfest website. Sometimes these stories can be of more than 40 strips, so I think I'll leave that part out. --Decrypt3 10:03, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

well done, thanks cbraga

You know, I have to disagree on this. This concept of "detail in drawing = depth of character" just smacks of original research. Furthermore, the whole concept seems wholly coincidental to me in the first place. I'm not going to take it out right now or anything, but unless somebody can come up with a source (a forum post from Tat or something, for instance) it probably warrants removal. There are some other statements of a similar OR type that I've noticed from time to time, but this one just irks me as being the most egregious, so I figure we should either source it, or remove it. Logical Hare 03:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This concept of "detail in drawing = depth of character" I don't think is true. For one thing, I think that characters such as those angels aren't very deep, and yet they are almost detailed to the piont of everyone else. For another thing, Pooch, Percy and Seymour are the only characters that strike me as not being very detailed. --Wack'd About Wiki 19:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I was going to come back and remove it today (since it's been a week since I posted my objections), but somebody's already done it. In any case, I think the current version is fine and we ought to keep this little original research tidbit out from now on. Logical Hare 05:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Non NPOV

'This is probably because Ishida does not want to cheapen the idea of God by portraying Him fully, which would make Him risible'

Speculation, can't find a reference on the sinfest site, that says so.

in fact, in the article, there's seems that all the references to god were made by a fundie... to poke a bit more into this, the article feels like a fundie went throught it... 193.92.150.66 10:43, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) I need drugs^H^H^H^H^H^H^H erh, proof. ;)

Note the key word "probably", which denies that that is an absolute, certain fact. It seems like a very reasonable theory. As for me being a fundamentalist, I don't know where you got that from. Not that it matters, but I'm a staunch atheist. Capitalizing personal pronouns referring to God is simply a convention of written language. Decrypt3 21:16, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Except they don't exactly refer to God- they refer to a set of pixels.

Even so, "probably" remains somewhat presumptious, in that it implies a likelihood rather than what remains speculation. Wouldn't "possibly" be a better reflection of the actual situation?

" 'This is probably because Ishida does not want to cheapen the idea of God by portraying Him fully, which would make Him risible'" I always thought Ishida didn't draw God because he doesn't know what God looks like, and neither do the readers. I once did an exercise at school which involved saying what God looked like- some people described him as a tall, benevolent man, others saw him as a cloud-like form, others still had different ideas. It's one thing to say "this is Slick, he looks like this" and "this is God, He looks like this".

I agree this article is strongly opinionated. The entire thing needs reworked. It is akin more to a fansite, and the interpretations of a group of fans, than a neutral view point. In fact, everything in here is a bit tainted, from the writing and personal philosophies divulged, to declaring a strip parodying calvin and hobbes to Tat "admitting his slick character designs come from Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes". Interpretation. —Preceding unsigned 24.19.49.233 (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion by anonimous

I'm moving this edit here:

I might be wrong, but, as far as I remember, as of the December 14, 2004 episode, God has never talked to Seymour, though He has to almost every other character. --149.159.104.178

I can't say for sure either, but I think He has. I haven't had a good look yet, but I found that God has a certain amount of disdain for Seymour. Decrypt3 15:53, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Slick

As for the mentioned date - July 6, 2004 (or July 5, 2004 as it was), there is no comic at all. What real date is meant? --TruBlu 08:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Infobox added

There we go, I've filled in the infobox for Sinfest, tell me if anything's amiss. I nearly typed 'humour'... Perks 10:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Slight revision needed

Percival recently appeared with some other characters from the strip. Maybe the Pooch and Percival section could be modified to reflect this?

Political beliefs

I was wondering if anything about the characters political beliefs should be added, what with Monique being your typical ultra-liberal and Squiggley being your typical ultra-conservative.

Monique

"Although the site's color image of Monique indicates that she is Asian, this is never remarked upon in the strip."

I've removed this sentence from the section about Monique. The colour-in on the front-page gives no such indications -- the skin colour is the same as Slick's, the physique is the same as in the strips and hair- and eye-colour can't really be indications of ethnicity.

Unless someone can come up with a decent reasoning for this argument, it shouldn't be put back in -- currently this is unfounded original research at best. -- 80.135.196.77 03:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC) (Ashmodai)

It seems that someone has seen fit to reinsert this particular bit of Original Research, this time in the section on Monique. "Monique is a 16-year-old Asian girl..." Since this is obviously OR, and since the consensus on this page seems to be that it doesn't belong here, I've removed it.

Unless someone saw the Ninja Theatre strips and got confused, there is no reason to believe Monique is Asian; nothing about her eyes or features suggests any Asian heritage or multiracial background of any sort. As far as I can see, she's just a regular white girl. Raymondluxuryacht 19:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I don't think we can even positively conclude that she's white. I don't think we're supposed to. She's to represent the trampish, jailbaity female population, which can be white, Asian, black, Hispanic, or any of the other myriad races out there. I would go so far as to say that we can't conclude what Slick's ethnicity is either. After all, the author is Asian, and many main characters of stories are renditions of the author himself, or at least one small part. The important thing is that the characters' races are not important. When they are important, Tatsuya will make it clear. -- 70.131.65.108 10:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

a question of emphasis

On Monique, but not about her race: Originally, Monique was seen through Slick's eyes as one of his many romantic encounters, but since then she's appeared in strips on her own, which developed her as a spoken word performer, political protester, peace activist, environmentalist, clean freak, feminist and yeah - sexual freedom advocate. The excessive focus of her character entry on her promiscuity, when she's never even been depicted having a boyfriend/fling/whatever, is unbalanced. I'm going to add in some of her more prominent personality traits to the description. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.6.217 (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point —Tamfang (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

hiatus?

does anybody know if sinfest is on hiatus, since it hasn't been updated for 3 weeks now without any notice.

I think it's on unofficial hiatus. This happens occasionally. Please sign comments with ~~~~. - CorbinSimpson 21:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that as of March 6, Sinfest is back up and updating. Someone want to change the top bit about the hiatus since Jan 26?

April 24 - And again, hiatus from March 22 seems to be over so that bit at the top of the article can again be removed. Could happen again at any time though I spose!

Jesus

Was the strip of 18 May 2006, linked in the article as the 1st appearance of Jesus, really the 1st appearance of Jesus in the strip? Ventifax 05:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah. [1]. 96T 17:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as the article is concerned, I don't think this is a big deal. I'd be hesitant about even classifying Jesus as a character. He seems to be used just for these random one-off jokes, which I don't think really qualifies him for charactership on the same level as the other characters. --Decrypt3 00:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What about Buddha? He seems to appear alongside the other characters as of recent.

Use of the word 'recent'

Throughout the article there are numerous references to 'recent comics'. These point to comics from December 2005, some even older. You can't really call these recent now, and as time passes they certainly won't stay recent. So I propose every 'recent' reference should be reformulated with a better alternative. Unfortunatly, I'm yet to find this alternative... Any thoughts?

• I agree. "Recent" and other word suggesting a relative time frame should be avoided. By using them you immediately give the article a shelf life. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 10:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

amikeenspotornot

I see no sign of a redesign. I've tried a few of the new-style links; they lead to an error page in Keenspot forums. And Keenspot still lists Sinfest as a member. I hesitate to revert — perhaps my DNS hasn't updated to show Sinfest's new host, and perhaps Keenspot will update its front page on Monday . . . . Tamfang 19:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

When I was testing the new links I put in, I noticed the Keenspot error page too, and all the images were gone. I then noticed the page was fine on the home page, it was only on comic pages, and it sometimes leads to the forum error page if there's no www in the url. After a while it went back to normal though, must've been a server error or something. - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah. www.sinfest.net is redesigned — but its internal links are to "sinfest.net", no "www", producing the Keenspot error. Let's hope Ishida notices it soon! —Tamfang 06:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Squigley

I find it odd that Squigley's section is divided into 3 parts. Shouldn't the first two parts be combined into one section and have the popular culture part moved elsewhere?
Ivvan Cain 20:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, except that there's no obvious place to move the bit about Spanky Ham. I removed the excess headings. —Tamfang 00:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Why'd Squigley's section get reverted? Isn't "Fatwaters" his last name? ----Isaac 16:02, 26 October 2007

No more than his name is Johnny Squigley (Masterpiece 6) - Its just a joke, restricted to that particular strip/arc. None the characters in Sinfest have last names. vineetcoolguy 14:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

ugh

I've read Sinfest for years and think it's great, but this article is a rdiculous exercise in fanboy excess - starting with the dozens of external links to the website. It should be slashed in half, or less ... I have a feeling that if I started, I'll draw the wrath of the faithful. - DavidWBrooks 22:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; this article is five times the length of Ozy and Millie. I'm trimming back now; let the wrath begin. 207.200.116.200 15:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've followed onto your start. It's down to bearable detail now, I think. - DavidWBrooks 21:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The external links should not be removed, but converted into footnotes. 96T 19:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Lil' Evil

I've gone and done a rewrite of the Lil' Evil section, which I've always felt read a little awkwardly. For starters, I've removed the various superfluous instances of constantly referring to him as "the fanboy" or "the devil's fanboy (Lil' Evil)". The character's name is Lil' Evil, and that is how he is referred to by both himself and by other characters. It strikes me as awkward to keep referring to him as "the fanboy" simply because he was initially unnamed. I also removed the mention of his being introduced "recently," as that type of thing strikes me as too relative for inclusion. It's true that he was introduced later than the majority of the other characters, but since that didn't strike me as particularly important to his character, I've left it out. Also, I commented on the paralell between Lil' Evil and Seymour, a fairly obvious facet of his character which the previous version missed out on entirely. And finally, I felt that the section didn't really flow very well and was somewhat choppy and disorganized, so I did some grammar and structure editing to fix that problem. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated! 70.70.210.215 05:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Great job! Lil' Evil and Seymour strips are my favorites! --Wack'd About Wiki 16:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In #1529, the Devil addresses Li'l Evil as "Jethro". Is that unique? —Tamfang 22:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In #652, Monique calls Slick "Jethro". Likely a pejorative, not a name.--Czarcastic 17:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree, this is not used as a name. I'm removing it from article --Duke B. Garland 15:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed two-headed puppy to three-headed. In the strip the puppy appears in he definitely has a third head, albeit slightly less detailed then the others.NZHC 09:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Pooch and Percy

They are NOT a comic with in a comic; consitering that they have appeared with Slick, Monique, Squigley, Lil' Evil, and the Devil, I think it's safe to say they live in the same universe as the rest of the Sinfest cast. --Wack'd About Wiki 16:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My bad. P&P never appeared with Lil' Evil.

The strip of 2007 Apr 29 is the most explicit yet in indicating that "master" is Ishida himself: the next-to-last frame is captioned SPECIAL BEHIND-THE-SCENES MAKING OF SINFEST FEATURETTE and shows P&P watching as the cartoonist bangs his head on the worktable. —Tamfang 00:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Seymour

He seems to be something of a fanboy, as he seems to have many "God collectibles" and at various times obsesses over new ones (God's glossey is a perfect example). I think this should go in the article, but I cannot make it sound encyclopedic. Can somebody with better language skills do this for me?

Thanks in advance,

Wack'd About Wiki

12:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

To whoever added in those character pictures, great job! I think they really add to the article. If we could get one for each character, that would really spruce the place up. I do have one minor thing, specifically that I don't really like the Monique picture, and I'd like to suggest a replacement. Today's comic, "I need my fix" has an excellent image of her in a sex-symbol-ish pose that I think really captures the essense of her character. Plus, its a little more clear than the current image. So if someone would consider doing a little cropping and maybe a little colouring, that'd be great. I'd do all this myself, you understand, but I suck at formatting and layout on Wikipedia, so I generally stick to editing the text (as I did with the Lil Evil Section). Logical Hare 05:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

All characters now have images and i've made better quality ones for Slick&'Nique. Whew, that took some time. Now, what does everybody think about adding an image from last panel of 2007-04-29 to the top of the character's description? --Duke B. Garland 15:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Great work. The new pics look great!vineetcoolguy 03:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Any comments on the fact that only the Christian and Buddhist religions seem fair game?

We see Buddha and Jesus squaring off; we see the Dragon vs the Christian God. However, Tatsuya Ishida seems to avoid putting Islam to his humour. This seems deliberate, as he's not shy with the rest of his subjects (queerness, druggies, porn, fundies, etc.). Any comments or facts on this? 132.206.96.94 20:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Snowpea

Original research much? Anyway, Wikipedia talk pages are not forums for discussion about the topic of the article, they are where editors can talk about the improvement of the article. Axem Titanium 21:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have anything on that subject, and no, I don't plan on discussing this. I just wondered if someone did have some info on this, so that the bit about the representations (or lack thereoff) of various gods figures in the strip might be elaborated on. Simply a possible addition / improvement (?). I have never edited a wiki entry and I hesitate to do it. 132.206.96.94 14:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Snowpea

The problem is that there is no information on this. Because Ishida never comments on his work, we know nothing of the thought process that goes into the strip, so we can't simply go around making assertions like this, since they'd be unsubstantiated original research. That's what's frustrating about editing the Sinfest article; all we really have to go on are the individual strips, since we know nothing about the author.Logical Hare 06:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's due to the fact that, given his cultural background, he has no experience with Islam. If you analyze his work, you can say it's his commentary on his perspective of the world. As a Japanese-American, he has probably experienced firsthand how it is to be involved in both Christianity and Buddhism. We can't expect him to poke fun at Islam; that's simply because he has nothing to say on it, other than what everyone sees in the popular media (which we've seen in his various renditions of what I'll paraphrase as 'Politically Incorrect Rangers'). Likewise, to be fair, he never has much to say on Judaism, Hinduism, or other well-known religions either. They're just not in the scope of his life. Perhaps, if I may speculate, it could even represent his inner religious conflict. Both religions might seems very valid to him, yet at the same time, he sees the flaws in both. His comics might simply be his way of working it out. -- 70.131.65.108 10:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that drawing cartoons about islam increases the probability of being assasinated by islamic fanboys. 88.68.222.37 (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Daily Bruin and Sinfest

Sinfest appeared in the UCLA Daily Bruin during the 1991-1992 academic year, and possibly before. Many of the same characters appeared to comment on some aspect of campus life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.175.225.22 (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Right. Except for the fact that it started in 2000. Axem Titanium 21:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I can corroborate the above user's claim that Sinfest originally appeared in the Daily Bruin at UCLA. It was a highlight of my weekly reading when a Sinfest comic appeared in the Bruin (this during the 1992-93 and 1993-94 years, on Tuesdays IIRC), and both Ishida's artistic style and the epigrams were already established during this time, and its comedy was often topical on campus issues. Its first publication as a webcomic and its (re-)introduction to a wider audience was in 2000, but it originally appeared in print in the Daily Bruin. This blog entry (found on the first page of the Google search for sinfest daily bruin) provides further corroboration. It's a shame that the Bruin's online archive doesn't extend back to that era, as IMO the comic was even more risk-taking, edgy and, yes, funny back then. 67.49.60.97 06:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. It would be nice if we could get a good reference for that on the article, then. Axem Titanium 20:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It sure would be nice if I could find some good web content that shows Sinfest's UCLA history, and I'm sure a stroll through the hardcopy archives of the Bruin would uncover some real gems. I guess this highlights one of Wikipedia's weaknesses -- where the last mile of verifiability is offline.67.49.60.97 03:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to the earliest Sinfest strip I can find in the Daily Bruin https://archive.dailybruin.com/#83629 It was making fun of something that happened at UCLA a few weeks earlier

Other early sinfest strips can be found: https://archive.dailybruin.com/#83654 https://archive.dailybruin.com/#83675 https://archive.dailybruin.com/#83691 (first appearance I find of Slick) https://archive.dailybruin.com/#83710 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:5902:1730:58D9:4445:DBA8:5246 (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a "Letters to the Editors" column from 1996 that specifically mentions "Sinfest by Tatsuya Ishida". --Guess Who 06:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If anyone has specific issues of this magazine to cite as references, that'd be excellent. 96T 21:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

So, there is blog entry and mention in "letters to the editor". Cannot neither be counted as a good reference? Anyway, this should be added in some form to the article --Duke B. Garland 15:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The Vol. 1 Dark Horse print edition has Daily Bruin strips included, as noted in a review of the publication here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.231.133.253 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Slick's reformation...

... It appears likely that there's no permanent change to be expected in Slick's character (Thank God!). Strip from 2007-09-15 I've removed the content for now. If any character development actually occurs, we'll put it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vineetcoolguy (talk • contribs) 15:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The Dragon (first appearance)?

Hmm isn't the Dragon's first appearance on June 1 instead of March 1, 2000? This would mean comic strip #128, instead of #36. I know, a very minor detail, just noticed it... or is the reason for #36 that there is a dragon on the paper wall in the background (third panel)? Although I would not say that this counts as an appearance of the Dragon as a character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.88.229.32 (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the whole "first appearance" section is against WP:NOR and should be removed --Duke B. Garland 16:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Original reaserch is okay if you have a credible source (i.e. someone other than yourself or that guy you may or may not know) to back it up. In this case, the "first appearences" is credible information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wack'd (talk • contribs) 19:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Buddha Gender

I have found no mention of Buddha's (Bood) gender in the comic. If someone could find it and cite it that would be great, because it seems to just be an assumption to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.8.79 (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, here's the citation. I feel dopey now. :) http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2614 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.8.79 (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Snatch-O-Gram girls

I'm against that section being in the article. Those 2 girls were nothing more than a part of particular story arc and cannot be count as "full-time" characters that deserve a section --Duke B. Garland (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm. You make a point; they aren't developed (so to speak); they don't even have names as far as I recall - although they show up in strips other than the Snatch-O-Gram sequence. They're recurring extras, and scenery, but I don't know if they even have an official handle. They're the Devil's default bimbos. Wyvern (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. They do not belong in the list. If not left out entirely, perhaps the "Other religious figures" section could be expanded to "Other characters", and the Girls placed there? Gmarsden (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, they now have their own 'day in the life' sequence. So...*shrug* http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2903 24.215.119.35 (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that the last panel of that strip is the Devil asleep, maybe the whole "day" is his dream. —Tamfang (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Or, that the girl's been doing all of the devil's work while he took a nap for the day. Being the devil, he probably endorses sloth as a greater sin. Why spread evil yourself all the time if you got minions. 24.137.72.181 (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Characters

I think we have enough information on most of the characters in Sinfest to be catagorized into its own article. What do you guys think?Stormfin (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I think there's no point. The Sinfest webcomic is notable, but it's not so major a cultural artifact that we need to split the article into different parts just to accomodate everything. Unlike, say, Characters in Harry Potter - there, many individual characters have long and involved articles. Likewise, when I check out the article for Doonesbury I see that there's a spinoff article for characters there. I don't think Sinfest is to that level of importance yet. Wyvern (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Bodhisattvaspath (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC): Also, if you were to split the characters off into their own article, there would be very little content in this one.

Dragon

Original asian dragons could not breath fire, the clouds around their heads where misinterprited as smoke ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.133.154 (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk about Slick

Bodhisattvaspath (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC): Slick's name is "Slick D. Stud"? Are you kidding me? Just because Ishida puts "Slick D. Stud" on a Devil Platinum Card doesn't mean that's his full name. It's part of the comedy of the script. It would be like putting "Monique D. Slut-Ho" on a card. It's the Devil's attempt at flattery to Slick, not his real name.

Yurizuki (talk) Actually, to be exact, his full name must be "Slick Daddy Stud". ^_^ It's a sure bet that the "D." in the middle stands for "Daddy".

The name in your credit card must be your real name, not some nickname you made up for yourself. The Devil runs his business in our world just like any other big corporation, he follows the rules of capitalism. The credit cards he issues are like any other credit cards (a purchasing tool, as the TV ad says). There is no reason to doubt that "Slick D. Stud" is Slick's full name, finally revealed. If you don't like it, well, I understand you... but that's not relevant to the point. We must accept as canon the information Ishida puts in his strips.

Bodhisattvaspath (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC): Such assumptions are dubious at best, and a faux credit card commercial is hardly an indicator of canon. Unless some character were to actually say his full name or it appears in some form of print in "Slick's world" and not on DevilTV, or in any advertisement, the canonical nature of such token flattery is subject to question. It's not about whether I like the name or not, but an issue of verifiability. There is no verification that his full name is "Slick D. Stud" or "Slick Daddy Stud", and as such, it creates a conflict here on Wikipedia.

Yurizuki (talk) Okay, pay attention now.

We HAVE some evidence that his name is "Slick D. Stud". This evidence comes in the form of a credit card with "Slick D. Stud" on it. It's a good piece of evidence. A driving license, or any other document of a legal or commercial nature, would have counted as valid evidence as well.

We DO NOT HAVE any evidence to contradict this valid evidence. There isn't even a sliver of evidence that his name might be a different name. This is the first strip ever where the author puts a family name after "Slick Daddy", and that name is "Stud". It's the only piece of canonic evidence we have.

"Slick's full name appears only once in the comic, as Slick D. Stud" is what we call a piece of canonic evidence. "Some dude Bodhisattvaspath called this evidence a bunch of adjectives, like faux and dubious" is what we call empty fannish speculation. It does not constitute counter-evidence.

You're the one creating a conflict, as you have absolutely nothing to back up your claims. Until you find an argument with a modicum of verifiablity, until you have something more solid than baseless speculation, please refrain from changing the article.

I'm really not sure that a single commercial that was probably part of a gag counts as evidence. It would be like if a similar commercial aimed at Monique listed her name as "Monique McSlutSlut". JuJube (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yurizuki (talk) Well, it is some evidence. ^_^ It's not conclusive evidence, but it is a bit of evidence. More importantly, it's the only evidence we have.

When I first read that strip, I assumed as obvious that the thing for us readers to do was to accept the name Slick D. Stud until Ishida said otherwise. I was surprised to find that some fans were fiercely against it... well, each to his own. I think the way I rephrased it in the article should be okay with everyone now, but if you feel there's need to further emphasize that Stud as Slick's family name is not yet established with 100% certainty, go ahead and rewrite it again.

(Just don't write something like "The Devil tries to flatter him by calling him Slick D. Stud." Unless you are Tatsuya Ishida himself, or you can prove that you have telepathic insight in the mind of the Devil, claiming the right to make such an assertion is stupid and pretentious beyond belief.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yurizuki (talk • contribs) 17:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Bodhisattvaspath (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC): Your assertion that his full name is "Slick D. Stud" or "Slick Daddy Stud" without any genuine confirmation is erroneous unless confirmation occurs within the comic itself or from the artist. I altered the text from what you had changed it to, which suggests that his full name has finally been revealed, to something far more accurate. As far as the Devil's motivation goes, while it is true that one cannot confirm his motivation, it is far more likely as a motivation than the likelihood of Slick's full name having been revealed, as the Devil has repeatedly tried to flatter, entice and corrupt Slick.

Some of the ways in which you have responded, Yurizuki, have been inflammatory. I would urge you to soften your tone, as we're all here to include reliable information to the wiki.

Jee-sus. Relax guys, none of the characters in sinfest have last names. Tat keeps putting different humorous surnames for all characters in different strips. I have a reference for it here - Slick is called Slick D. Sexington in another strip. I'm removing the line. We had a similar discussion for squigley on this same talk page. Dontmentionit (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yurizuki (talk) Point taken, Dontmentionit. ^_^ I had completely forgotten the Sexington strip (duh to me). It's good enough a reason to think Stud is another installment of a running joke. You did the right thing -- it was either removing, or compiling a list of all possible surnames for Slick...

And, Bodhisattvaspath, take example from Dontmentionit. He made a point, and, to prove it, he provided a piece of solid evidence. He didn't pile up adjectives. He didn't try to pass subjective opinions as facts. He didn't waste page space with abstruse complaints about rules and tones. He didn't waste his time and ours with lengthy tirades made only of speculations. He looked into the matter, found a new piece of evidence that hadn't been considered before, used it to shed new light on the argument and brought it to a satisfactory conclusion. That's how rational discussion works. Take heed and learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yurizuki (talk • contribs) 20:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Bodhisattvaspath (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC): Such further commentary from Yurizuki is nothing more than trolling and will be reported if continued.

Chill dude. Even if you reported him, they would just tell you "Yurizuki's right, kid, follow his advice." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.38.190 (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Bodhisattvaspath (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC): This sockpuppetry does nothing to further the development of the article. The erroneous information was corrected, and the article continues in its development. Please keep all discussion about the article in question.

I agree with Bodhisattvaspath. This discussion needs to close now. Really. Shouting "Nyah Nyah Nyah" at each other is just a waste of time. Dontmentionit (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Squigley

There's a part on the article that says the others characters do not notice he's an Antropomorphic Animal, but in This Strip, Slick seems to know he is a pig. 201.29.251.119 (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

running gags

What about a list of the running gags?

Batsignal 
Transformer-style something-otron
"Mars needs women" alien lands in need of someone
Godzilla-size caracters
superhero/ranger portraits
more?

Sinfest has SO Much going on, any 'running gag' list would just be fancruft. Lots42 (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Percy and Pooch again

Earlier this year was a storyline where Percy and Pooch manage to comprehend that the drawings Master makes directly ties into the food that is brought into the house. They try and help Master make a drawing and fail, though they don't figure it out. In conclusion, more evidence Master is the cartoonist. Lots42 (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Metaphoric role of characters?

It seems like certain characters have a particularly meaningful role in Ishida's story-telling; Squigley, in particular, seems to fill a metaphoric role as the sin of Gluttony-- his behavior and appearance back this up. Ishida's flare for metaphor is emphasized by this ( http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2896 ) recent strip, which, in parodying Terminator 2, also demonstrates a perfect metaphor for Jesus' message to Christians. I believe that other characters fill similar roles, but the others aren't quite so clear. Could this be worthy of pointing out? VanGarrett (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Not unless the author or independent third parties point this out. Otherwise it is just original research. Lots42 (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Criminy the bookworm's section.

Who -wouldn't- react with worry or panic upon meeting the eviler of Sinfest characters? Confusing! Lots42 (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Cameo Appearances section

Should this just be a "Other (incidental) characters" section, to set it apart from 'Main Characters' and 'Supporting characters' (or non-main characters) type sections? Not sure how to handle the various layers of 'characters' Sinfest has, and don't fancy going through the comics adding minor / one-off characters if the section is to get blown away in the end. Example: Marlon Brado as Jor-El in Superman is a one-off, might not be worth mentioning. Uncle Sam is currently in just one story arc on politics, having appeared in about five strips, Death has about that number and -is- listed as a full-on character. Any ideas for criteria? ZeBoxx (talk) 04:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I really think this section is going to be impossible to complete. If this list is to be complete there will be over a hundred (or even more) entries. I suggest the section be removed. Dontmentionit (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but the main question was of how to handle characters in general. As mentioned, Death had about as many appearances as Uncle Sam. Yet Death is a 'main' character, while Uncle Sam is not (at this time) - what criteria should be applied here? ZeBoxx (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If you guys are planning to go through with this section, there are A LOT more cameos in the older strips (Lucy and Charlie Brown, Calvin and Hobbes, etc.), so good luck with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.228.78 (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Fuchsia

Removed this sentence:

In the 2009-03-05 strip, the pink-haired succubus was revealed to be called 'Fuchsia', most likely for her hair and color of usual attire.

for three reasons: a) It's already been mentioned just above. b) The date is wrong, and c) speculation about why she is so called is not verifiable content. Rojomoke (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

warning, broken links

-First link at the bottom is broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.117.22.135 (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Squig's needy planet

Why does it say the name is unknown? The comic plainly states that it's Zork. http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=1649

Kidcorona (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

The article has accumulated a lot of fancruft and OR, I've removed atleast the more blatant portions of the same. As for the two sections removed (Cameos and recurring jokes) I think we can all agree that neither list can ever be completed and are pretty much fancruft which don't serve much purpose to any person who is not already a big fan of the series. The discussions as relevant had already taken place on this talk page, I guess no one ever got around to removing them. Dontmentionit (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

SinFest

I think it's SinFest, not Sinfest.46.116.184.69 (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This article doesn't need RESCUE

Guy Macon created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinfest and wrote that they would like this article deleted because of "No evidence of notability". They also added a RESCUE tag here[2] with no edit summary. The tag itself says "Please review the deletion discussion and help improve the article to make clear whether it meets Wikipedia's inclusion and notability criteria." At about the same time, they wrote "If I see the above-mentioned indications of notability incorporated into the article (especially the "published in print" claim), I will withdraw my nomination for deletion."[3] Of course, the article has for over a year and a half[4] said with attribution that "Dark Horse Comics republished in June 2009 the first volume of compiled strips". So Guy Macon will presumably be withdrawing their nomination for deletion and I am removing the pointless RESCUE tag. Rangoondispenser (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Three questions: First, why would you object to an article being improved? See Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. Second, what part of "If I see the above-mentioned indications of notability incorporated into the article" are you having trouble understanding? Third, are you aware that a webcomic author publishing his own webcomics does not meet Wikipedia's standards for establishing general notability? (several of the comments here on the talk page do establish notability IMO, but none of them has been incorporated into the article. Guy Macon (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait until the AFD is over before removing the tag. There is no reason to be doing that now. It is odd though that the guy nominating an article, trying to get it deleted, tags it for rescue so it would be saved. Dream Focus 10:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's odd. At the time I nominated it I did not see any indications of notability. At the same time, I wanted to do everything I could to prove that theory wrong, which is why I tagged it for rescue. This isn't about "winning" but about improving Wikipedia. Then I saw various people posting what appear to be indications of notability, which will, no doubt, result in the closing admin marking it as "keep." Meanwhile, while doing so is not required to keep the article, I encouraged those voting to improve it. There is nothing wrong with encouraging people to improve an article. I would attempt to make the improvements myself, but somehow I suspect that someone who has actually read at least one SinFest webcomic might be better qualified to do that. As it says in Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, "The poor current state of an article is not a sufficient reason for deletion", and indeed I did not nominate it on that basis. At the time I believed the article was non-notable and of poor quality. Now I believe that it is notable but still of poor quality. So why not do both? Why not establish notability and improve the article? Guy Macon (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think that when Dark Horse Comics publishes a book, it is "a webcomic author publishing his own webcomic"? Rangoondispenser (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps someone here who is familiar with webcomics can answer a question about this. (Not Rangoondispenser; I am looking for a calm and rational discussion, not more confrontation and drama. It's good to see someone so enthusiastic about a topic, but I am looking for less heat and more light.)

The current page says "Sinfest has appeared in print in the form of anthology books, released by Ishida's own production company Museworks." and "Dark Horse Comics republished in June 2009 the first volume..." I also see from http://www.darkhorse.com/Services/CustomPublishing/ that Dark Horse will do "custom publishing" for a fee, but I see no indication that Dark Horse is a vanity press. Does this republishing count as being published by an independent publisher, or is it an extension of Ishida's earlier self-publishing?

(I would also note that it appears to me that notability has been established by the publishers weekly citation, so IMO this question is purely academic and does not affect the outcome of this RfD. Guy Macon (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Great, now that you say that "notability has been established by the publishers weekly citation" that was provided back on Sept 5[5], you'll be withdrawing your deletion nomination? Rangoondispenser (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be having some comprehension problems. I wrote that I would withdraw my nomination if the evidence of notability was incorporated into the article. So far, nobody has incorporated the publishers weekly citation (or made any other improvement) to the article, and so I am letting this RfD end when it times out rather than withdrawing my nomination. Please stop asking the same question over and over while ignoring the answers you get. Guy Macon (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what you wrote was: "If I see the above-mentioned indications of notability incorporated into the article (especially the "published in print" claim), I will withdraw my nomination for deletion."[6] Of course, the article has for over a year and a half[7] had the "published in print claim" with attribution that "Dark Horse Comics republished in June 2009 the first volume of compiled strips". But apparently you want to add something else to the article. What's preventing you from adding the things you want to this article? Rangoondispenser (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Before I can answer the above question, you need to tell me what it was about the last two answers to the same question that triggered your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. Guy Macon (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.darkhorse.com/Books/16-026/Sinfest-Volume-1 says:
• Web traffic on Sinfest.net averages 1.7 million unique visitors per month and 300,000 page hits per day.

• "After seven years and counting, Tatsuya Ishida shows every indication of maturing into a cartoonist on the level of Bill Watterson and Walt Kelly." -The Comics Journal, "50 Excellent Comics from 2007"

• "The best webcomic out there." -comicsworthreading.com

• " . . . Sinfest offers many laughs; it may be brutally funny, but it is dead honest and refreshing." -Publisher's Weekly

So hopefully that answers the question about Dark Horse publishing it and it being notable. Dream Focus 19:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• As I mentioned in the AFD, and reliable source quoted can easily be found on its own website. Publisher's Weekly's review is at [8]. Dream Focus 03:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't ask whether dark Horse was notable. I clearly stated my conclusion that it was, and asked another question entirely, ("Does this republishing count as being published by an independent publisher, or is it an extension of Ishida's earlier self-publishing?") which you failed to address. It's a moot point (which I also previously stated) but I am still curious as to what the answer is. Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

My last post was something that came up in the AFD before it closed. Perhaps I should've put that bit in another section. Dream Focus 04:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the characters section?

That was the best! Lots of interesting details and all well cited. Anyone mind if I just find the last revision and copy it back? --Billpg (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It was excessively long with too much in-universe detail, apparently. Can't say as I disagree with the editor who trimmed it. DP76764 (Talk) 21:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

IMO, we were much closer to the ideal back then than the absolutely pitiful section we have now. [9] --Billpg (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

(I'd like to apologise for my intemperate language in my earlier comment.) --Billpg (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles exist for those who are interested in reading the information, not those who just want everything to be short and uninteresting to anyone. Those who don't like it, can easily ignore it. You can revert anything you disagree with. Dream Focus 22:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who did it this, but I heartily agree with her/him. Two sentences or so should be enough for each character. Why? Because anything longer than that is bound to expand into textually disjointed essays over-brimming with information coloured by fanboyesque adoration. It does not make for a good read, that at least is my personal opinion. More importantly: the longer the article, the more potential for disagreement. It's easy to slide into speculations (today I removed something stating that Li'l Evil "may be the Devil's son", and personal interpretations of characters personalities and motifs that everyone may not agree with - spawning edit wars. My point is: Keep it brief, and we will have a text which is a both a better read and reflects what we all agree on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.249.98 (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to keep more details, then someone should create an article similar to List of Firefly characters. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Sinfestbookcovervol1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sinfestbookcovervol1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 20 June 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Sinfestbookcovervol1.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

LIl' E's Mother

I don't know for sure which comic number mentioned this, but it was called Sinfest Nights and it showed a lady named Eve, who remarkably resembled Lil'E's mother, being encouraged to dump Adam and eat the forbidden fruit by the Devil. I may be wrong, but I think Lil' E's mother is Eve. I am not going to change anything because, again, I'm not sure that I'm correct, but if anyone confirms my theory they are welcome to change the page and give Lil'E's mother a name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.155.147 (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1