Talk:Albion (comics)

Comics: British / DC Comics Low‑importance

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

Low

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

Related work groups:
/
	This article is supported by British comics work group.
	This article is supported by DC Comics work group.

The plot section needs a major rewrite but i'm unable to do it as i'm waiting for the collected edition (cheapskate that i am), right now the plot section is just cut and pasted from Previews and looks dreadful.Logan1138 15:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agree. Hopefully when the whole series is out, it can be redone, with proper links to all the characters cited. --Emb021 15:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publication date?

If the trade paperback was 2006, then I presume the series was published before this, but when? Telsa (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summaries

Was it content, style or simple existence that put paid to the summaries..? :o) ntnon (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if they exist. As long as they conform to style and content policies. I don't think "The solicitation text for this issue reads..." is in keeping with any of those, especially and most importantly WP:CV. Hiding T 09:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the issues with the plot summary section were diagnosed by two different editors two years ago in the first section of this page. Hiding T 09:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, as was, the summaries were rightly removed, but I thought I'd query it just to make sure that that was the (only) reason. ntnon (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It wasn't the only reason. There are many reasons. That's the one that counts though. Since we agree, I'm treading carefully because there is obviously some ulterior motive somewhere. I can;t work out if it is yours, or mine, or if you think I have one or if I think you have one, or even if I think you think I have one, or you think I think you have one. I sometimes think this is why WP:AGF was instigated, to counter second-guessing and to just get on with it. ;) Hiding T 09:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well I was following along fine up until that (unless you think, I think, you think, nope lost me again). So to cut to the chase: I did think we'd try to improve a section, not just remove it (and it has a snappy ring to it to). I have expressed concerns about pure plot here, but while we have them I'd have thought the way forward would be to trim the plot right back and add an expand tag to the section (it does raise the issue of issue by issue plots - I wonder if we even need a spacial banner for it). However, given that Hiding and I seem to be on the same page (or at least one close) on plot, etc. perhaps we could use this article as a test and rework it so it now focuses on the development, reception, etc. as I discuss there. We have annotations and can look around for reviews and interviews - possibly start by building them up in the external links and then start from there. (Emperor (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      - I've done a quick sweep and added interviews and reviews. There are a few more links over at Andrew Sumner and the Moore/Reppion page on Albion has links to other reviews. There does look to be plenty of material there and we can purge the unused links later once things have shaped up. I'll dig out the sales figures. (Emperor (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      - In an ideal world a rewrite would be better. But given the problem has been sitting here two years, and there's enough plot in the article already, I figured removal may be better, especially given the other methods of cleanup available to editors. Hiding T 21:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rod McKie

The orphan article Rod McKie claims he was featured as a character in this miniseries, but this article does not mention him. Could someone tell me where he fit into the story so we can try and de-orphan him, or correct the article if he's not actually in it? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatting

Desperately required. A one-minute job for somebody to turn the characters into bullet points? 23:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.46.33 (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Albion (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110815193313/http://eroomnala.livejournal.com/6438.html to http://eroomnala.livejournal.com/6438.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Albion (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements?

Okay, this page is honing into view on the to-do list but I'm still learning here and one of the things I've learnt is to try and build consensus before radically rewriting a page on my own whim! The article seems semi-abandoned but still. IMHO what needs improving/cleaning up: -

The synopsis doesn't actually cover much of the plot. I feel we need an "in universe" summary of what actually happens in the comic, with the very valid observations moved to a different section.
The "characters" sections are overblown and cover a lot of the same information twice, and are a bit fan-y. My instinct is that the table can go for a start; the creators, dates, titles of origin etc. have no real bearing on Albion itself and are better handled on individual pages for those characters/titles (with the ones that don't have their own articles being something we can work on in the future). Some of it can be folded into the little summaries underneath.
Talking of which I'm not sure what the point is in divvying them up into unofficial groups such as "Guards", "Prisoners" and "Others" is, especially as it means some of the main protagonists are in the third section.
There appear to be some decent sources in the links that might clean more information we can add to the article to move it away from character-spotting.

I'm not saying "you there, fix this", I'm more than happy to do all of the above myself. Just thought I'd give some advance thoughts before doing so. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've had a go at making the article a bit more compact, big thanks to whoever curated those links as there was some great stuff in there. I will go looking for more as some sections like the review bit would be lovely to fatten a bit. Similarly it would be nice if we could find some retrospective coverage of the whole "Fleetway x Wildstorm" thing ultimately being short-lived.

Other things:

Battle Briton - while it was an IPC etc. themed revival at around the same time from the DC deal, if it has any Albion 'branding' I can't see it; as a similarly-themed work it might be worth a mention but I feel listing it as a spin-off is tenuous.
Is there a reason Martha was renamed Martina? Love to get something explaining what otherwise seems like a random change in there.
The characters section is something that might need another pass; it's in danger of succumbing to list creep. I've tried to use "did something of note to the plot in Albion" as a rule of thumb but naturally that's subjective.

BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]