Talk:The Shooting Star

message: The History/Background section of this article contains well-written text that is truly the history of the entire Adventures of Tintin series. For that reason, this section has been removed from this article and moved to the The Adventures of Tintin article. See the talk page there. —Prhartcom (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History/Background section moved to main series article 

message: According to the article, The Shooting Star was first serialised in a newspaper in black and white. Are there any other differences between the newspaper version and the book version than the lack of colours in the first one? --Oddeivind (talk) 09:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has been touched up quite a bit since this question was asked, and the article now more accurately expresses, "Unlike the previous books in the series, because it was printed immediately in colour, it did not need to be totally redrawn. It was the first volume of the Adventures of Tintin to be conceived from the start in the standard fixed length of 62 pages with colour throughout." (see footnotes in article). Prhartcom (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspaper vs. book edition 

message: Just to say, in case you haven't noticed it already, that the citation "Lofficier & Lofficier 2011" doesn't link to anything in the bibliography. Whether this is a different edition or simply a different book, could the author please fix it? Brigade Piron (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch , and I noticed it also; it's fairly typical to see this in this particular circumstance, I am quite used to cleaning it up (and I don't mind). By the way, and you may know this already: If you're not averse to using scripts, User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js automatically highlights these broken links with eyesore-inducing red messages that make them impossible to miss (as Curly Turkey once put it when he told me about it). Documented here. User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks . I've added that script to my page. Are you sure it was just a mistake then, and not a reference from another edition? If so, no problem.—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I checked my own copy of the source. Hope you find that script useful! I definitely do. Prhartcom (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphan citation 

message: We may have to delete reference to this person Matthew Screech, as there is no context or explanation for who he is. Prhartcom (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added his book to the Bibliography section. He is not the same as Matthew Screech, as far as I can tell.--Auric  talk 23:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Masters of the Ninth Art, and definitely notable, thank-you for finding it! Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not notable 

message: The sentence "Unlike the previous books in the series, because it was printed immediately in colour, it did not need to be totally redrawn." strikes me as somewhat odd. The other books arguably did not need to be redrawn when they were colorized; Hergé simply decided to do so. Since the source for this sentence doesn't appear to be online (and is in French), I can't do anything to address the problem - nor do I feel like this is a particularly pressing issue. But at some point (perhaps if the article is ever up for FA) it would be worth considering whether there's a better way to communicate why Hergé chose not to redraw The Shooting Star for its initial color release. --Jpcase (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Did not need to be totally redrawn"