Talk:SpinnWebe

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 February 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus, defaults to keep.

Comics: Webcomics Low‑importance

	Comics portal 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, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Webcomics.

Untitled

Just a comment... I just can't believe that, of all people, I am the one who created the Wikipedia article on Spinnwebe... Schuminweb 02:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hah!

I, too, am amused by this. There's a certain connected irony to it.

Thanks, Ben. (Incidentally, not something I ever thought I'd be saying, either.)

--Spinn 01:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye, please!

Mrlukeplease 20:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rosenfelder and Zompist.com?

I'm vagually certain that Mark Rosenfelder of Zompist.com is a sometime contributor or is in some other way connected to this site... How? and is this notable enough to add to the article? --86.135.217.213 02:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not recreate already deleted material

This article was already voted for deletion with the decision to delete (Spinnwebe AFD). It seems that some people from the website again came back to recreate the deleted material. This is not acceptable. User:JohnRussell in particular participated greatly in the recreation of the page, though it can not be said if he was aware that the page had already been decided to be deleted.--Jersey Devil 06:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is John Russel's involvement significant here? And for that matter, who is John Russel? --Spinn 15:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also: followed Wikipedia's guidelines for If you disagree with the consensus (third paragraph), so this should not be considered unacceptable. --Spinn 18:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Case

Please review the votes/dialog that led to the original deletion. When you consign something to the memory hole, it seems to me you should have a rather stronger case than, "Yeah, whatever," which seemed to be the general tone of the votes. Also, factual errors appeared in the some of the votes to delete.

It may well be that Spinnwebe doesn't merit listing in Wikipedia. If so, please make that case concretely, on its own merits.

Disclaimer: I am an assistant edtior for Spinnwebe's feature A1-AAA AmeriCaptions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ewhac (talk • contribs) .

Speedy deletion defense

Posted it on the Speedy deletion page. --Spinn 18:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove Speedy delete template

Please don't remove the speedy delete template. It is incredible that users would sink to that low to try and save this article.--Jersey Devil 00:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you interpreting this as "sinking so low"? Here's what I see for the guidelines I mention earlier:

If you think that an article was wrongly deleted, you can recreate the article. If you do decide to recreate it, pay careful attention to the reasons that were proffered for deletion. Overcome the objections, and show that your new, improved work meets Wikipedia article policies. It can help to write down the reasons you think the article belongs on Wikipedia on the article's discussion page. If you manage to improve on the earlier version of the article and overcome its (perceived) shortcomings, the new article cannot be speedily deleted, and any attempt to remove it again must be settled before the community, on AFD.

I didn't remove the template, but I didn't disagree with its removal, either. I thought the article was wrongly deleted on the grounds it wasn't notable; I updated the article to show it's notable. The guideline doesn't indicate what review process there is to remove the speedy delete tag, so from my point of view showing its notability makes it a done deal. How is that sinking low?

Also please try to overcome your preconceptions. It looks like you think I'm orchestrating this or there are a number of people "connected to the site" who are unreasonably keeping the listing alive. But 1) I don't understand your criteria for "connected to the site", because for the most part these aren't people who have actually done work on the site, but people who are interested in it; 2) if interested parties can be disregarded in the question of an article's existence, who's left to say anything about it? and 3) since the notability issue has been sufficiently resolved in the positive, what's left in the AfD that makes the article worth deleting? --Spinn 00:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scribs article text

If the Scribs article doesn't survive its AfD, its text will be unavailable. For convenience, I've pasted it below, as source material for a shorter section within the SpinnWebe article. Zompist 05:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scribs is a minimalist humor webcomic, created by Greg Galcik of SpinnWebe.

The comic has gained popularity with its constant surreal behavior in the completely minimalist world. It centers around two main, nameless characters of a similar appearance (though one has hair or perhaps fire -- it's been a topic of debate in the comic itself -- on its head). The comic often makes jokes out of being so minimalist, with a complete lack of props most of the time, apart from in a few episodes.

The comic also features a Q&A section, where readers send in questions and the two scribs answer them in comic form.

Scribs is updated with new comics three times per week, on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.

Story

Scribs consists of some stand-alone comics, though most of the comics fall into one of a series of story arcs. Arcs may be comprised of just a few comics, or sometimes many, and if a particular comic is part of an arc is noted above the strip. Certain story arcs are revisted; a recurring arc features the two scribs attempting to divine their gender[1] -- by kissing each other -- to no avail, and "mini scribs", that is, smaller versions of the main scribs, have appeared[2] and reappeared[3] on several occasions. One arc features the scribs staging a strike[4], wherein they refuse to engage in any humor, until a scab arrives[5] in the form of Jack Pendley[6], an independent comic contractor. In another arc, the Scribs comics are drawn on paper and scanned (as opposed to the usual method of being created on the author's LCD tablet) and this difference in medium is discussed[7] by the scribs, demonstrating just how aware they are that they're comic strip characters. This fourth-wall self-awareness is a common theme in the Scribs comics.

Whoo a non-decision has been not-made!

And thus does Ruby and Jersey Devil's (Mostly [8]) Ill-Informed Deletion Run of Aught-Six [9] [10] [11] [12] come to a close.

Until someone else trips over the SpinnWebe article and nominates it again, anyway.

--Spinn 18:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're one for five. That's practically a mandate!--Notmydesk 18:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This again, maybe you should put the Feb. 3rd result to delete at the top of the talk page as well. Furthermore, a delete vote and a no consensus reached by meatpuppets is by no means a "mandate".--Jersey Devil 19:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a "meatpuppet". Nor is Tony Sidaway, who thoughtfully contributed to the afd discussion. Nor were many others. Go edit another page which you find more interesting and notable, and have a nice day. KWH 19:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least it appears he read something someone else wrote. He didn't understand it, but that's a good start.--Notmydesk 19:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I would consider part of The (Mostly) Ill-Informed Deletion Run of Aught-Six. But sure, here it is anyway if anyone cares. And I thought you weren't going to be bothering with these pages anymore? I wasn't trying to start a whole argument, I just figured you weren't going to be reading it. --Spinn 19:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from mocking other users. As Jersey Devil said, no consensus is nothing to be proud of. Why don't you start working on making this article verifiable and good so that it won't be nominated for deletion again? Thank you. Chick Bowen 22:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say spinn was expressing frustration, not pride. Several people worked to add verification to the article and to bring up reasons for notability in the Afd discussion. As the admin in charge, you'd be in a great position to explain why this didn't meet your standards. Zompist 22:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, yeah, without getting into a big gripefest...just me venting some steam. It'd been a long and arduous, er, discussion. --Spinn 01:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but Zompist has a point. I'd concede the article might not be that great, but the AfD was about notability and verifiability, and in my opinion both of those were satisfied. Not really sure what else can be done there. --Spinn 01:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scribs

The consensus of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scribs was to merge Scribs into this article; I have now done so. Chick Bowen 22:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure all this detail on Scribs makes sense here. Shouldn't it just be a one-liner like the other items? --Spinn 01:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

picture

This article needs a picture. Since User:spinn = Galcik (apparently), perhaps he will consider releasing a picture into the public domain? Maybe a picture of Galcik himself, or a representitive shot from DFC or IDL or scribs or whatever. The old screenshot pic was enh. Just a thought.Herostratus 15:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is that photo of Galcik from the Starbucks trip, but something tells me that's not exactly suitable for an encyclopedia. However, with this article being about a Web site, a screen shot, or at least the SpinnWebe logo, would be most appropriate. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The logo would be OK, but of course boring and conventional. I don't see any reason that the pic shouldn't give more a sense of the site, so some possible suggestions are:

From that same Starbucks trip, the picture of spinn's shadow.
Something from IADL. For instance, the one with the two guys sitting across from each other in the booth with the caption "Do you ever feel... not so fresh?" That caption is included in the .JPG, and the real (Wikipedia) caption is something like "Screenshot from SpinnWebe's It's A Dysfunctional Life showing the zany results of combining random pictures with user-submitted captions."
The Nipple Server, the cat, or whatever. The squid, maybe.
Or let there be a contest. On SpinnWebe, not here. Herostratus 00:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits/removals

Knowing what I know now about Wikipedia's notability standards, I cut out a bunch of the article, because frankly it was kind of embarrassing being there. Scribs probably never deserved its own article in the first place, and just merging it here made it kind of obnoxious. I just bulleted the highpoints of some of the site that could be considered vaguely notable, and removed quite a lot of the rest.

I like the structure I put in, but not so much the writing. Feel free to reword things.

During the AfD process, Zompist said something about the site being notable for being an early example of user interactivity. I think that might be kind of useful to put in "origin" or "history" or something, but I couldn't think of a way to do it that didn't sound egotistical of me. Not sure if it's worth mentioning or not.

--Spinn 21:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I made a few changes. Mostly, I just tried to tighten up the wording a little and emphasize the participatory nature of many of the projects on the site -- let me know what you think. It may need better coverage of the older features, like the Nipple Server and 1-900 (especially the Nipple Server, since some of the citations talk about it specifically. Patrick Bradley 22:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Site down, worth a note?

Since the "also on spinnwebe" parts are currently incorrect until I get the site back up, I was going to put in a "site down due to server move, pending Galcik getting off his butt and putting it all back" note, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate. --Spinn 15:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. Herostratus 17:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But then "other highlights" is incorrect. But it doesn't seem to make sense to remove it... --Spinn 18:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Herostratus. I'm a fan of yours, Spinn, but Wikipedia is not "What's the status on Spinn's site today?" Stev0 23:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's kinda not what I mean...I mean, if it were someone else's page I probably would've just done it, but I know the weirdness of approaching it myself.

I mean, like this. If I go to a Wiki page, I see "this site contains these nine things", and then I go to that site and they're not there, it looks like Wiki's info is wrong. I don't expect to see "the site will be down at 5am this Thursday for maintenance" in Wikipedia, but given that it's been in this state since April (and honestly, no real idea when it'll be back to its previous self), it seemed like more than a daily update kinda thing. --Spinn 14:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might possobly be worth a note that the site occasionally does go down, and when it does, it reverts to a straight blog format. I remember when this happened in 2000, and the site reverted to that format. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. DenisMoskowitz 22:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+ {{Out of date}}

I've added an out of date template to the article. Neither AmeriCaptions nor Brainshots appear to be current features -- there may possibly be other issues with the content. 71.62.123.39 (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Infamously bad machine translation"??

"Spinnwebe" might not be the most common or current word for a spiderweb, but it is certainly not an infamously bad translation. Most or all German speakers would understand immediately and recognize it as a legitimate word, even if it wasn't their first choice. It's in Duden, where it isn't tagged as regional, old fashioned, or any other tags for that matter.

Therefore I'm removing the claim about bad translation. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]