This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join the
discussion, where you can join the project and find out how to help!Dungeons & DragonsWikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsTemplate:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsDungeons & Dragons articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the
current tasks, visit the
notice board,
the attached article or discuss it at the
project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Despite Rich mentioning, on numerous occasions, his health as a factor for OotS being delayed, it appears this aspect is being downplayed on Wiki. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
216.250.178.63 (
talk)
22:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
It is "downplayed" because it has rarely been anything more than indirectly mentioned, and the few times where it was direct topic specifics have still not been given. Frankly, there's nothing to state other than gossip and hearsay. There are quite a few reasons to not include such loose information, not the least of which being that it's not anybody's business. :P --
Human.v2.0 (
talk)
01:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I strongly disagree that it's "not anybody's business." Illnesses are notable things, and this illness also affects the release schedule of a notable work. I believe if there were a reference on the topic, it would belong in this article.
74.67.190.120 (
talk)
15:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)reply
On his blog, starting at the entry for 7/7/07 (scroll down a bit) Mr. Burlew states that he has changed the schedule of the comic from its original Monday/Wednesday/Friday format, and has cancelled numerous appearances at conventions, due to his illness. There it is, sourced, verified, and significant. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
160.39.225.251 (
talk)
22:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)reply
And if you feel the need to incorporate it, then feel free to do so. I don't find it noteworthy enough for inclusion; if for no other reason, I cannot think of a webcomic that has not had schedule changes due to personal-life/professional-life/various complications. Maybe my view on the matter is the minority. That's why I'm not removing any valid additions on the matter. I can see your viewpoint on the matter, and off the top of my head I can think of
Poison Elves/
Drew Hayes as a somewhat similar example; then again in the case of the late Mr. Hayes there was no forwarning and "dire consequences", where in this case there is mention without discussion and minor consequences. It appears, to me at least, to be a trivial matter deliberately not discussed by Mr. Burlew due to reasons of privacy and all-in-all not worthy of inclusion. You're free to do as you wish however, within the bounds of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. --
Human.v2.0 (
talk)
03:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Whoa. Since when are people on the internet thoughtful and respectful of other people's opinions? I do think Mr. Burlew's health is fairly important, but I don't really feel comfortable deciding the matter. I'll leave the info here in case somebody with a stronger opinion comes along. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
160.39.226.238 (
talk)
03:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)reply
The proper title of the comic is "
The Order of the Stick". It should not be shortened to just "Order of the Stick" (without the "The"), unless it is being quoted from a source that way. For example, if someone says "I think Order of the Stick is the best webcomic ever", then you quote it that way, but otherwise we should use "The Order of the Stick" in all instances.
129.33.19.254 (
talk)
16:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)reply
User keeps restoring OR section
There is a whole section of OR about minorities in Burlew's comic which only cites threads from his forum, which you can see in
this archived version of the page. Both
User:YITYNR and I have removed it for violating Wikipedia policies about original research, but an anonymous IP editor from Italy has reverted us each time with aggressive summaries like "it's the third time you do that and the third time i have to reverd: STOP REMOVING THIS SECTION. thanks." which also identify our edits as possible vandalism. Is it possible for an outside arbitrator to step in? The section is blatant original research based on the flimsiest self-published material of all, forum posts. The IP editor's comments are also troubling.
Eladynnus (
talk)
09:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)reply
In the time between my last edit to the page and my posting this new section on the talk page, the section has been put up again! This time their summary reads "tired of you undoing my section, you are a hater check your privileges".
Eladynnus (
talk)
09:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)reply
And now the user is restoring the section with edit summaries claiming that the issue has been discussed and been decided in his favor. He also deleted this section with a similar edit summary, apparently trying to hide the fact that they have not participated in any such discussion.
Eladynnus (
talk)
01:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Stop doing vandalism. The section is a legit recollection of posts by Rich Burlew himself. You're removing it without stating any valid reason and that's called "vandalism"
in my book. Please refrain removing my section again without providing a valid reason in order to do that. Thanks.
I did provide a reason - it's original research based exclusively on very weak and trivial self-published material, forum posts. Not only that, but some of these sources are of whole pages of posts, one of which doesn't even have any posts from Burlew in it.
Eladynnus (
talk)
10:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)reply
As a third party, I agree with Eladynnus. Wikipedia can't just add everything that an author ever says about their own work. We use reliable secondary sources to decide what is and isn't worth including in an article, and especially when it comes to due weight this is important. If no online magazine or editorial has ever written about Burlew's use of minorities in his webcomic, there is apparently no general interest or impact to it, or so we as Wikipedia should conclude. ~
Mable (
chat)
14:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)reply
All the references are original forum posts, not "some" and again, the fact it's "2vs1" against me doesn't prove that the section is useless. I'll restore it in the moment the page will become unprotected because you're deleting an entire section (which was visible for almost a year) just because your subjective opinion about the reliability of the source. Wikipedia isn't "You". — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
151.30.41.252 (
talk)
19:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)reply
And, as a matter of fact, forum posts are being used as a source EVERYWHERE, even in this very page (albeit in another section), but on this specific occasion the user decided to remove it (becuase he doesn't like it, probably) and the fact you agree with him doesn't make the action correct. You should restore the section and maybe improve it, not deleting it because reasons. Again, i'll restore it in the moment i'll be able to. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
151.30.41.252 (
talk)
19:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Well yeah, we should aim to minimize all this usage of primary sources on webcomic articles. That's how you can give due weight to topics. This isn't just the two of us talking, though: were basing this stance on guidelines on
identifying reliable sources. Webcomic articles are sadly very behind on a lot of other WikiProjects... Either way, restoring the section in the Order of the Stick article while this article is still protected is just bad practice :s Decisions on Wikipedia are made through editor concensus, is the idea, so the objections of other editors can't be brushed away with a simple "Wikipedia isn't you". ~
Mable (
chat)
07:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)reply
The section was moved because, on a second thought, it was better to put it in the webcomic article rather on the author's page, not to get around this discussion. There were removed some parts of it (which, even if referenced with sources, they were bit ambiguous) and it appears it was welcomed positively by many verified users. It should be OK now. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
151.30.107.22 (
talk)
07:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)reply