Talk:Girly

What?

What the heck does "cutpaste" mean?

A character that's cut-and-pasted, pretty much like the name says --SuperHappy 04:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering what that was too. And that definition still doesn't make any sense to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.150.188 (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're talking about Collete's dad. He's called Xerox (though i guess that's just his nickname since he was presented with anoter name) in the webcomic Cute-Wendy. It's just a character that's always copypasted, so he always features almost the same face (sometimes with little changes). You should just check Cute-Wendy's website. Here's his first appearance http://cutewendy.com/go/4 but a little bit later in the story he's officially acknowledged as a cut-paste character —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.16.4.88 (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

PROD

I removed the WP:PROD template before I remembered to sign in. I know Wikipedia's undergone a few new standards, but I'm pretty certain this article can be edited appropriately without any trouble. I'll see if I can flag down the original author of this article so he can do something about it. I also added this to the list of articles that need work over at Wikiproject: Webcomics --SuperHappy 04:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have for now added the appropriate cleanup tags - but if the lack of third-party sources and indications for notability is not addressed, this'll have to go to AfD at some time. Sandstein 05:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely all of these are addressed now - two separate important webcomics review sites, the news of its creator using the comic as a fulltime job, and the nomination for an award ought establish notability. Phil Sandifer 21:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Dragonfiend...

There was a Deletion Review on this. The deletion was overturned. Let it go. --SuperHappy 19:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Expert undeletion

The AFD was clueless, an academic expert on comics has undeleted it as notable. It lives. - David Gerard 20:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank God. If this webcomic was not seen as notable enough for Wikipedia, I would have lost all faith in the project. There are way to many delete happy editors with their finger on the trigger.--Pyritefoolsgold 06:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see it back too. -- Ryuko 09:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A pity I missed the fun. Glad to see this restored, since it's definitely notable. It's one of those "If you don't think this is notable, you aren't qualified to edit webcomic articles anymore" ones. :) Xuanwu 07:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

And yet the article on Josh Lesnick is persistantly absent. One step at a time, I guess.... Natedubya 18:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

MMK a main character?

What qualifies MMK as a main character? Just because "every webcomic needs a cute weird non-human pet main character lol" isnt much of a reason, MMK seems much less "main" than Policeguy, for example. Yeah, I know it's listed like that on the girly page itself, and I'm just speaking from my own dislike of what seems to be the single "just like every other webcomic" element of an otherwise-unique comic, but still. Policeguy's had his own storylines, MMK doesnt even have her own color ;)

I realize this was a recent change (the deletion of the whole rest of the characters section), and while I agree the old one was too long, I'd suggest keeping everyone involved in the current "Mixed up" storyline, as the comic seems to have focused on them for a while now:

* Otra
* Winter
* MMK (grumble grumble)
* Officer Policeguy
* Chuy
* the time travelling fasion scout clone secret agent whose name I can't spell
* Autumn (maybe)
* Fortune Teller Lady (maybe)

74.224.88.186 14:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean Collette by "the time travelling fasion scout clone secret agent", perhaps Officer Hipbone could be included as well. --Aclapton 01:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I just made the page inaccurate.

wendy.dreamhost.com was dead, so I replaced that text with "go-girly.com". However, I dont know if the dates were the same for that. I assume they are, since it's still dreamhost, but as for the time go-girly was registered (and wendy.dreamhost stopped working), I don't know.

wendy.dreamhost.com is just the name of the server Girly and Slipshine are hosted on. It's not a website URL, which is why it's not linked. --SuperHappy 19:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Then shouldnt .dreamhost.com be linked? --Vstarre 13:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nah. --SuperHappy 20:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Winter's age

On the page, it says

• Winter - Winter is Otra's girlfriend. She is 18 years old

But I don't remember this ever being mentioned in the comic. Does anyone know where this was said? Or is this something Josh Lesnick wrote himself? Fyrius 18:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned it in the character profiles a while back. I've since taken the info down from my site, as I do plan to bring it up within the comic itself soon, but it's become common knowledge among the readers anyway. --SuperHappy 21:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the current ages to 26 and 19 and added the references from the comic. I realise that the characters have aged during the progression of the story but current ages seems like the most sensible choice. --Peter Ballett (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Subjectivity

This article is has a bit of unwarranted positivity. The Comixpedia review link is described here as "positive," but I have just read it and I would call it "critical but very forgiving." Seriously this review has many serious critiques of Girly, as well as some things the writer thinks are somewhat successful. The review comes to no particular conclusion, there is no score given.66.41.66.213 (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree; I'm not sure how to encapsulate that, though, since most of the criticisms in the Comixpedia article amount to, "It's still new"--which, three years later, it's not. However, I did find a very negative (if hotly contested) review on Fleen to add balance to the section. I hesitated at including it, but since site owner Gary Tyrell hasn't retracted it since it was published, I figured it was fair game. I did attempt to word it in such a way to emphasize that she perceived the rape, not that it was necessarily there. Ig8887 (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like someone deleted the entire section anyway...I was considering restoring it, but I'm not sure they were wrong to do so. Yes, the article does need a Critical Response section in order to establish its context as a work of fiction (rather than just in-universe), but there wasn't really very much "meat" in that section to begin with. Two online reviews, one of which amounted to, "The jury is still out", doesn't amount to a critical response, I suppose. Does anyone have any more substantial reviews/criticism of the comic? Maybe from an LBGT publication, which would go a long way to establishing its context outside of webcomics? Ig8887 (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Kind of notes for myself

• I have been through every reference in the article and drawn more material from them where possible.
• I went through every source suggested in the Webcomic Work Group list of sources and put them in a reference list on the top of the page. These still need to be considered for inclusion in the article.
• Everything in the article not sourced is marked as such (or the section is marked).
• I note the discussions around 2006 on notability. I have added some sources from Fleen, but I feel Fleen sits at a similar level of existing sources. Given the standard for notability of " significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", the notability of this subject rests on whether Sequential Tart, Websnark, Fleen and Comixtalk a are considered reliable and provide "significant coverage". I think they are reliable enough and provide enough coverage to demonstrate notability (though I think it is only just).
• I think this article is still Start-class because of the large amount of unsourced material and that it doesn't really give a good feeling of what the plot or tone of the strip is yet.

HenryCrun15 (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

HenryCrun15 Problems in this article:

Section Main characters contains direct links these do not belong in the body of an article and should be turned into proper refs. These special links lead to a casino site from Thailand now (these must go), but the webarchive seems to contain the original content which can be used as source.

Section Plot needs to be finished (In this case the work itself is fine as source).

Gehenna1510 (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Tbhotch said on my talk page that the article doesn't meet C-class because "It is undersourced, needs a better structure and the current sections are incomplete." I agree, but there are no more sources to add to this article as it has not been written about much by reliable sources. As such I don't think this article can be improved much more and I will leave it alone. HenryCrun15 (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning the author's birthname

An editor recently removed reference to the author's birthname (aka deadname) from this article. I think this is worth discussing and I'd like to see people's views. Here are my thoughts.

• The manual of style has guidance on handling name changes, and specifically on name changes by a living transgender or non-binary person. The specific guidance for living transgender people is:

"In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the birth name with either 'born' or 'formerly'".

• This advice is in the context of an article on the subject of the person, but I think its guidance applies here, for the section in the article about the author.
• In this case, it appears to me that Jackie Lesnick was most notable at the time she was working under her birthname:
  • All non-primary sources in the Girly article predate her name change;
  • Girly, which appears to me to be her most well-known work, was written under her birthname;
  • I was not able to find any reliable sources covering Lesnick after her name change.

Based on all of this, when I apply MOS:DEADNAME, I consider that Jackie Lesnick was notable under her birthname and so it should be included in the article on Girly. That said, I think it should be brief; limited to a single "born" or "formerly" in the Author section of the article and used nowhere else. HenryCrun15 (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

That's a different story, because the article never mentions this was created by Lesnick before her transition. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, in that case I will restore the mention of the birthname. HenryCrun15 (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

• I am concerned about conflict of interest in this articles edits. Lesnick has been undoing sections of her own page relating to her birthname under the username TimeForJackie, which is her Twitter handle. Additionally it also appears that she has commented in this very Talk page in the past under her former handle SuperHappy. This vandalizing and editing her own article against the decisions made in the discussion, combined with most of the links, websites, articles and social media posts connecting to her and the work itself being no longer available anywhere is making me consider whether this Article may need to be locked, or possibly even deleted outright. What is everyone's thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:900:7910:C9CD:3B63:28ED:929C (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It's true that user TimeForJackie has edited this article once, to remove her birth name ie the name Girly was originally published under. I edited the article after that to respond to that edit. Given that TimeForJackie has only edited it once I see no need for further action, myself. HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. And she never posts on here anymore. She did in the very early years, but now its only Wikipedia editors. This article is definitely notable enough to stay. --Historyday01 (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)