Talk:Girl Genius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	comics Portal This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
More information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related work groups (general): Webcomics work group

With the move of Girl Genius to the web, I've included this page in the "List of Webcomics" that's part of the Webcomic article.

Contents 1 Merge 2 Otnar's Twitter 3 Beetleburg Transylvania Polygnostic University 4 Text Style 5 Russian Jagers? 6 Citation Needed? 7 Avoid adding un-official external links (or "linkspam") 8 Spoiler warning?

[edit] Merge

The article on Agatha Heterodyne should be merged into this article (as should articles on other characters in this comic). The guidelines for this are covered at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Fiction in Wikipedia. Generally characters in fictional works should be covered in the article on the fictional work, unless that article would then be too long.--Srleffler 04:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, both articles are basically little more than stubs at the moment, anyway. Another alternative might be to combine Agatha Heterodyne with Baron Klaus von Wulfenbach and the Heterodyne Boys as the basis of a cast page. Aclapton 00:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I say merge all four into a decent-length article. --Orange Mike 03:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we link to the Foglios' cast page? That's the first step. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Otnar's Twitter

Since the official Girl Genius site links to it prominently, I assume it's an official extension (as well as an noteworthy idea: a webcomic sans graphics) rewinn 04:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beetleburg Transylvania Polygnostic University

Appear to be listed in livejournal: http://www.livejournal.com/schools/?ctc=RO&sc=Transylvania&cc=Beetleburg http://www.livejournal.com/schools/?ctc=RO&sc=Transylvania&cc=Beetleburg&sid=93534

[edit] Text Style

Do we really need so many words rendered in italics? Or worse, BOLD CAPITALS. I for one find it rather annoying rather than charming. Rogerborg (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The quotes are used to set off words and terms which have peculiar or specialized meanings in the Girl Genius world. How would you suggest it be done? --Orange Mike | Talk 04:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Jagers?

Do Jagers have a German origin? The only German thing is their name... accent spelling looks like German, but like Russian, too. They says "W" as "V", "Th" as "V", "D" or even "Z" etc. The most suspicious are they names (there are Russian names Maxim and Dima). Ognian is rather Bolgarian than Russian. The "piece of piroshki" instead of "peace of cake" is based on the "pirog", Russian for "cake". Also, they have some Russian calls "bez-shabashnost", difficult to translate.

[edit] Citation Needed?

The last sentence of Zeetha's section has been tagged "citation needed" by an editor. The way the contributor worded this particular sentence takes into consideration the fact that there may be those that would challenge that statement. However, I believe that this is covered quite well as it stands. The sentence reads: "Some fans of the series have drawn a connection between Zeetha's slaughtering of the pirate fleet and the disappearance of DuPree's fleet" This is further covered in Bangladesh DuPree's section. I would be so bold as to say that the editor who tagged the sentence DID NOT READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE.

Let's be serious here. there is NOTHING wrong with this section exactly the way it is. Let's just leave it as it is. The editor who tagged this sentence is obviously unfamiliar with the subject matter, and is merely flexing their "editor muscles". We already have ONE Quatloo editing Wikipedia, we don't need MORE power-mad editors tilting at windmills, do we?

Osirisrising (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer to assume good faith, and see no reason to believe that one of the most commonly employed and needed tags is somehow being used to bolster some power-mad editor's lust for glory. ;] (For the record, I have no idea who "Quatloo" is, either.) It's entirely possible that whoever added the citation tag truly felt it was justified; also, Zeetha's section puts forth a specific observation on a supposed belief of the fanbase that Bangladesh's does not. It would be more productive to simply find a citation for the Zeetha/Bangladesh crossover being a popular theory by fans than to assume that a common request for a verifiable source is somehow malicious. Rachel Summers (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Avoid adding un-official external links (or "linkspam")

There is a tendency to add fan sites to external links; please keep in mind Wikipedia's policies on inappropriate external link addition and spamming noted in External links, particularly the sections on:

• Links normally to be avoided (criteria 4, 7, 11, and 12 are particularly notable as they essentially refer to and define many fan sites/communities)

• Advertising and conflicts of interest (especially if one maintains the linked fan site/community and/or is a member of the linked fan site/community)

• External link spamming

It's a common enough error, and one I think we've all done early on simply because we were eager to contribute while unaware of linking protocol. ^_^ But it's problematic as it places personal site promotion over Wikipedia's goals and policies regarding appropriate presentation of data. Rachel Summers (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler warning?

Shouldn't there be a spoiler warning somewhere on this page? It is, for instance, blatantly stated here that Agatha is the Heterodyne heir; a fact that, while central to the plot, is still only revealed in volume 3 and is an important mystery in the early story. I'm sure there are many more examples but, not having entirely caught up on this series yet, I didn't read the whole article to avoid unannounced spoilers. ;) 207.134.103.122 (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea; to be honest, the whole article should probably be revamped to include only basic information as to the story's setting and genre rather than so much information which is more properly disseminated by referring to fansites, the Girl Genius Wikia or simply reading the source material. However, this would be a more massive undertaking for the near future and I would be in favour of a spoiler warning in the meantime (along with other templates noting the need for an overhaul in order to make the article more concise and consistent with Wikipedia standards). ^_^ Rachel Summers (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

First, spoiler warnings were thrown out of the English Wikipedia almost exactly a year ago in a spectacular demonstration of how brute force and audacity can trump reasonable cooperation in an environment such as this. That's about all of the relevant details.
Second, is Agatha's heritage really a big secret anymore? It was one early in the story, but at this point it's openly stated in the website's Google search result! I can't really see a description of the comic, even a very basic one, being possible without the one fact that the entire thing revolves around^*. I had intended to mention Agatha's Heterodynehood in the intro in the aforementioned overhaul. --Kizor 17:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

--
^*: If we did manage to dance around the issue, someone who read this article would know that the comic's world awaits the coming of a heir to the Heterodyne family after its mysterious disappearance. If he then started on the comic, the first thing he'd see would be a young woman of a conspicuous age wearing a mysterious heirloom in the shape of the long-vanished legendary champions' crest, with a large invisible sign over her head bearing the words "I have a mysterious undiscovered power," not in the least helped by the fact that she poses at the top of the webpage next to the words "Girl Genius." In the article-writing biz, we might call this "defeating the point."

Personally, I'm more concerned with the article's looking more like something that belongs on a fansite or the Girl Genius Wikia than on Wikipedia. And that won't be fixed with mere spoiler warnings anyway, hence my call for a total revamp. As it is, it's a bloated mess that just gets continually added onto anytime a fan sees the opportunity to add something from a recent plot twist. Rachel Summers (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's in need of a tune-up, but it doesn't look that bad to me. A work with lots of intricate world-building and a complex cast of characters will take its space to cover. I plan to rewrite the world-building parts. The fact that there's an influx of little edits from recent developments is true, but that comes with being a wiki and is a simple editing matter.

Regardless of what is done with the article, though, mentioning or not mentioning Agatha's ancestry is a central matter. I support it for the reasons given above but would be interested in what others think. --Kizor 11:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I've no problems with openly stating Agatha's lineage; it's pretty well-established, and from early on as well. That was a concern of the anonymous IP who started this topic, so you might want to invite them to come explain their thinking if you haven't already. My only real problem with the article is that so much overly detailed exposition has been crammed in, to the point where reading the article almost seems a substitute for reading the webcomic itself--hope that makes mores sense. Rachel Summers (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked Two-oh-seven to join in on the 8th; guess he's not showing up. --Kizor 07:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)