Talk:The Adventures of Dr. McNinja

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 16 July 2022, see discussion.
Keep, 10 June 2006, see discussion.
Delete, 14 January 2006, see discussion.
Speedy delete, 9 November 2005, see discussion.
Delete, 20 October 2005, see discussion.

	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.

Undelete?

I agree that this subject is worthy of being in Wikipedia. The number of hits and the rank on Alexa indicate that it is a relevant topic to a fairly large number of people. Doesn't that qualify it for inclusion, even if you can't reference all the blog/forum posts that back up that conclusion? --Stellis 04:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd say yes, but McNinja's problem is it's been deleted several times. That builds up a lot of prejudice against it among some Wikipedians, and they'll need a lot of convincing to support its undeletion. It'll have to meet WP:WEB unambiguously. Personally, I'm hoping it picks up a WCCA or two this year. I think it deserves it anyway. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 05:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comixpedia

There is a version of the Dr. McNinja article over on Comixpedia's Wiki. I recommend working on that one and getting it into shape. If there's an example of a solid article ready to go, it will help its undeletion along. You can access it at: Comixpedia:The Adventures of Dr. McNinja. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 05:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to vote at the undelete page for Dr.McNinja above (#2). I also havea nice draft there. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 23:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Result Notice

This article was the subject of an AfD debate closed on June 22, 2006. The result was Keep. Xoloz 16:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting authors here

Chris Hastings and Kent Archer now exist as redirects to The Adventures of Dr. McNinja. That is why I removed links to them from the main article. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 15:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cameos / Shortpacked

Dr. McNinja was not shown as a filthy cartoonist in disguise (like Penny Arcade's Gabe as Cardboard Samurai, BTW), but as a rare exception of it.

Real City

In the alt-text for Issue 8 Page 20 the writer tells us "Dr McNinja lives in a real city, and I have now given you all the clues you need to figure it out". Anyone? Andrewwyld 10:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• here is the area pointed at on the map: http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?formtype=address&addtohistory=&address=%5b690%2d699%5d%20Haddon%20Ave&city=Cumberland&state=MD&zipcode=21502&country=US&location=7JxABr%2bj2uKeKul8YtxMoPARqzsq5FsAkHpLmOxWiwHU%2bCzZM43EtpZVgg9Nx8fvWAARhSfNZ8zMRTxQfP4O%2f3sloKJhq4LqcR8PYpRqpLcMeEORPUwZtYUCaj5rh%2beUlVCCZtcTTL1azMqFSTjdxQ%3d%3d&ambiguity=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.221.43 (talk) 05:20, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Chris Hastings

Chris Hastings...Cumberland Maryland...Is this Chris Hastings BW Class of 2001?Lasersnake 12:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Why is the background of the only image for this webcomic blurred? It's not like that in the actual comic... Perhaps a different image should be used if there's concern over the word "motherfucker" which is already covered up in the comic but implied http://www.drmcninja.com/page.php?pageNum=33&issue=2 Sean 01:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my fault--I was trying to focus on McNinja himself, but it didn't work quite the way I wanted in Photoshop. I'll give it another shot. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 14:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. ~ PH DrillSergeant...§ 14:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frans Rayner

I may be off, but I always thought this character was a poke at the American Ninja series of movies and the charcter, if not either (any of?) the actors. I bring it up in case the active contributors wish to check it out. IMHO (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

Why, exactly, is this article listed as "Unreferenced"? It's a Webcomic. There aren't any "reliable, third party" discussion on it, as all discussion on it tends to be on forums, blogs, and other generally "Not Wiki-reliable" sources. You can't really link to the "episodes in which (something) is mentioned" as each "issue" is put up one page at a time over the course of months and you basically have to read the whole thing as it comes up for it to make any sense. I don't really think that a Webcomic needs any more reference or citation beyond "Here's the URL for the comic, go read it for yourself if you're that interested in the minutiae" in the infobox. Purely IMHO, of course. Commander Zulu (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Wikipedia content must comply with the encyclopaedias policies. Core policies include Verifiability, the idea that the content of Wikipedia articles must be verified by reliable sources, and No original research, which asserts that Wikipedia is not the place to put forth unpublished writings of its editors. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source; ideally, all of its content should be referenced to existing, independently published writings. It's unacceptable to have sections of articles consisting of reams of paragraphs added by editors with no concern for where the information is coming from. How is the reader supposed to be able to rely on something just made up by anonymous contributors? I could edit this article as an I.P. and write that Dr. McNinja hates Johnny Cash and is in fact a huge Stockhausen fan; by what rationale could anyone dispute that according to your philosophy? No, if Dr. McNinja is a fan of Cash, it ought to be relatively easy to confirm this by providing an inline citation to the issue in question, which is fairly easy seeing as the issues are staticly archived [1]. Your arguments seem to come down to "...but it's a webcomic"; see Gunnerkrigg Court for an example of a webcomic article that is extensively referenced. If something cannot be verified, it does not belong in an encyclopaedia, plain and simple. Regards, Skomorokh 02:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is not a link to the webcomic itself a reference enough for at least 99% of the material in this article, if not all of it? I'm sure that all facts in this article concerning the authorship, story, and characters can easily be confirmed by reading the material available at www.drmcninja.com. It is not necessary to link to every single sub-page on the website, a link to the website itself should be adequate. If you feel that it would enrich other people's experiences to add citations to individual subpages on the Dr. McNinja website to every sentence in this article, then feel free to do so, but if you are not going to do that then do not expect other people to do so for you. 70.246.211.95 (talk) 10:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea is that someone should not have to browse all 14 episodes some containing well over 40 pages, to find one instance. Dr. McNinja hates the woods around his office should link to the page he says that, not every page ever written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.177.7 (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is still reading this thread... I am the one who put the cleanup tag (or, now, tags) on the article, and if you have questions you may contact me. A long time ago I was going to adopt this article as a pet project and clean it up, but I got distracted and it was just too overwhelming (really the article just needs to be rewritten from scratch in someone's userspace, and then this can be replaced with that). As Skomorokh pointed out, you can look at Gunnerkrigg Court or Megatokyo for examples of proper sourcing in webcomics articles; as of now, Gunnerkrigg is the only webcomics Good article and Megatokyo is the only webcomics Featured article (I'm not sure if it would pass FA if it were re-reviewed right now, but it's at least a good model to look at). —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Addendum Another good example to look at is The Order of the Stick; the article still has some issues, but Ig8887 has done a lot of work to clean up much of it, and it can serve of an example of how to acceptably do an article that has lots of in-universe information, plot summary, etc. (which seems to be what this article is like now, and Gunnerkrigg Court has very little in-universe stuff like that so might not give you as much to use as a model). —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tags from this article for the simple reason that it's just unrealistic to expect this article to have FA-level referencing. It's a webcomic. It's a very funny webcomic. It is popular. Butit's also not (unfortunately) a Read By Nearly Everyone On The Internet webcomic the way Order of the Stick or Penny Arcade is. It's not going to be the subject of an article in a Peer Reviewed Journal. Therefore, it doesn't need to be referenced beyond "Here's the URL for the comic, read it all yourself if you're that determined to satisfy yourself that Dr. McNinja's parents live in a cave." To look at it another way: We don't ask for DVD time-markers in Wiki articles on movies ("At the 12:32 mark Character X remarks they wished they had a pony"), and I don't see Webcomics as being any different to that. Sure, some of the other Webcomic articles on Wiki are exhaustively researched- because they need to be. Dr. McNinja doesn't take itself too seriously (which is part of the appeal), and as such it really doesn't need to be exhaustively referenced. Commander Zulu (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The article is chock full of original research, speculation, and unnecessarily detailed plot summary; these are the kinds of things that, if there is no source for them, should be removed.

And, to be honest, I don't think you should give up so freely on sources. Lots of webcomics that are less widely read than, say, Megatokyo, still can have good articles written about them. Take Gunnerkrigg Court, for example. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you prepared to do all the work to make this an acceptable article? If not, then why do you object to just leaving it alone? Commander Zulu (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not going to do the work, that's what tags are for. So that someone in the future can come along and know what needs fixed. It also helps readers be wary and know to take the article with a grain of salt. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to take with a grain of salt. There's nothing in the article that is untrue or inaccurate, but it's entirely too much effort for no net benefit to go through and cite every listed thing in the article so someone trying to write a term paper on it can throw some references in to make it sound a bit better. And so what if other webcomic articles have heaps of references? Last I checked, saying "But (Other Article) has (Thing)!" was not a valid argument on Wiki. Commander Zulu (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say everything needs to get referenced; I said a lot of the junk needs to be cleaned up and trimmed. Regardless of how much work it is, Wikipedia has style and content guidelines that articles need to meet, and this one does not. I don't see why you are so adamant about removing the tags when you have already agreed that the article has problems (and problems that are so serious no one wants to try and fix them). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the article is fine. That's my objection to the tags. What sort of examples of "original research" etc in the article do you consider problematic?Commander Zulu (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I have re-tagged it and left off the OR tag. The primary sources issue and plot length issue are obvious. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Re-write Needed

This article was linked from another page so I only briefly perused it, but I noticed that as you go down the article to the (presumably) newer sections of character history the writing becomes increasingly grammatically incorrect and harder to read. Could someone with the time and inclination, and hopefully knowledge of the subject, re-write the last 3 or 4 sections of the character's history? Wiki would appreciate it, I'm sure. 64.222.94.132 (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs more re-writing than that... I started once (over a year ago now) and was soon overwhelmed, so I pretty much just gave up on this one. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Adventures of Dr. McNinja. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Adventures of Dr. McNinja. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090901200058/http://www.drmcninja.com:80/mcdonalds.html to http://drmcninja.com/mcdonalds.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Adventures of Dr. McNinja. 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) 21:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on The Adventures of Dr. McNinja. 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) 10:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]