Talk:Narbonic

Peacock Terms

Curious as to the reason behind the latest revert. See Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. As far as I can see, the change proposed was as accurate as the previous, and I'm not sure why it was reverted. I'll leave it as is for now, but would appreciate a response :) GeeJo 8 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)

Because while it may need better phrasing, it wasn't a peacock term as "Avoid peacock terms" defines it. Such terms "merely show off the subject of the article without containing any real information" -- the point of the passage you removed is how Narbonic contrasts with other popular culture productions that make frequent allusions. In Narbonic, the allusion humor is always "extra"; now matter how many allusions are made, they are "extra" and the plot is original to the story and not borrowed from the source of the allusion. Compare the relationship between "Dave Davenport Has Come Unstuck In Time" and its obvious allusive source, Slaughterhouse Five, with the relationship between, say, Sluggy Freelance's "Kittens" arc and the low-budget horror movies it parodies. This is not to say that the way Narbonic handles this is better, but that in a really postmodern pop culture landscape, the fact that Narbonic abounds in allusion but never indulges in parody is significant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 8 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)

It isnt so much the "extra" part that seems unencyclopedic, as the "Narbonic has so much creative energy it does not need to borrow..." that I objected to. While the point may be valid, there are far more neutral ways of expressing it. The sentence seems more at home on a fansite than an encyclopedia. GeeJo 8 July 2005 04:25 (UTC)

I admit it needs better phrasing. A lot better. As you can probably tell from the paragraph it took me to try and explain it above, I don't seem to be having much luck coming up with that better phrasing. Any suggestions are most welcome. -- Antaeus Feldspar 9 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)

Which was what my change amounted to really. The point contained in the second part of the sentence (being the extra references) was retained, but the flattery in the first part was removed. GeeJo 9 July 2005 05:48 (UTC)

Stylistic Edits

I made some stylistic changes here and there, moving some information from the overview to the character sections for brevity. - Anon. 5-12-06

I'm thinking of editing this page a bit. Now that the comic has finished, it should probably have spoiler warnings about the ending - specifically the character profiles currently reveal the ending(!) However, I though I'd see if anyone else was watching this and had an opinion before I just barged ahead. Anyone? Tim 11:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

External links

I've changed the external links in the intro paragraph to internal links, since external links belong to that section. One editor said it was unlikely articles would be written on those subjects, which prompts me to ask why they are mentioned here and/or what makes this topic notable? Fagstein 06:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not at all uncommon for an external site to be relevant to the subject at hand but not of broader interest. The former website of this clearly notable webcomic is a good example. I'm reverting again. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If the external website is related to the article, it should be included in External Links. People expect internal links in article texts (and especially article intros) and I don't see the point in having an external link to a website that doesn't even clearly explain itself. Fagstein 07:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Put it in the external link section. If "The Nice" is something particularly relevant or interesting, start an article on the subject. SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Pay per view

I can't tell. What's sponsoring the comic at this point? I found a passage explaining that the comic had moved to a pay-per-view comics site, but it's not located there anymore (I've started at the very beginning and am working my way toward the now). Is the comic still pay-per-view (something I doubt, since I haven't seen it mentioned) or, if not, what's supporting it? -Litefantastic 02:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The comic had been at a pay site for some years. It was never "pay-per-view": the current strip could always be viewed for free, and a sample of the archives was also available at no charge. A subscription to the site was required to view the full archives, but this also gave full access to every comic on the site. (Modern Tales hosts a number of quality comic serials.)

It is currently sited at a webcomic hosting service. I don't know if anyone other than the cartoonist herself is sponsoring it. But it's a markedly inexpenisve host, and is easily affordable by anyone of modest means. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that's a reasonable answer, though it doesn't answer my question. I think this would be relevent to the actual article, though. My only experience lies in other sites - the NY Times website (which is free, but requires a subscription) requires users to log in. I didn't see any of that here. -Litefantastic 03:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Narbonic used to be on Modern Tales, which required a subscription to view anything other than the latest comic. Narbonic recently moved to Webcomics Nation and became a completely free comic. -- Dragonfiend 03:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah. That makes sense. Thank you. -Litefantastic 03:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

New Sample Strip?

If somebody has some spare time, we might replace the sample strip with one that is less dependent on a reader's prior knowledge of the ongoing narrative. The current one is one big in-joke. (I just tried to find one and ended up happily re-reading the strip archives for 40 minutes at my desk. That was great, but I really must stop now.) AEW 18:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

References to other webcomics

A mad scientist in their convention is a dead ringer of Kevyn Andreyasn of Schlock Mercenary, who claims he's not mad but wears antimatter grenades on his shoulders. --Kizor 19:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a few more. I know the first one is from Questionable Content; what're the others from? (The Alzheimer's line isn't a Something Positive reference, is it?) ozy` talk 08:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And here we have some of the cast of 1/0 (post-apocalyptic incarnations) in the background, in several of that week's strips. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That reference, however, is already mentioned in the article. ozy` talk 21:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Suicide: Questionable Content, Assault: GPF, Alzheimers: Something Positive, Miscarriage: Todd & Penguin. Though I'd say those references are of a different class from the various cameos. Ralphmerridew 15:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There are a large number of cameos in that storyline (Casey & Andy from Casey & Andy, and elsewhere Gav from Nukees). Ralphmerridew 15:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There's also reference to Shanna Cochran of Fans! in the Lovelace Affair storyline.

Antonio Smith, Forensic Linguist

I propose that the heading for this character's subsection be changed to "ANTONIO SMITH, FORENSIC LINGUIST," as in the comic. --Shay Guy 03:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose not. Too many misunderstandings among the non-Narbonic fans (shockingly, there are some). Lots42 (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

More characters

Added character descriptions for Lovelace, Bill, Seth, Eric and Freddy, Iris, and the Daughter. Jeremicus rex (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Mell and Sergio

There is no evidence or mention of Sergio in Narbonic continuity, despite previous comics of her mentioned, I'm not even sure what the second clause here is trying to say, but I don't think it's grammatical. 92.3.26.165 (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)