Jump to content

Talk:Zits (comics)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Updated The List of Books

[edit]

I've updated the list of books to included the latest book, "My Bad", as well as the previous two books since they had yet to be added and I've also added the next forthcoming book to the list as well. 75.108.14.92 (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 March 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the comics article to Zits (comics), and no consensus to move the disambiguation page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


– As well known as the comic is, I feel like this is should really be a primary redirect to pimple, which the title of the strip clearly references. When someone is searching for "zits", they have a very good chance to be searching for actual pimples and not the comic strip. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom and comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No other article would reasonably be titled Zits. For anyone who might be looking for pimple, there's a hatnote. Station1 (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you given thought to the notion that hatnotes negatively impact the quality of the hatnoted page, and titular precision positively impacts the recognisability, especially where the title stands alone, such as in the category system, wiki and url hoverlink text, and search engine results? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Search engine results are generally unaffected by article titles. Hatnotes do negatively impact the quality of articles to a small degree, but not as much as artificial titles; in any case, pimple would need a hatnote if Zits redirected there. There is sometimes also a small positive re categories, but categories are used by only a small fraction of readers, and in most cases the topic will be unambiguous because of the category it's in. The positives are far outweighed by the negative of the majority of users who search for or link to Zits being forced to an article they don't want. Station1 (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:DISAMBIGUATION doesn't say we have to have a separate article for a term, only that we have it covered elsewhere (even a section of another article) in order to more clearly disambiguate. "zits" has multiple meanings covered on Wikipedia, and the comic doesn't seem to be the primary of those meanings. -- Netoholic @ 06:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Policy is at WP:AT which quite logically says titles should be natural, concise and no more precise than necessary. Disambiguation of titles is necessary only if two titles would otherwise be identical. When not necessary, it is desirable only in rare cases. Since pimple would never be titled zit, much less zits, there's no reason to disambiguate by title rather than by hatnote. Station1 (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support first move "zits" is regularly plural. And zits means zits, on which we have an article so WP:NOTDICT doesn't apply (seems it almost never applies so why is it so frequently cited?). However neutral on second move not convinced the dab isn't more useful. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the comic strip is obviously not the primary topic for this name. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the opinion that hatnotes affect article quality is bogus; they are a necessary facet of the COMMONNAME decisions. While "Zits" can be a synonym for pimples, it's a far less used and more slang than anything else. --Masem (t) 13:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The hatnote at this article is sufficient for disambiguation IMO. SnowFire (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The majority of people would probably be looking for the pimple, Adding the "X redirects here, For X see X" template would be sufficent/ –Davey2010Talk 19:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The hatnote provides sufficient help for those who may be seeking the other page. As others have said above, the idea that hatnotes somehow detract from page quality is silly.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notion that you can decide that someone searching with "zits" wants the pimple article is pretty poor. This is the function of a search engine, with continuous AI optimization. A google search for "zits" reveals top hits for the comics, pimples and acne. A Wikipedia search for "zits" turns up top his for the comics, pimples, acne, as well as Flight (novel), Wadjet and The Ziggens, the latter three being viable possibilities on examination. DAB pages are very light, very quick to load. Zit and Zits should either go to a DAB page or invoke the search engine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAB pages are about as heavy as most averages pages on en.wiki due to the extra stuff for the header and left menu, when it comes down to byte count served to the user. This is not a very convincing argument. --Masem (t) 00:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you selecting one point in isolation? Pimple and Zit (comics) are heavy enough if the page is not what you wanted. True, when my internet connection is poor, looking at the blank page with logo and menus is pretty frustrating already, but I assure, I have pages even give up download while the images are loading. The frustration of getting the pimple article when you quickly realise you didn't want it, whether wanting acne or the comics, are the small chance of the other options, is real, and usually you have to suck it up and wait, because clicking new links, or using the back button and a bad connection usually makes things much worse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Silly? Bogus? Never in the real world do I find documents give ultrabrief titles followed by notes explaining what other topics might have been confused with that title. Have you? Hatnotes are a crutch, handling the confusion created by inadequate titling, and consuming the prime real estate of the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are a necessary element of the fact that multiple diverse topics can have the same exact or near-exact name, and the MediaWiki software cannot have two different pages at the same name. And in the real world, this happens all the time with book indicies (which is serving the same purpose as our title search engine). I fully agree that if there is a natural solution to reduce hatnotes for a set of articles, great, but what is proposed is not a natural solution (zits as slang for pimples), nor will reduce the number of hatnotes needed. --Masem (t) 00:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Masem, I have read this a few times but cannot understand, "what is proposed is not a natural solution". I oppose zit as a primary redirect to pimple, is that the unnatural proposal? zit should point to the DAB page, or be the DAB page, be be deleted. I think I have proposed a natural solution that eliminates the hatnotes for these pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it a solution that respects common name principles and doesn't have us renaming articles and bending over backwards to avoid name conflicts with odd disamb phrasing or the like. But as I've pointed out before, between this comic and Zit (comic) (a wholly separate topic), we still need a hatnote on this page whether it is moved or not, and similarly on Zit (comic). --Masem (t) 13:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 20 August 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Zits (comics)Zits (comic strip) – Per WP:NAME (see Curtis (comic strip) and Pickles (comic strip)). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 14 March 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 01:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Zits (comics)Zits – In the plural, it is the only valid article, no need for redirect to Zit (dismbiguation). UserTwoSix (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Way wrong date

[edit]

Surprisingly, it says in the first paragraph that the strip began in 1965, but the more developed origin story dates it to 1997, which I’m sure is the proper date. The first paragraph needs correction. 98.55.69.37 (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]