This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
Anarky is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
It's a top end B for me. The trivia needs integrating, needs a few more references, especially the skills section, use comic books if nothing else. Some copyediting, comic book titles should be italicised not bolded. very impressive though. Consider taking it to good articles. HidingTalk 14:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. Well referenced on most aspects, clear, pretty much everything it needs in terms of content. A couple of very minor stylistic things that might be worth fixing in layout - intro isn't quite in line with WP:CMC/X preferreed format, some of the headings use capitals for words they shouldn't (see WP:HEAD), but in terms of actual content I think it's excellent, especially on the publication history side of things. --Mrph 22:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to keep adding hoops for you to jump through, but we're learning about this assessment process as much as you. I think this could take a run at FA status eventually. HidingTalk 22:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Now GA rated, after a successful Good article nomination. --Mrph 20:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The only source — yes, the only source — of the claim of a connection with Neo-Tech is a cross-spammed Usenet article written by one mattkeys at netcom dot com, who calls himself "Neo-Tech" in the article header. The article itself refers to a page on gocomics.com, but it turns out to be a non-existent page. Bi 18:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Huh, granted, this is the only source for this article I now know of. A few years ago I had read this article at it's original location, but did not site it as the page is indeed down. However, using the Internet Archives search engine, one does find the original gocomics.com address . Other interviews with Alan Grant confirm he no longer considers himself an anarchist and now follows the philosophy of Neo-tech, but do not specify that the Anarky series was based on it. However, I do have another interview with Norm Breyfogle. in which he also states that the series was based on Neo-Tech.
NB: I had more input on Anarky than many of the other characters we developed because we spent so much time on it and because we were involved in discussions concerning Anarky’s philosophy - which is really Alan Grant’s philosophy. I learned a lot from those discussions and of course I see lots of truth in objectivity (Anarky is an objectivist); I’m a modern western male, after all! Alan was calling his philosophy ‘Neo-tech’ but it’s basically a modernized version of Objectivism, which was Ayn Rand’s philosophy.
Its not that there is evidence of "neo-tech", but what should be said is that the comic was based on the philosophe that is based of that of Neo Tech, or rather IMA.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 2007-04-09T18:13:45
That doesn't seem right on several levels. Alan Grant has repeatedly referred to the philosophy as "Neo-Tech." Norm Breyfogle has backed this up, and while he callously refers to the philosophy as Objectivism, he acknowledges that Grant referred to it as "Neo-Tech." Further, "Neo-Tech" is the name of the philosophy, even if its a shortened version of the original. I don't know the particulars, but the creator of the philosophy gave it a longer and more technical term, but shortened it as "Neo-Tech" to identify it easily, and there is no reason to not accept this. --Cast 04:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I've gone through all the non-free images used in this article and tried to provide as good fair use rationales as possible, but there are three issues that need to be addressed:
Several of the images exceed 300 pixels in either width or height and need to be resized to a lower resolution
It is unclear what portion of the copyrighted work is used in some cases (one panel, entire page, double spread)
The source of many of the images is not stated. Are they scans by the uploader? Taken from websites?
These need to be resolved in order for the article to pass FA criterion 3 (and to stave off the deletion-hungry copyright bots). скоморохъ 06:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
There, addressed every concern. Shrunk the images to less than 300px; provided clear descriptions; and described source (scans from myself).--Cast (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Article length, potential split, and importance
Another editor has noted the total & lead length and tagged the article for potential summarization and splitting. The lead actually compares well to other FA fictional comic book character articles, such as Superman, Batman, and Captain Marvel, so I see little problem in its length, but concede that it may be straying away from summarizing only those points of the article which are most noteworthy. However, I'm not certain at all of how to split the rest of the article. I don't feel that Anarky is as yet quite notable enough to warrant multiple articles devoted to the subject, save for articles on the character, Anarky (comic book), and Batman: Anarky trade paperback. Should the fictional biography be split up? Perhaps the section on the character's political themes? I doubt the character's skills and resources? I invite other editors to consider the issue. This is the only FA fictional character with a "low" importance rating, and so we might want to consider how necessary (or unnecessary) it may be to divert it into other articles when it will likely not expand very rapidly. This isn't the same as the Superman or Batman articles. Anarky has neither the history, cultural impact, nor consistent publication status as the others. It doesn't need to expand to accommodate new information all the time. --Cast (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I estimate the article to be less than 45kb of readable prose, which indicates that it may need to be divided. In the absence of any one section that is quite long and expandable, this would probably mean splitting off and summarizing here each of the four major sections. I don't think notability is a limitation on sub-articles of a long featured article—sections of a long featured article almost always contain extensive coverage of the topic in multiple reliable sources, as is the case here. However, unless these topics could be expanded upon significantly in their own articles, I think that they are best presented here, and that the length of the article is not a significant hindrance to the reader at this point. Skomorokh 10:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the lead is an acceptable length given the article size, following WP:LEAD. Equally I see no obvious section that could be split off into an adequate article.
What stands out is the length of the FCB. It is largely written in an out-of-universe style, which avoids the hurdle of WP:WAF (and WP:PLOT) but it does mean it is less of an actual "fictional character biography." As I've mentioned on the Comics Project talk page before as comics articles on characters (and titles) move on from a B the PH expands to include out-of-universe character development and the FCB shrinks away and may disappear. It is worth noting (as Cast mentions) that most high quality comics character articles are also of higher importance and a number of important storylines are dealt with in separate articles which would reduce the need for an FCB. Clearly Anarky is different, although the sub-articles do take up some of the slack. Looking over the FCB though I see some replication between the PH and FCB and would suggest hammering the FCB down hard and moving/merging the rest of the material to the PH.
Also as I mentioned on the Comics project talk page I think this article should focus on Lonnie Machin - as General (DC Comics) is making some use of the alias this article should acknowledge that briefly but most of the information should be in the other character's article not here (as it looks like his use of the Red Robin (comics) and Anarky aliases are more of an extension of that character and the post-Batman R.I.P. status quo and not an awful lot to do with the whole complex philosophical underpinnings of the Anarky character that Alan Grant put in place. That would keep this article a stable size until Machin returns as a major character (if ever). (Emperor (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC))
Using User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js the page prose size is 40k, which is at the top end of perfectly acceptable. At the Superman FARC article size was discussed and it was stated that prose size should ideally be 35 - 40 KB. Therefore, the prose size of this article is ideal. Were it to grow to 60kb it would almost certainly need to be split, but at this moment in time there is no issue. HidingT 11:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to each of the three editors who responded to my concerns here. I'll be taking your commentary as a general guideline for how to treat this article in the future. In the short term, I'll be taking Emperor's immediate advice and begin merging the FCB section into the Publication history. That should forestall any concerns of length for the foreseeable future. I also have no intention of concerning this article with the minutia of Anarky's near-future exploits in publication. None of it may prove notable in the long term. For now it is enough to note that the author charged with reintroducing the character to publication did so with certain motivations, and that the title of "Anarky" has passed on. This article will remain focused on the character Alan Grant created. Not those which may temporarily borrow the character's name. --Cast (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes there is no rush and as a lot of the story of the different takes are going to be dealt with on the respective articles this one should remain fairly stable and is unlikely to bloat to the point where a split is needed. (Emperor (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC))
Well, it's been several years since I first brought up the eventual need to split this article due to its length. While reassured that the article didn't need to be split at the time, a general threshold was set at a 60k prose size. Well, with my most recent edits, we've finally hit that mark, and with the impending television debut of the character, we can look forward to the page growing even larger in the coming months, if not years. It may now be time to seriously discuss how to carry out a split on the article. What should be summarized? The publication history would look to be the most likely section.--Cast (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to say, as a random user, that this is a great article, probably the best one I've read on a minor comicbook character. The inclusion of critical sources, quotes from creators, and a list of appearences make this article stand out in an area that wikipedia usually handles poorly or not at all. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Although I am far from the sole contributor to this article, I have put a great deal of effort into it, and appreciate your consideration. I hope this article will continue to be of high quality, and that you and other interested readers will be able to continue using it in the future. --Cast (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
What should the composition of this article's section on Anarky's media look like? Up to a certain point it looked like a section with a lead paragraph and a sub-section for a list of notable media-- that being, media with it's own article, so each listing was a link to another page. When the "Publication history of Anarky" article was created, I merged the section on media into that article -- as a listing of notable media works neatly fit into a history of the character's publication status. In the aftermath of the merging, this article now has a single section on all media appearances, which is really just a summary with a template link for the main article being the "Publication history of Anarky." My view is that it is no longer necessary to have multiple sections on media derived from comic books and alternate media on this page. My view is that, at the moment, there is still very little in the way of alternate media, and so this section is really only comprised of a few sentences (a current count would be four.) An entire section isn't necessary; especially when it's just a redundant copy of the main section on another page. --Cast (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)