From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Comics / Webcomics (Rated Start-Class)
WikiProject icon 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 project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 31/10/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.


[edit] Slurping and drooling and hurrrr.

This is the best sentence in the Wikipedia. -- 10:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Are there anymore details on the book? Any reason why amazon chose not to sell it? Pkmugg 22:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

uhhhhhhhh amazon RAN OUT because it was SO POPULAR and i got the LAST COPY. they didn't stop seeling it for no reason.

I was referenced on Jerkcity for Spigot the (B)ear. I can officially die a happy man. ponk bubububub--Jamais vu 21:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


10 a$ = "cocks";

20 PRINT a$;

REM ** PONK **

30 IF a$ = "dongs" then a$ = "cocks";

40 IF a$ = "pricks" then a$ = "dongs";

50 IF a$ = "dicks" then a$ = "pricks";

60 IF a$ = "cocks" THEN a$ = "dicks";

70 GOTO 20


some sort of stack overflow of gayness 23:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I protest. This program suffers from a lack of sufficient cocks. JoshuaRodman (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

The recent edits to Spigot's character description are not permitted under Wikipedia policy, particularly since the Spigot link leads to a living person. See WP:LIVING for details. I've semi-protected the article for now.Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  • PONK*

[edit] don't delete this page

Deleting the entry for Jerkcity would be dumb. The comic is mentioned in numerous books about webcomics and is connected to legal debates about intellectual property, due to its usage of Jim Woodring's illustrations from Microsoft Comic Chat.

  • HOMPF BOMPF COOKIE CRUNCH........Jerkcity is important, don't delete this article.

[edit] Character identities

I hereby posit that neither pants nor deuce is fictional. I declare as evidence:

  • From the Pigdog interview:
    • <rands> The idea for jerkcity came from a private chat room that four of us have been hanging out on for ?four? years now.
    • <rands> Yes, each character is "us" and has it's own "characteristics"
    • <rands> Pants does most of the webmastering at this point because he's a PERL WIZARD
    • (et cetera)
  • Much of what deuce says is eerily similar to shit you'd find on ASCII Art Farts, and some even appear to be derived from the same formula: compare [1] with [2]. Further, both strips have many of the same elements - misogyny, homo[pil/phob]ia, capslock, HULALGAGULHUAUL, etc. It follows that deuce is most likely Tran Q. Nguyen (the guy who runs AAF - see [3] and specifically [4])
  • There's simply no way that rands and spigot could ever come up with the amount of dialog that pants and deuce have, AND their own dialog

Yes, I think about this shit way too much. THAT'S HOW YOU KNOW I'M A FAN AND ALSO A FAG --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

  • Word on the street says Jim Davis is a big fat cat. Hypertension666 23:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The ASCII Art Farts website accepts and publishes submissions. Different colors for different farts or ?? (I wanna know what teh hell CALL THE ENCLAVE means.) Bigpoogenerator 05:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You're obviously correct that Deuce and Pants have IRL counterparts. Incidentally, Deuce sometimes mentions being black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jerkcity and Wikipedia

I'm thinking that section either needs a total overhaul or should probably be deleted. And I'm leaning towards the latter. Yes Jerkcity does reference wikipedia a lot, but does that mean that the comic has "negative opinions" about it? Likewise, I don't think it encourages vandalism. Anyway, what are your thoughts.Jsonitsac 21:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep it, it's useful, people go directly to it, how else are people gonna find out what the hell it's all about.
Yeah, actually it does have a negative opinion of Wikipedia, because of this - [[5]]. Now, you could obviously construe this as simply a fan adopting the moniker of one of his favorite things, but why then was the user involved in (and quit over) constant edit wars over Rotten links? The close relationship betwene Rotten and Jerkcity is well known, I think that it was in fact one of the creators of Jerkcity taking umbrage at what he felt was stupid policy. What IS certainly untrue is that they promote rumors about Wikipedia admins. FCYTravis's "eccentricities" have become well known thanks to places like Wikitruth. Kade 16:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't see a smoking gun here. It could also be possible that the JC creators are intentionally trying to provoke wikipedia in order to gain material for their strip. Jsonitsac 19:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Recent repetition

May I please point out that [6] and [7] are moderately alike. That's how I grew out to be the king. --Hautala 18:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Or how about [8] and [9] (it's a story told out of order). --Hautala 05:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
More, more, more: [10][11]. --Hautala 18:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
[12][13]. --Hautala (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
What about the last one [14] with [15]??? Write back. --Hautala (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I know that #4063 will be the same as [16]. --Hautala (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
And #3236 = #4095. --Hautala (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Too many references

This article has way, way too many references (links to the comic)[citation needed]. Not every sentence needs a reference[citation needed], but this article is loaded with them, which make it difficult to read without really adding anything[citation needed]. The average reader doesn't needs all these links to specific comics[citation needed], and the article should be cleaned up to remove most of them. Robofish (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[citation needed]

Jerkcity is not fully text-searchable, and thus, each fact needs a reference. Also, clearly, no one actually cares.[citation needed] Stromcarlson (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Each fact that we state within the encyclopaedia must be clearly sourced, Also I was the one that converted them into the proper reference format compared to just random external links sitting in the article text. Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 07:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Suggestbot suggested this article to me for cleanup. I see no cleanup tag, and given the discussion above, I am going to leave the article alone.--Boweneer (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The first paragraph under content is kind of tiresome to read[citation needed], as everything is linked and referenced. Maybe we could organize all the references into one citation at the end of the list or something, but I don't know how to do that[citation needed]. You really wouldn't see such laborious and detailed citation in an encyclopedia[citation needed]. Shutdown56 (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said earlier, Jerkcity is not fully text-searchable and each claim needs to be supported by at least one reference. If you make all sorts of claims and then send the reader to as your reference, it would be like doing a fifty-page analysis of Atlas Shrugged and then just putting "Source: Atlas Shrugged" at the end (the main difference is that Jerkcity has more cocks and dongs and less 200 page monologues[17]). Sure, it's verifiable, but these references took an incredibly long time to assemble, and sending a reader or editor on a wild goose chase for references and verification of claims is rather irresponsible. Furthermore, due to the nature of Jerkcity, this article has a tendency to be updated with completely erroneous and nonsensical information, and since Jerkcity is nonsensical enough as it is, it's difficult to separate the true from the false unless one insists on a rigorous standard of reference for all claims. So there you go. Also, cocks. Stromcarlson (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Also, cocks.

Wikipedia is serious wikibusiness, wikiguys. Stromcarlson (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It is more serious than your frequent addition of a frivolous "Also, cocks" to the lead of this article might suggest. I realize this is article is probably an extended metajoke to you, including the referencing of the cartoon to every sentence it contains, but even within that framework I suggest keeping to basic rules of article content. I can provide links to several few Wikipedia guidelines for your potential enlightenment, should you be interested. -- Michael Devore (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, we as Wikipedians must strive to maintain the utmost quality standards and conform to the mandates of the style guide 158% of the time (though sometimes going above and beyond and hitting that mythical 161% mark). However, I must respectfully and pedantically disagree with your assessment of "referencing of the cartoon to every sentence it contains" -- there are (as of the nineteenth of April 2010 13:03 Pacific Daylight Time) over four thousand one hundred strips, which contain an estimated twelve to fifteen thousand sentences and sentence-like structures between them. Referencing one and one-half per cent of those is hardly "referencing [...] every sentence," though if you believe otherwise, I would be delighted to peruse an explanation of the processes and formulae by which you arrived at this conclusion. Furthermore, good sir, I eagerly anticipate and await your links to the aforementioned Wikipedia guidelines so that I may rise to the high and exacting standards of pedantry which Wikipedia so rightly deserves. Stromcarlson (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Certainly, I would be glad to elucidate on your apparent misunderstanding of my remarks. My reference comment was in relation to the sentences, not the cartoon itself. Currently the article has 203 references, all made to your comic. (I believe you are personally involved in the comic.) The count of sentences in the article is approximately 67, give or take, let's say five, as a margin of error. Most of the sentences have at least one reference and, clearly, several have more than that.
Given your eager anticipation of links, I shall offer two to start with and allow you such time as you may need to digest their content before suggesting more of them. They are the general Manual of Style and a subarticle on article lead sections. These may well contain useful information on why your preferred "Also, cocks" addition needs more work before it can properly reside in the article. -- Michael Devore (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I can claim no credit for any involvement with Jerkcity; I am merely an avid reader of the strip and its consistently high-quality content. Stromcarlson (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

With the perhaps not completely surprising entry of a brand new editor to this dispute who has added back the sentence fragment "Also, cocks" to the article lead as their first and only edit, I have asked advice on the issue from an administrator, rather than continue and escalate an edit war over what I believe is clearly an improper edit that breaks multiple Wikipedia guidelines. Perhaps we can soon resolve this issue. Thank you for your patience. -- Michael Devore (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I'm Harblesque, and I'll be your not-entirely-surprising brand-new editor. I'm pleased to make your wikiquaintace.
What I am not clear on here is how "Also, cocks", properly cited and referenced to a Jerkcity strip which is itself entitled, "COCKS", is not acceptable. To repeat what I originally wrote in reference to this edit: "Added 'Also, cocks' with citation to appropriate strip (which is one of 520 Google results for '+cocks'); clearly, cocks are within Jerkcity's areas of interest." (02:08, 23 April 2010)
Looking a little further back into the edit history, I find a comment from you (that would be Michael Devore, just to clarify) dated 03:39, 14 December 2009, which states: "reverted, nope, that's WP:OR and it is not cited by the reference properly and it is bad English, go to Talk if you want to debate it, but it's improper here as is".
So, fast forward to today: I put, "Also, cocks" back in place complete with the necessary citation, thus proving that not only is this relevant to Jerkcity (remember: 520 google hits for search term 'cocks' on the domain!), but that it is also not WP:OR as suggested back in December when all this nonsense kicked off.
As much as I appreciate your vigilance in this matter, it is clear that cocks are an integral part of not only the content presented on Jerkcity, but also the experience of Jerkcity. To deny Wikipedia users deeper insight into the Jerkcity/cocks relationship would be a great disservice to the public Harblesque (talk)

[edit] Edit war

I have protected the page for a week as there is an edit war going on. Please see WP:LEAD on what should and should not be in the lead. If you can find reliable third-party sources that discuss the comic's repeated use of the word cocks, then it is fine to include it in the article (though even then I doubt it is important enough to include in the lead). Please see WP:V and WP:RS. As it is, adding "Also, cocks." is of no encylcopedic value that I can see - the phrase is not explained and does not increase the reader's understanding of the comic - please see WP:PCR. Picking one vulgar word to add to the lead based on its occasional use in the comic seems WP:OR at best, and vandalism at worst. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 09:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how "Also, cocks" can be considered WP:OR when citation #20 [18] in the article itself clearly states the following:
"But the real stars of Jerkcity -- the whole strip's goddamn reason for being -- is COCKS. DICKS, PRICKS, BONERS, DONGS, etcetera etcetera you get the picture. The strip revolves around the male organ, and other male people licking or sucking said male organ in any number of different ways, for any number of different reasons, in any number of different bathrooms."
In light of this, "Also, cocks" clearly cannot be considered irrelevant to the article as a whole, original research, or (as was intimated above) vandalism. Harblesque (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC).
1) What makes a reliable source? A Google search shows it is used in only two articles on all of Wikipedia. It looks loike a blog.
2) Assuming for the moment that it is a reliable source, then put this quote in the article or paraphrase it. Just randomly inserting "Also, cocks." in the lead tells the uninitiated reader nothing and looks like vandalism. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] What makes this notable?

I have looked at the article a bit and see that almost all of the sources used are either the Jerkcity website itself, or those of closely related sites. Does this meet Wikipedia:Notability (web)? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So that we may avoid rehashing already-settled debates, please refer to the deletion debate from 2006, referenced at the top of this talk page. For your convenience, some external links extracted from the above-referenced discussion:
Seems to be a reliable source, interview with one the strip's creators, so not super independent of the strip itself. Only six sentences on Jerkcity itself though. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
What makes this a reliable source? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
What makes this a reliable source? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Reliable, but is only one sentence. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Jerkcity is notable.
As far as the high number of references, you're dealing with a comic strip that has been published daily since late 1998 and has over four thousand not-easily-searchable strips in its history (it's graphics, not text). Combine this with the absurd nature of the strip, the lack of continuity, and the unpredictable nature of the subject matter, and the high number of links to individual strips which support assertions made within the article become arguably necessary. Without them, I could assert that one of the characters (for example) occasionally makes jokes about Joseph Stalin, and without a citation to support such an assertion, a reader or editor would have to wade through nearly twelve years worth of strips to verify the claim.
For comparison, check out the article on Sledge Hammer!, which is exhaustively documented, has practically no references at all, and is arguably less notable than Jerkcity. Stromcarlson (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The issue is not any other article - the issue is this article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are some more third-party sources and references for you:
Comixpedia entry on Jerkcity
Jerkcity stub on the Perl 5 wiki
Jerkcity entry on the Encyclopedia of Stupid
Six-year-old entries for "Jerkcity" in Urban Dictionary
Jerkcity mentioned on some random blog
The Jerkcity Facebook Group
Jerkcity at everything2
Some person's review of jerkcity
The Jerkcity Quote Generator (written in perl, of course)
Some random person's "which Jerkcity player are you?" Quiz"
Are these reliable sources? Arguably, no, and it's unlikely that you'll ever see the Wall Street Journal with COCKS AND DONGS AND HUAGHLAGUHLGUHGLAUHA as the headline on page one. Is Jerkcity notable? With a moderately large readership, mentions on multiple third-party sites that, by all reasonable account, do not appear to be directly connected with Jerkcity itself, and a fan base large enough to have over 500 of them following one of the characters' twitter accounts, common sense (the measure of the notability guideline) should dictate that Jerkcity does not exist in a vacuum, and is at least as notable as Lindsay Lohan's underwear or Lady Gaga's (alleged) penis. Stromcarlson (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
None of these meet WP:RS - nothing that "anyone can edit" (Wikipedia included) is relaible, nor is Facebook in general or blogs / web posts. I fail to see what Lohan or Gaga have to do with this. The question is a narrow one - does this subject meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability or not? I actually think this is probably notable - the book and several mentions in actual reliable sources are probably enough. All the same, the lack of more reliable refs causes me concern, and I think the article would only be improved if more reliable sources could be found and included. Were there any reviews of the book, for example? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

I don;t think I have ever seen an article on Wikipedia with quite so many citations to the primary source, and so few to anything else. Unfortunately that violates policy and guidelines, but such is life. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Excising most of the article and putting it up for deletion while it's protected from editing? Talk about bad faith. Stromcarlson (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Since it is up for deletion I have de-protected it for now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)