Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/British comics work group

Updating British comics

I dropped in a note on recent developments in British comics [1] following a few news reports on the growth of homegrown graphic novels and manga and was wondering if anyone had anything else to add? (Emperor 14:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

I've done an update but it might need a bit of tightening - I'll go back through it later and have a look at it with fresh eyes. What concerns me is that the references I added account for nearly all the inline citations which seems like it needs to be addressed - although most of the information does probably come from the books (and it is easier to source recent things) there are specific statements that probably need sourcing. I'll run through it at some and flag the bits that concern me. (Emperor 21:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

To do

So what areas do people think need addressing? I think the main one is polishing up things like Eagle (comic) and looking into starting entries on some of the British girl's comics which were huge at the time but seem to have faded away. I've not yet watched Comics Britannia but one of the three episodes was on this area and could be a handy resource.

Anything else like earlier comics? We have some entries on the classic (and no reprinted) Golden Age characters like The Spider and the Steel Claw but there are many others. (Emperor 14:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

Hi. I am happy to crack on with aspects of British girls comics but am slightly wary of falling foul of questions of notability and of conflict of interest. I think there's clearly some interest in Jinty, Tammy, and Misty as the triumvirate of Fleetway girls comics with an edgier sensibility, and Bella is an important title though I know less about that. Should I perhaps initially look to doing an article specifically on girls comics rather than concentrating on the individual titles I know best? Also, on the conflict of interest front - those three Fleetway titles are the ones I've written about most, so is there a problem with that?

I also have a question on references. Various of the Wikipedia style / help pages I've read say that blogs are not good sources, for instance. However, something like Steve Holland's Bear Alley blog (http://bearalley.blogspot.com/) is surely allowable? And if so, what about less scholarly webpages such as Briony Coote's writing on 26pigs.com (http://www.26pigs.com/tammy/index.html)? Guidance would be helpful. Jenniscott (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Blogs aren't viewed as reliable sources mainly due to their lack of reliability in the sciences and biographies. For our purposes they are slightly more reliable, since we use them to source opinion and facts we attribute to that blogger. Steve Holland is perfectly acceptable, he's an expert talking within his area of expertise. I'd argue you could say the same of Briony Coote, and I would be prepared to defend that on those grounds. It's a tricky question of judgement, and of arguing your case. If you cite and format properly, then really you can move the argument onto the nature of the information. Notability is, and probably always will be an issue. I tend to take the view that if you can present an article in the most encyclopedic way possible, conforming with footnote style and so on, and write three or four paragraphs minimum, all showing sources, you can usually avoid deletion in a deletion debate. But it is tricky and an area where the community is divided. Right now there's a move to create lists rather than single articles, but you're best bet is to just be bold, and see what happens. Myself and Emperor are pretty well versed in the ins and outs of how the rules play out, so give one of us a shout if you do hit major problems. Hope that helps. Hiding T 10:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed. One important thing to bear in mind is that the "rules" vary in how strictly they should be applied. Policy has little wiggle room but most are guidelines and there are exceptions to this but it is a good idea to discuss them before hand. So on your points:

• Blogs and forums can be used but it is wise to discuss them on a case-by-case basis. Newsarama uses forum software as a publishing medium (rather than use a more bespoke system) and is OK for using as references (it has a lot of interviews which can help satisfy WP:V). Equally I raised the issue of using creators blogs to reference their own thoughts on their creations with regard to inspiration, etc. and as long as we keep an eye on WP:BLP and avoid controversy then the consensus is they are OK (for example, I use D'Israeli's blog comments on Stickleback (comics) as he often prints annotations and a lot of background). Sooooooo while there are lots of comic blogs out there and we can't use most of them, but if there are experts who use blogs to publish in-depth pieces on topics then, as long as we have examined it beforehand, I can't see any reason we can't make use of them just because of the software that is used for publishing.
• On the conflict of interest: WP:EL is pretty strict on the fact that you can't link to your own material or sites you run and there is no wiggle room that I am aware of. However, there are easy ways to keep things moving forward and ensure we aren't losing useful resources - WP:COI has advise on this and the simplest way is to drop a note into the article's talk page with the relevant links, other editors can then look them over and see if they are worth adding and then they can add it in. Feel free to drop a note in here so it won't be overlooked and there isn't a big delay.
• I'd say expand Jinty, Misty and Tammy (quick note Jinty and Misty might need moving as the general disambiguation is "(comics)" but I know a number of British comics use "(comic)" so it might not be a big deal). General material on British girls comics can go in History of the British comic for now. I think an article on British girls comics could be very interesting but what we really need in the short term are is for the existing articles to be expanded and rounded out and the ones that don't exist (like Tammy and Bella) need starting. So I'd suggest focusing on those and we'll see how it goes. I have those on my watchlist so will keep an eye on things and while I don't know an awful lot about the topic I'll try and chip in on formatting and the like.

So that is my advice, it should be easy enough to make sure all the good resources get used to produce solid, well rounded and useful articles. Although not an expert I'm always happy to help where I can. (Emperor (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

Thanks to both of you, Hiding and Emperor. Much appreciated all round. I think I just might move Jinty and Misty right now to disambiguation (comics) as they're still pretty underdeveloped. It's not going to move all that fast but more on the slowly-but-surely pace... Jenniscott (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

D'oh - also, where I said Bella above I meant Bunty, which already exists. Bella Barlow or Bella at the Bar would probably be a section within Tammy or John Armstrong (comics) I should think. Jenniscott (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The main problem I've found with the slightly older generation of comic creators is that sourcing is a pain. I did OK with John Stokes (artist) but only because he keeps working away in the industry. That is where, I hope your expertise can come on ;) (Emperor (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Yes I'm afraid most British comics are disambiguated to "(comic)" but that doesn't mean they should be but some (like 2000 AD (comic)) have a tonne of incoming links and moving them would create a lot of work fixing the links. That said Hiding has a bot that could be tasked to the job so it might not be such a bit problem after all. The exception seems to be Eagle (comic) as there are a lot of others in the field: Eagle (comics). There are an awful lot of articles out there that need some work (like David Lloyd (comic artist), John Ridgway (comic artist) and Tom Tully (comic writer)) - I may make it a mission to hunt them down and fix them. (Emperor (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Advise needed

I need some input on a change I've made to some of the infobox templates. Specifically:

• {{Collectedarcbox}}
• {{Infobox future comics}}
• {{Supercbbox}}

With these three I've added a logical operator to flip between US and non-US context. To the best of my knowledge, this only affects the colorist/colourist field. Is there anything else in the templates that would/should be affected?

Similarly, should the operator be added to {{Graphicnovelbox}} or any of the other generic 'boxes?

Thanks, - J Greb (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. I would say yes graphic novel box.

What it does underline is a larger issue that I kicked around with Steve Block a few times. British comics are usually comics anthologies so you have stories running in titles and I am unsure the current structure really reflects this, e.g. we have Category: 2000 AD titles and while something like Judge Dredd is the equivalent to long running comic book titles, the title is actually 2000 AD and it is a story within it. Which might suggest {{Supercbbox}} isn't really infobox for comic stories or it needs something else like a field for the parent publication (as technically the published would be IPC/Rebellion and you'd need a... "published in" field to cope with anthologies. Given that there are a lot of them out there it might be worth adding something that allows it to work better with an anthology. The name does look increasingly clunky though and the potential for confusion is there as it is often used when it isn't about superheroes and isn't about comic books (that said a change to "comicsbox" is probbaly not worth doing at this stage). (Emperor (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Fair points... and you may be interested in what's going on here. - J Greb (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I could have sworn I'd commented on that. I'll drop some thoughts in there. (Emperor (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for British comics

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:54, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources in FURs

Right now I'm going through Category:Comics images lacking original published source and sorting the images by work group. The British related images are at Category:Comics images lacking original published source/UK.

If it's ok, I'm going to ad this clean up to the "to do" list.

- J Greb (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unofficial biographical dictionary

Because of the way it's written, volunteer editors writing about what they're interested in, Wikipedia's coverage of comics has an unavoidable bias towards the recent and the American. In an effort to get a bit more historical coverage of British comics, I've put together an Unofficial biographical dictionary of British comics in my user page, which takes the lead from proper biographical dictionaries by only including those no longer living.

I've included everyone I can find who has a known date of death, plus anyone with a known date of birth more than 100 years ago, and anyone without dates who worked in comics before 1930. There are a lot of redlinks, naturally, and I'm gradually compiling sources and writing articles for those who seem most important, most interesting and best sourced. Anyone like to give me a hand? --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)