Talk:Scary Go Round

This article was nominated for deletion on October 6 2004. The result of the discussion was keep.

Notability?

I did a bit of googling and I didn't find any indications of Scary Go Rounds notability. Article itself doesn't have any sources for this either. Is this comic truly notable? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Isvaffel 11:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See article updates and #Notability Criteria below.-Wikianon 15:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo is based on a real person?

Could I see a citation for the claim made that Hugo is based on a real cartoonist who shares his name? IMFromKathlene 03:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed on the official message board for Scary Go Round. ( http://www.dumbrella.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=8498 ) Apparently Hugo Rodriguez is an old in-joke; here ( http://www.dieselsweeties.com/archive.php?s=626 ) is a link to a page with a cartoon ostensibly drawn by "Hugo Rodriguez" which appears in fact to have been doodled by John A. Ventifax 22:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Hugo appeared in WIGU ( http://www.overcompensating.com/adventures/index.php?comic=240 ) and others. He was an old Keenspot joke, and many that circle of artists had a Hugo bit hiding somewhere ten years ago. Yakksoho (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul

Made several (much-needed) additions to...everything. Hopefully it's enjoyed? :D Dr. ROFLPWN 12:32 PST, 22 September 2006

Character headshots

I was thinking about putting a little headshot of each character next to their info in the character list. However... I have no idea whether that would go over with the more anal-retentive Wiki overlords. Is that many (small) images still safe to consider fair use? Are characters from Some Guy's webcomic too non-notable to justify having a bunch of images housed on the site? It would be a fair amount of work to put edit and upload them all, so, I just want to know what the chances are that it will get undone before I decide to do it. --Steve-o 03:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest not bothering as there is a cast page on the SGR site. Ventifax 03:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about that guy Will who used to try to charm Tessa until he was killed? --vivacissamamente 10:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Moon, the girl Shelley just picked up from the airport? [1] --Martinship 08:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have headshots of many people such as Moon, for my own sake in trying to re-identify recurring characters, and could upload them all, but... I wanted to show some restraint by only doing the characters listed as "major". If/when that list changes around I will add more portraits, but I think it's unnecessary to have a headshot for all of the people in the minor character list. In any case, I just updated Hugo's since he's finally appeared in the new hand-drawn style. I didn't like that his was the only one in the article done in Illustrator. --Steve-o 21:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I just logged in for the first time in a couple months to find that an anonymous editor removed all the headshots in November without any justification, and that all the images were then immediately detected as orphaned and deleted. I'm kind of ticked off. I still have the images, but I am loathe to rewrite the fair use justifications for the images. How do I go about getting the pictures back? The notices on my user talk page are by a bot run by User:Betacommand who is now apparently banned, so... advice, anybody? --Steve-o Stonebraker (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbins

In the introductory segment of the article, there is a repeated reference to "the Bobbins era", but the Bobbins comic it refers to is not mentioned earlier. Also, there apparently is no entry for the Bobbins comic, as all links to it from this article and the John Allison article lead to Bobbin. I think someone who is familiar with the comic should briefly explain what Bobbins is in the introduction. 81.197.67.221 08:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph currently begins "Scary Go Round started on June 4, 2002, roughly following on from Allison's previous comic, Bobbins." That edit seems to pre-date your question, so I'm not sure what the confusion is...? Bobbins is also mentioned in the external links. Perhaps the problem is the wikilink to Bobbin, which seems irrelevant, so I have removed it.

If the intent behind that link was to refer to the Other Uses section of that article ("a load of bobbins"), I suggest that should be done in the introduction or a trivia section, or better still in the article for John Allison; and not in Shelly's description. Spiral Wave 17:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wikilink was to Bobbins, which, before the webcomic AFD storm of February, used to exist, but got deleted. I recently resurrected it from a 2006 archive and rewrote it (cutting the minor characters) and restored the wikilink here and in John Allison - it now hopefully meets Wikipedia:Notability (web) requirements. That explains why User:81.197.67.221 could not find it. I also fixed the external link which was to a cybersquatter.-Wikianon 14:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Criteria

I'm adding this section copied from Wikipedia:Notability (web) here to help unfamiliar editors assess this webcomic's notability and verifiability with my suggested answers in bold:-Wikianon 15:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content^[1] is deemed notable based on any one of the following criteria.

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
Proposed answer. Offline independent sources: Sunday Times, The Morning Star. Online independent sources: Michael Whitney review in Webcomics Examiner; Tama Leaver interview; Leah Fitzgerald interview; Stephen Gerding interview; Brian Warmoth interview-Wikianon 15:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.^[2] except for the following:
  - Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.^[3]
  - Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.
The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.^[4]
Proposed answer. In 2003 it won Outstanding Original Digital Art, and in 2005 and 2007 it won Outstanding Comic in the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards.-Wikianon 15:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;^[5]
Proposed answer, started in Modern Tales, now self hosted. Offline distribution: since 2002 seven paperback books published-Wikianon 15:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
except for:
- Trivial distribution such as hosting content on entertainment-like sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)

Result: all three pass so overall passes.-Wikianon 10:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ Discussions of websites should be incorporated (with a redirect if necessary) into an article about the parent organization, unless the domain-name of the website is the most common way of referring to the organization. For example, yahoo.com is a redirect to Yahoo!. On the other hand Drugstore.com is a standalone page.
^
Examples:
- The webcomic When I Am King has been reviewed by The Guardian, Playboy, The Comics Journal, and Wired.
- The blog Daily Kos has been covered by Los Angeles Times, Time, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, and The New York Times.
^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
^ See Category:Awards for a partial list of notable awards. Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability.
^ Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais had a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial.

Sources

It seems there is a lot of weight on 2 sources which seem to be simply "Gerding" and "Fitzgerald". There needs to be a little more than names to verify a claim. Could anyone expand on them, please? I thought I'd mention it here before I removed/"Fact"ed them. Rehevkor (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008 updates

Much of the information on this page was out of date, and it seemed inappropriately exhaustive (the Characters section was a seemingly endless list of virtually every character who had ever appeared). I put up a new version which was reverted by a bot with a faulty "report false positives" link. Perhaps someone can compare the old version with mine and craft a compromise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.209.85 (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image permission

Please see my post at Talk:List of webcomics#Image permissions needed concerning the image used on this article and elsewhere. -84user (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Scary Go Round. 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) 04:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Discussions of websites should be incorporated (with a redirect if necessary) into an article about the parent organization, unless the domain-name of the website is the most common way of referring to the organization. For example, yahoo.com is a redirect to Yahoo!. On the other hand Drugstore.com is a standalone page.

[2] Examples:
The webcomic When I Am King has been reviewed by The Guardian, Playboy, The Comics Journal, and Wired.

The blog Daily Kos has been covered by Los Angeles Times, Time, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, and The New York Times.

[3] The webcomic When I Am King has been reviewed by The Guardian, Playboy, The Comics Journal, and Wired.

[4] The blog Daily Kos has been covered by Los Angeles Times, Time, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, and The New York Times.

[3] Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

[4] See Category:Awards for a partial list of notable awards. Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability.

[5] Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais had a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]