Talk:The DFC

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Comics: British C‑class Mid‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by British comics work group.

Children's literature Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature 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.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

Moving forward[edit]

So moving forward things to do:

Add a picture - probably the issue #1 cover, which should do the rounds.
- I've uploaded the front cover to number 1 here Dfc01.jpg but it doesn't seem to want to show up in the infobox? Jenniscott (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK I sorted that out, although you can upload a larger image within the fair use constraints. (Emperor (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Finalise the opening line-up of stories - we can then expand the titles section and it'd be worth breaking it down from simple lists (except for forthcoming) into their own sections.
Monitor the news: Google news search and Down the Tubes. Update with interviews with creators and reviews. The latter can help us with a reception section, we'll also want sales figures too.
Address the red links as this will help put the comic in context. Simone Lia and John Aggs should be easy (given newspaper coverage of Lia's Fluffy and Aggs winning RSOM) and David Fickling and David Fickling Books should be doable given press coverage (and I believe Fickling has won awards for his editing).

Which should help really round things out and set it up nicely for ongoing coverage. In the longer term we should keep an eye out for the proposed albums and reception of individual stories (and I suspect they'll probably look at developing some properties into spin-off media, like cartoons), which will mean the sections on each title could reach a point where they'll need splitting off. (Emperor (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

25 years? Don't think so![edit]

First new British comic in 25 years. Totally wrong. Hoot, which launched in 1985 (only 23 years ago!) and closed a year later, and BeanoMAX, which launched just last year, are both newer than 25 years. Sorry but DFC is the first new comic in only 16 months! Digifiend (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The claim in the Independent is "the first new weekly comic for children in 25 years". Wasn't/isn't BeanoMax monthly? Dunno about Hoot but perhaps the Indie's claim could be a round-up of the actual time?

Having said that, someone mentioned somewhere else (sorry, can't remember where at present) that there was a comic launched in the mid-90s. Will have to find the reference now, hmm. Perhaps the 25 yrs thing should be put into quote marks? Jenniscott (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference on Lew Stringer's blog here: http://lewstringer.blogspot.com/2008/05/rewriting-history.html Jenniscott (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good points by Lew Stringer. I say remove it completely - there is no point in quoting something that is factual incorrect. (Emperor (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Is it worth giving this claim a space of its own, with reference to Lew's debunking of it? Otherwise the error goes hidden / unchallenged (may not be Wikipedia's place to challenge it I suppose) and many people will still believe the '25 yrs' quote to be true as it is not specifically debunked here. Jenniscott (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not really our place to go round troubleshooting such claims - it could be some wild PR guru throwing it out or loose fact checking at the Independent. Also I suspect Lew Stronger's blog wouldn't really be allowable as a reliable source under those circumstances. The bottom line is that unless some big fuss kicked off in the media then such claims are not really worth commenting on. I'll just take it out. (Emperor (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah, BeanoMAX is monthly, but the DFC article here didn't specify that it was the first weekly in 25 years, just the first new comic. Anyway, Hoot definitely was weekly, it ran for 53 issues in 1985-1986, before merging with The Dandy. Consequently, my point remains valid. Digifiend (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I've changed the article. (Emperor (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]