Talk:Zits (comics)

Updated The List of Books

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)

Requested move 28 March 2018

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)

---

• Zits → Zits (comics)
• Zit → Zit (disambiguation)

– 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)

• Support. Win-win. "Zit" is a term for pimples, and the comic book article title is improved by inclusion of the wrd "comics", and the ugly hatnoting can be removed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @SmokeyJoe: I have also added the disambiguation page Zit as I also think it should be a primary redirect. Please also give your feedback on that if possible._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I oppose making it a "PrimaryRedirect" because that would necessitate adding a "zit" hatnote to Pimple, which would not be an improvement to that article. Ideally, "Zit" would redirect to Zit (Disambiguation)", in line with the ideal circumstance of all disambiguation pages being suffixed with "(disambiguation)". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
      • A "zits" hatnote will be required regardless to point to the comic, so that will make no difference. It will just point to the disambiguation page rather than the comic page if it is moved._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
        • I don't follow that at all. If all ambiguous terms point to a DAB page, no article requires a hatnote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NOTDICT (Wikipedia is not a dictionary). There is no evidence that encyclopedia readers typing "Zits" (with an s) are seeking an article on pimples. —  AjaxSmack  02:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • NOTDICT and WP:PLURAL are a Wikipedia internal policies that readers can't be expected to know. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
    • So Wikipedia should become a dictionary because readers might not know it's an encyclopedia? —  AjaxSmack  02:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nom and comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)
• Support the comic strip is obviously not the primary topic for this name. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Also, we'd still need a hatnote if this was moved: The Zit (comic) would need to be included there. --Masem (t) 13:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Bogus? Navigation notes at the top of the document don’t detract from the quality of the document, because sometimes they are necessary? Hat notes are avoided by point ambiguous titles at DAB pages. Make a DAB page for zit, or delete the title so that if anyone tries to go straight to that title they invoke the search function. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • What's the functional difference between a hatnote pointing to a DAB and a hatnote pointing to pimples? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
        • No difference, but odd question. If Zit is a DAB page, listing Zit (comics) and Pimples, as well as wikt:zit, and zits redirects to Zit, then no hatnotes are required, both articles can have clean headers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Because Zit (comic) exists, this article is still going to need a hatnote regardless of any solution. --Masem (t) 00:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The hatnote at this article is sufficient for disambiguation IMO. SnowFire (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• 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/ –Davey2010^Talk 19:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• 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)
  • The issue isn't whether a hatnote detracts from the page, but if the comic strip is the primary topic for the word "zits". Argento Surfer (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• No disagreement there. But for those who are hoping to find Pimple and use the plural of the slang term, a hatnote will help them find the right place.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Strongly SUPPORT 1st move; neutral on 2nd per above. I'm a strong believer of keeping a majority of disambiguation pages that don't have suuuuuper clear primary topics at the main title, so I'm pretty neutral on that second move. But since the usage when referring to pimples is so much more widespread than the usage of it when referring to the comic, I'd STRONGLY support the first move. Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support 1st, oppose 2nd - "zit" and "zits" could mean pimple (zit) and acne (zits) and we can leave the dab page at primary to help readers. Its also useful because we can use the incoming links to the zit/zits DAB page for cleanup purposes so that we can point them at the correct main topic. -- Netoholic @ 06:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support first; oppose second. Both terms can indeed mean pimple or acne. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Seems like a simple case of needing a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to pimple for both, including an instance of WP:PLURALPT. Perhaps acne is a plausible alternative, but it would not be a WP:SURPRISE to look for zits and find oneself reading about pimples. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

---

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

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)

---

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)

• Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics)#Publications and other media types. I'm not sure what part of NAME the nominator's referring to, but the examples are an "other stuff exists" argument. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• SupportOppose per WP:NCCOMICS which appears to have ditched (comics) for (comic strip). --Masem (t) 15:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Huh? It says "Articles primarily about a publication should use the phrase (comics)" unless it's "applicable to more than one article of the same name". There's no competition for Zits (comics)... Argento Surfer (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
    • You're right, I was reading on the second on if further disambiguation (between two comic-related elements of the same name) existed. (Though I am sure we had this issue with Zit (comic) before too... --Masem (t) 15:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
      • So then how do you explain the two other examples I listed? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 13:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
        • No one brought the issue up on those pages? OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all that. --Masem (t) 13:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

---

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

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)

---

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)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• The current title was established in a previous discussion, and so this move is clearly not uncontroversial. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PLURAL. The normal convention is that the plural form redirects to the singular. In this particular case, I think it's more likely that a reader searching for "zits" is looking for the pimple article, which is linked to at the Zit page. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support restoration of this article to its former title, which is not used by any other article, per WP:OVERPRECISION. Right now Zits gets only 3 hits per day as a redirect to the dab page Zit, which gets 19 hits per day. The comics article gets 80 hits per day.[1] It's hard to believe that those 3 people are searching for the slang term "zits", especially in the plural, expecting the pimple article. With no title conflict, it's better to use the topic's actual WP:NATURAL title, with a hatnote for the rare lost reader. Station1 (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

  Not overly precise since "Zits" widely also refers to the blister. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

  "Zits" does also refer to pimples, but as an article title on WP, people are more likely to expect info about Zits. Station1 (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PLURALPT Pimple gets 11,827 while the comics article only has 1,501. Google and Images only appear to return the blister though Books does return mainly the comics. I agree people are far more likely to use the singular when searching but especially given the long-term significance of the blister its safest to disambiguate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Obviously not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC when compared to a common skin condition. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clearly not the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – Per above, no primary topic for the plural version, or the singular. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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)