|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Annual publication article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Magazines||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Comics||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
This article needs a bit more work, both phrasing and content. It came from a (legitimate) cut and paste move from Annual.
I don't know where the list of collectible annuals came from. I suspect it might be more than a little biased towards British boys' weeklies, and incomplete even then... if Eagle and Rupert are collectible, then I'd guess so are Lion, Tiger, and even Robin and June. Andrewa 10:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Not sure how to work this in...
...but the British section rather gives the impression to the casual reader that annuals are no longer very popular. This Daily Telegraph story goes against that, saying: "In 1998 around 1.1 million annuals were sold at Christmas. Last year the figure was 2.2 million." Loganberry (Talk) 16:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've tried to work it in - what do you think? ChrisTheDude 16:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Rotr-annual.JPG
The image Image:Rotr-annual.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
Wounded national pride?
The second paragraph on British annuals has a sentence (which looks inserted) about how German publications were already doing this. The grammar doesn't really scan (before the previous sentence and following a comma would be much better), there are no examples given and I'm not sure this sentence fits under the heading "British annuals" unless someone is trying to make a point.
I would suggest a separate section on German annuals listing some of the relevant publications and dates, though I don't know these so am unable to create this section myself without using weasel words like "are believed to have been".
Any thoughts? I'm otherwise inclined just to scrub that sentence.