Talk:Tundra (comic strip)

Comics: Strips 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 Comic strips work group.

Alaska Mid‑importance

	Alaska portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska 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.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

a bit much on a little-known comic strip

This seems to be an awful lot of verbage for a regional comic; more like promotional material than an encyclopedia entry. Deirdre 20:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Return of Content

I have returned the eliminated Character descriptions as they contained valid information of the evolution of the characters. Although previously declared to be advertising language it is little different from the information seen in the Garfield Wikipedia page. Although Tundra is a regional comic that does not mean it's history is any less important than any national comic strip. 70.189.194.212 01:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to this as a regional comic; it just still seems to be one heck of a lot of material for a single comic, and it read, very strongly, like self-promotion rather than like an encyclopedia entry. I doubt that it is culturally that important, at least yet. I'd also like to see a name attached to the user above. Garfield is a nationally syndicated strip, with movies, 40-odd strip collections, and numerous other books and merchandise. It has a much greater influence on the public, and is therefore worth more space. This content has serious problems: for example, there's not even a bibliography here. The spelling's bad. It's just plain wordy, and it can say the same thing but more succinctly. Deirdre 20:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced the text (although not as severely as the first time), corrected spelling and tightened phrasing, added the booklist, and fixed some typos. Deirdre 21:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was never any question as to your personal opinion of the comic strip it was simply a matter of providing as much information as possible on a subject of interest. At some point you personally decided that the amount of information was too much for the popularity and marketing of the strip which is why you would compare it's cultural influence to that of Garfield somehow justifying that Garfield is more worthy of the mere kilobytes of space taken by Tundra. I never knew that simple descriptions could be considered advertisements seeing that at no point was it stated, "as seen on page seven of Tundra Three" or even a simple, "Go here to buy now." As for unbiased the article never states that Tundra is hilarious of awful or anywhere in-between it simply states facts on the characters that can be observed independently throughout the comic's history. Eliminating the change in drawing style does what for someone who wants to know more about Tundra? Nothing. Limiting the section on the Moose Nuggets to "animated Moose droppings with an agenda" is rather more confusing than if the original content remained, which is not the sign of a decent entry. Finally as for requesting a name to be attached to the entry is an attempt to attack the character of the person making the arguments rather than an attack on the arguments themselves, this is bad logic. No matter who wrote an argument be it Hawking or Joe Baggadonuts doesn't change how sound it is. There is absolutely no reason to believe that someone who allows their name to be attached to a change makes the change more valid than one who doesn't.

Sir or Madam: speaking as a professional editor and writer, it is simply more readable to be concise. Therefore I trimmed the text. I corrected spelling and grammar. I reworded for clarity. I disagree on the biased language question—one doesn't have to be blatant about bias or marketing lingo. I think that we have a difference of opinion about what constitutes valuable information or what marketing language is. The entry had nothing about the books in the series; I added that information, and I do not see that, for example, as marketing for the strip. You have not addressed the editorial changes I made in terms of clarity (other than the Moose Nuggets bit). If you want to add back information on the drawing style changes over time, go ahead, I don't care; just be succinct. And finally, I was not attempting to attack your character for not having a name; it's a) a general Wikipedia request to join the community, basically, and b) it's just plain easier to converse with someone who has a moniker rather than a computer ISP number. You've read into it any perceived attack on character. Deirdre 22:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the basic editing of punctuation and grammer was not addressed is because such changes are reasonable in order to create clarity. There is nothing wrong with improving presentation it is the elimination of any form of information that seems to be absurd. I would expect an online encyclopedia to be just that, full of information that would not usually be found elsewhere, therefore more is better as long as it's on topic. Addition of the books is both necessary and commendable but was not the point of conflict. The statement, "I'd also like to see a name attached to the user above," is not an appropriate invitation to join a community and is easily interpreted as a challenge of character. Finally your credentials are no more important to me as mine are to you, disagreeable eliminations remain as just that despite who may have performed them PhD or GED. 65.215.162.63 23:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it came off that way, then. I was expressing a personal point of view on anonymity: I personally prefer to have a name attached to the people I speak with, and it incidentally happens to be a Wikipedia policy. You're right, I could have expressed it more genially. Re my credentials--they're actually worth something, at least to me. I mentioned it because I wanted you to know that it's not just my opinion about the way the article was originally written, it's my experience and training, too. But that's really neither here nor there. This article just isn't that important to me, honestly, so have at it. Deirdre 19:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tundra (comic strip). 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) 01:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]