Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 1

message: This archive page covers approximately the dates between 5 Dec 2004 and 5 May 2004.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are
replying to if necessary.  (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
Please add new archivals to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive02. Thank you. Hiding 19:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

message: Discuss!
--I don't know that filling out all the stubs should be a priority, certainly not the first priority, seeing as how we're talking about organizing the hirarchy of categories; as a result of the organization, some of these stubs may drop into irrelevance.  (Plus some of them seem pretty irrelevant to me no matter what the eventual article structure--we've already talked about Panelology.)  So I suggest that if there's a request to fill out stubs, it should point to a curated list of info that seems needed.  But it may make more sense just to drop this for now, and focus on how to organize the existing information; that'd be my vote.--BTfromLA 18:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk

message: I think that all the articles could be illustrated with at least one picture; after all, comics is a graphic medium.  The thing I am unsure of is, can we use any copyrighted/trademarked images?  Some of the articles have cover scans.  It that "fair use"?  ike9898 23:25, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
------
IANAL, but after reading fair use, Wikipedia:fair use, and Wikipedia:image description page#fair use rationale, I have come to a pretty firm "yes" vote. They are fair use. I suggest the following recommendations:
#All scanned image files we use should be of a medium-small resolution.
#All scanned image files we use should have an image description page that reads something like this:
:#Comics is an inherently visual medium consisting of the combination of pictures and words, so encyclopedia articles on comics-related topics are especially enhanced by the presence of images.
:#This image is a low-resolution scan of a copyrighted work, and could not be mistaken for the original page of which it is a scan.
:#This image is being used for educational purposes only. It does not, in any way, inhibit the copyright-owner's ability to sell merchandise related to this image.
:#The copyright on this image is owned by Foo Bar Corporation, 1994.
:#The character depicted in this image was created by John Doe.
:#This image was pencilled by Jane Doe, inked by John Q. Public, colored by Joe Blow, and lettered by Richard Roe.
:#This image was originally found in Awesome Super Duper Comixxxxxx #874 (June, 1942), on page 39.
The last three would be recommended, but not strictly required (since, at least in the Big Two, everything belongs to the publisher anyway and creators are irrelevant - speaking of which, we need an article on the creators' rights movement). Comments? -leigh (φθόγγος) 01:10, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
-----
I have had a bit of experience contacting comics artists and publishers about using repros alongside critical articles or interviews. The consistent response has been yes, go ahead and reprint images, but do not reprint an entire work (or a significantly long section of an expansive piece).  These are all "alternative" comics people--no Marvel or DC--but based on my experience, it seems unlikely that well-credited cover images or images of single pages or panels would offend the copyright owners. I am not a lawyer, either--I'm just generalizing from experiences I've had with print publications.  As to the attitude of "mainstream" companies or Manga publishers--your guess is as good as mine.--BTfromLA 01:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we go for it ? I quicky checked in some EU-comics articles (authors and characters) and there are almost no images. I can scan a few from my collection. Is it ok to do it ? Lvr 17:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures for comics articles

message: There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Comic strips.  It doesn't look highly active, though, at least from first glance.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also to be noted: 

message: I think that we need to make it a priority to get more users involved in this WikiProject.  It won't mean much for the 4 of us involved at this point to reach a consensus.  The more interested users that have their say here, the more meaningful the final decisions will be.  
This might happen naturally, as we begin to make changes.  We should invite anyone who doesn't like particular changes to discuss them here.
{This part was by ike9898}
Hi, I am new to the project, but since most of the content I have added to Wikipedia has been about comics I'd like to help. I think a universal formating system is a good idea. I know that formating has been a major problem on a couple articals that I have helped write. Kevin Jones 15:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Participation in this project

message: Maybe even before we work on templates (aside from the project notice, which will be quick, easy, and uncontroversial), we should think seriously about organization. See my ideas here. -leigh (φθόγγος) 01:56, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
:Apropos questions of organizaton, here's part of an exchange that just took place on talk:Alternative comics after someone asserted that "Elfquest" was the most prominent "alternative" comic, and someone else (me) doubted that it even belonged in the "alternative" category. Reposted here in hopes that it will clarify some of the organizational issues.
::"I think Elfquest illustrates why we need to differentiate between "alternative" and "independent" comics. Though these two arenas clearly overlap, "alernative" now clearly implies something more specific. Elfquest is paramount to the history of indy comics, but it is was only occasionally "alternative," at least in respect to its themes, adult material, etc.
::Maybe it's time to split the article or make a clean differentiation between those comics that were created and released by independent publishers and those comics that focused on topics and subject matter that is alternative to the mainstream.
::Maybe it's a problem of the category -- when we define something (like "alernative") by its relationship to something else, it's going to be incohesive and imply multiple "histories"."
:::"Good points, all. I suppose this is the sort of thing that should be wrangled over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics, as it points to larger questions of organization: do we structure comics-related entries by marketing category, or chronology, or theme, or publisher, or physical format, etc. I'd think the goal would be to come up with something that is as simple and consistent as possible."
::--BTfromLA 18:37, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Top-level organization

message: Some thoughts on exemplars and format for articles about superheroes and super villains and teams:
====Introductions to articles====
I think most articles about superheroes, supervillains and teams should begin under the following structure:
“{Name of character} ({birth name}) is a {Name of comic book company} {superhero/villain/team}. Created by {creator(s)}, he/she/they first appeared in {Name of series} #{issue number} ({year}).” 
For example:
Daredevil (Matt Murdock) is a Marvel Comics superhero. Created by Stan Lee and Bill Everett, he first appeared in Daredevil #1 (1964).
And then the intro should include a small overview about the character or team and his/her/its significance to a certain comic book family, comic books in general and, if applicable, popular culture in general.
Some exceptions would include: 
* When several different characters have used the title, such as The Flash and Green Lantern, the birth name of one particular character should not be not in parenthesis next to the name of the character.
* When a superhero has been owned by more than one company such as Captain Marvel, then an explanation of ownership can wait.
* When a character is not exactly a superhero or villain, such as Catwoman or Venom, then perhaps “character” should be used instead of super hero or villain.
* When the exact circumstance under which a character was created or developed is complex, such as Wolverine, whose creators did not develop him into the character we know today or X-Force, which developed from prior concepts and using mostly previously created characters, then the exact manor of creation should wait until an appropriate section. No one person and persons should be misleadingly listed a the “creator.”
* When the character’s first appearance was not in an numbered issue, such as the Sub-Mariner or The Tick, then just the creator and year is needed.
Some things I think should be prohibited, unless there are specific circumstances to warrant them:
* “{Name of character} is a fictional character…” or “{Name of character} is a fictional superhero.” Readers can assume that a superhero or villain is a fictional character.
*  “{Name of character} is a {superhero} in the {Name of comic book company} universe.” This is common but is a pet peeve of mine for several reasons. Firstly, people unfamiliar with comic books may not know what a “universe” is and those who are familiar know that Marvel characters usually exist with other Marvel characters, DC characters with other DC characters ect. It would warrant a special explanation if a character was owned by Marvel or DC did not exist in said company’s collective setting. It particularly bothers me in the articles about culturally significant superheroes, such as Batman, Superman, Spider-Man ect., which discuss franchising and rise and falls in popularity and other things happening far outside any fictional universe. 
* "{Name of character} is also the name of a series featuring {Name of character}" In an era after the Silver Age, it would warrant explanation if the series were named anything else.
====Publication Histories and “Fictional Biographies”====
The idea of having both a “publication history” and a “fictional biography” is not a bad one but it leads to several problems:
1) What is the definition of either term? Is a publication history simply a recap of which series have featured a character and when? Or does it also include creators who worked on the series and the contributions they made to the character’s mythos? Is a fictional biography a telling of the history of Peter Parker or Reed Richards as if he were Sigmund Freud or Mohammed Ali? Does it identify reconned information as so or does the fact that Wolverine was born on an Alberto plantation at the turn of the century go up top even though it is a recently added part of the characters’ mythos?
2) In my opinion, a “fictional biography” heading is not a license to speak about a fictional character as if he were a real person. It is more useful, in my mind, to discuss how Wolverine and his character have changed over time than it is to recount the whole messy history as if it were fact.
3) Often bits of information are repeated. Both the publication history and the fictional biography in the Wolverine section tell readers that:
* Wolverine was once a Canadian government agent
* He first appeared in comics as an enemy of the Hulk
* He’s had a hostile relationship with Alpha Fight
* He joined the X-Men in 1975
* He has a crush on Jean Grey
* He often clashes with Cyclops
* The mini-series Origin filled in many gaps in his history
Personally, I think publication histories should be just that. A short description of the publications the character has starred in or regularly appeared in over the years. This may not be nessescary for characters whose history has, more or less, unfolded in only one series (Daredevil, The Fantastic Four).
"Fictional Biography" should include a character's history, who added what aspects to the character and when. Writers should resist the temptation to discuss a fictional character as if he/she were a real person. Writers should not be afraid to use phrases like "Claremont then changed…" or "Marvel decided to..." or "Fan reaction was mixed” in the "fictional biography section." - User:Rorschach567, 12/21/04
*Dammit, Rorschach, now you've nearly convinced me to drop the whole dichotomy. Perhaps the "fictional biography" should contain the essential character background that everyone can agree upon and which a reader would need to know? "Peter Parker was a brilliant but socially awkward student when a radioactive spider bite granted him super-powers. The subsequent murder of his Uncle Ben taught Peter that "with great power comes great responsibility," and he dedicated his life to fighting crime as Spider-Man. Over the years, he has married his college sweetheart Mary Jane Watson, but also cultivated many enemies, such as the Green Goblin and Venom." "Bruce Wayne's parents were murdered when he was X years old, prompting him to dedicate his life to fighting crime. After years of training, he began stalking the streets of Gotham City in costume, fighting criminals as Batman. He was soon joined by the young acrobat Dick Grayson, who fought beside him as Robin. blah blah blah" etc. All the juicy stuff could then wait until the other section, whatever we call it, which would detail major writing/art/continuity/popularity changes, naming names. Something in the style of the current X-Force article, I suppose.
Or is that too vague and useless? I really haven't wrapped my mind around this problem yet. I could live with your suggestions, though. -leigh (φθόγγος) 08:37, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
*Hi, I'm new here, but it occurs to me that we could save ourselves a fair amount of trouble by retitling the "fictional biography" as "character biography" or perhaps "character/team history".  This would get around the criticism Rorscharch expressed about using the word "fictional" in these biographies. [This comment left by Lokicarbis, 15:52, Jan 5, 2005]
** I have to agree - while what exactly you call them isn't crucial, I think you need to seperate the publishing history (where relevant) and the character biography (which should write about them "as if they were a real person". So in the Wolverine (comics) example, "Character Biography" (or Fictional Biography or whatever) would have the events of Origin at the top of the article, while "Publication History" would mention that the Origin miniseries cleared up much of the character's early history. The opposite approach - melding both together - has, from what I've seen, generally resulted in a garbled mess -- SoM 17:03, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rorschach567's Thoughts on Exemplars

message: The idea of having both a “publication history” and a “fictional biography” is not a bad one but it leads to several problems:
1) What is the definition of either term? Is a publication history simply a recap of which series have featured a character and when? Or does it also include creators who worked on the series and the contributions they made to the character’s mythos? Is a fictional biography a telling of the history of Peter Parker or Reed Richards as if he were Sigmund Freud or Mohammed Ali? Does it identify reconned information as so or does the fact that Wolverine was born on an Alberto plantation at the turn of the century go up top even though it is a recently added part of the characters’ mythos?
2) In my opinion, a “fictional biography” heading is not a license to speak about a fictional character as if he were a real person. It is more useful, in my mind, to discuss how Wolverine and his character have changed over time than it is to recount the whole messy history as if it were fact.
3) Often bits of information are repeated. Both the publication history and the fictional biography in the Wolverine section tell readers that:
* Wolverine was once a Canadian government agent
* He first appeared in comics as an enemy of the Hulk
* He’s had a hostile relationship with Alpha Fight
* He joined the X-Men in 1975
* He has a crush on Jean Grey
* He often clashes with Cyclops
* The mini-series Origin filled in many gaps in his history
Personally, I think publication histories should be just that. A short description of the publications the character has starred in or regularly appeared in over the years. This may not be nessescary for characters whose history has, more or less, unfolded in only one series (Daredevil, The Fantastic Four).
"Fictional Biography" should include a character's history, who added what aspects to the character and when. Writers should resist the temptation to discuss a fictional character as if he/she were a real person. Writers should not be afraid to use phrases like "Claremont then changed…" or "Marvel decided to..." or "Fan reaction was mixed” in the "fictional biography section." - User:Rorschach567, 12/21/04
*Dammit, Rorschach, now you've nearly convinced me to drop the whole dichotomy. Perhaps the "fictional biography" should contain the essential character background that everyone can agree upon and which a reader would need to know? "Peter Parker was a brilliant but socially awkward student when a radioactive spider bite granted him super-powers. The subsequent murder of his Uncle Ben taught Peter that "with great power comes great responsibility," and he dedicated his life to fighting crime as Spider-Man. Over the years, he has married his college sweetheart Mary Jane Watson, but also cultivated many enemies, such as the Green Goblin and Venom." "Bruce Wayne's parents were murdered when he was X years old, prompting him to dedicate his life to fighting crime. After years of training, he began stalking the streets of Gotham City in costume, fighting criminals as Batman. He was soon joined by the young acrobat Dick Grayson, who fought beside him as Robin. blah blah blah" etc. All the juicy stuff could then wait until the other section, whatever we call it, which would detail major writing/art/continuity/popularity changes, naming names. Something in the style of the current X-Force article, I suppose.
Or is that too vague and useless? I really haven't wrapped my mind around this problem yet. I could live with your suggestions, though. -leigh (φθόγγος) 08:37, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
*Hi, I'm new here, but it occurs to me that we could save ourselves a fair amount of trouble by retitling the "fictional biography" as "character biography" or perhaps "character/team history".  This would get around the criticism Rorscharch expressed about using the word "fictional" in these biographies. [This comment left by Lokicarbis, 15:52, Jan 5, 2005]
** I have to agree - while what exactly you call them isn't crucial, I think you need to seperate the publishing history (where relevant) and the character biography (which should write about them "as if they were a real person". So in the Wolverine (comics) example, "Character Biography" (or Fictional Biography or whatever) would have the events of Origin at the top of the article, while "Publication History" would mention that the Origin miniseries cleared up much of the character's early history. The opposite approach - melding both together - has, from what I've seen, generally resulted in a garbled mess -- SoM 17:03, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Publication Histories and &#8220;Fictional Biographies&#8221;

message: *I think we can agree that articles should generally be about characters, not series, except (of course) when the titles are different. With that in mind, I think it would be useful to separate the different information that we're trying to present:
#Which comic book series the character has appeared in. When and by whom these comics were produced.
#A history of the character's or series' reception, by fans or the general public. This also includes "cultural relevance".
#A summary of the stories that have been told about the character over the years.
#The current "canonical" take on the character (if it's not obvious from #3).
:Is that an accurate breakdown? Can these all be smoothly synthesized? Or should they be broken into groups? The introduction should probably have a brief nod to each one of thse facets. What are your thoughts? -leigh (φθόγγος) 19:36, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
::This may sound evasive because one of the purposes of this project is to come up with some universal guidelines about comics-related articles, but I think it is only important that contributors include all four and that where and how they do so can change depending on the character and the writing style of the contributor. --Rorschach567 19:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More thoughts on structure of ''character'' articles

message: Rorschach and I are trying to beat Rob Liefeld into shape; interested parties are welcome to comment or contribute. -leigh (φθόγγος) 18:47, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
:Beat him! Yeah! Get 'im! Oh wait, you mean the article...  — Gwalla | Talk 21:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Rob Liefeld]]

message: I propose a weekly article be selected as Comics colaboration of the week, with the goal of raising the article to true encyclopedia quality, and worth of featured article status.  Any thoughts?  ike9898 20:12, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
::I think it's a really good idea. It will give this community a little practice in collaborating and building something into the best article it can be. Any suggestions? Hulk, Iron Man and Aquaman all have a lot of info but could use much fine-tuning. Sub-Mariner and Fantastic Four are off to good starts but need to be filled in. --Rorschach567 03:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaboration of the week

message: Hi! I'd like you to see the article Raven (comics) and try to improve it. I've already did some formatting, a listing in Requests for Expansion but nothing happens and I don't know where to go. The article still remains being a small description of this Teen Titans member. If someone could do something, it would be helpful. --Neigel von Teighen 22:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I expanded the comics section with information taken from Titans Tower to provide more detail about the Terror of Trigon and all further events involving Raven. The article seemed to focus too much on the animated series. KramarDanIkabu 03:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Raven (comics)]] 

message: If you want some work (and surely you've got a lot), how about reviewing and trying to expand the Teen Titans related articles? I'm not talking about the Teen Titans article itself, but rather about the articles about the members of the group. If anyone wants... --Neigel von Teighen 20:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  If anyone is interested... 

message: (see #Introductions to articles, above)
I like "{Name of character} ({birth name}) is a {Name of comic book company} {superhero/villain/team}." - but it doesn't obviously scale easily. IOW, how would one expand it for, say, Captain Marvel, who has belonged to more than one company? --Paul A 03:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about proposed introduction 

message: 564 articles in here and counting. This really needs broken up into several sub-categories soon - looking through it, and from what I was talking about above with BTfromLA, Marvel-Comics-stub, DC-Comics-stub and comics-creators-stub are three I would make immediately, with a few others like DC-Thompson-comics-stub possible if there are still a lot left. I don't know how to make them into actual sub-categories of comics-stub though, so I'll leave it to someone who does. Any takers? SoM 20:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do it.  — Gwalla | Talk 21:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, Marvel-Comics-stub (:Category:Marvel Comics stubs), DC-Comics-stub (:Category:DC Comics stubs), and Comics-creator-stub (:Category:Comics creator stubs) are ready and open for business. Let's get restubbing, folks.  — Gwalla | Talk 23:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restubbed quite a few (including Maelstrom (comics), Kinetix, Manga Khan, Kylun and Cerise (comics) to pick a few at random) and although they're vanishing from :Category:Comics stubs, and the template messages are showing up they aren't showing up in :Category:Marvel Comics stubs and :Category:DC Comics stubs - SoM 04:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: My fault. I edited the templates to link to this project, and accidently deleted the category links in the process. (To make it worse, any ones restubbed after I did this might have to be resaved to show up, it seems) SoM 13:00, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: comics-stub

message: A minor suggestion but would it be possible to put a date on the first appearance in the template? To use the example shown, we know that Wolverine first appeared in Incredible Hulk #181 but the reader wouldn't know what year that was (although in this case the date is in the accompanying article). I'd think that putting the first appearance as Incredible Hulk #181 (1974) would be useful. MK2 07:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be against it, with the reservation that cover dates can be as much as 3-4 months off real dates, and that could push stuff into the wrong calendar year. - SoM 22:36, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dating first appearances?

message: How long is too long? Personally, I prefer to keep these as short as possible - half a screenful, preferably less (I'm running 1024×768, 10pt Arial, Firefox on Windows XP, for reference). When you start adding strength level/etc numbers, copied from a OHOTMU/Who's Who/Encyclopedia/etc, lists of "feats", pseudo-scientific guff that a Handbook used to explain away a scientifically-impossible power or anything of the sort, I think you're definately going too far.
What does everyone else think? - SoM 22:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Superhuman] Powers sections 

message: I'm new to this group, though I've begun adding stuff to my favorite character's page. (Zatanna) I am wondering, would anyone be interested in doing biographical entries on comics writer/artists/editors and others? (I call dibs on Paul Dini, Gail Simone, Bob Rozakis, and Kim Yale.)
Orville_Eastland 22:43, 15 Mar 2005 (EST)
:I added an entry for Mark Beyer yesterday--can't believe there wasn't already one for him. I'm going to do John Stanley soon. --Chowbok 03:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authors and other comics people 

message: Category:Quality Comics characters is currently listed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. It would be appreciated if more people would contribute their thoughts on the issues involved. --Paul A 06:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  comics-related discussion at WP:CFD 

message: Re: House of M - it's a bunch of promo quotes, completely unencyclopediac at best and copyvio at worst. Needs a complete rewrite (or to be deleted and redone when there's actual info). - SoM 17:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  House of M 

message: I just cleaned up and fixed the Hellspawn page.  Is it long enough now to remove the stub template? --Kross 07:21, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
:Go ahead. If someone doesn't like it being removed they can add it again. --NormanEinstein 15:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hellspawn stub 

message: Hi, I've recently joined the project, and have just finished first cuts of pages on Geof Darrow and Ted McKeever. They're a good start, but others must have more to add. I haven't been able to find much in the way of Ted McK biog - anyone know any more? Also, the summaries of his stuff that I've included is mostly from memory, so may not be 100%. Will re-read shortly and improve, unless someone gets there first. I will upload a few more examples of both of their work soon. 
I'm not going to be much help with the Superhero stuff I'm afraid, but will try and help out where I can on some of the more 'alternative' stuff and in particular British artists and writers, and 2000 AD. --Bwmodular 13:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice articles. These guys deserve it. But there isn't many more info on them :-(. Lvr 15:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geof Darrow and Ted McKeever 

message: I proposed the following mergers:
* Earth Lord, Skyhawk (comics), Wind Warrior be merged into Earth Force (Marvel Comics)
:* Talk:Earth Force (Marvel Comics)#Merger proposal
* Aliyah Bishop be merged into X-Men: The End
:* Talk:X-Men: The End#Merger proposal
* Ghost Girl (Marvel Comics) be merged into Crusaders (Marvel Comics)
:* Talk:Crusaders (Marvel Comics)#Merger proposal
* Sangre, Perro, Serafina, Aguja, Fuego, Cadena be merged into Children of the Vault
:* Talk:Children of the Vault#Merger proposal
I hope to have some opinions. Bye
--Crazy runner (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposals, if you want to give your opinion, you are welcome 

message: 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) 21:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

message: 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 23:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for United States comics 

message: 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) 04:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP 1.0 bot announcement 

message: Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone.  Articles were selected based on their assessed  importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the United States comics articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details.  You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th. 
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end  of November, 2010.  As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide.  Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback! 
If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States comics articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release 

message: Hi, I am a member of WikiProject United States, it was recently suggested that the United States comics work group might be inactive or semi active and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States, which Kumioko have added some of the projects like WikiProject American television and WikiProject United States Government. After reviewing the project it appears that there have not been any active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. This discussion is intended to start the process of determining if the project members are interested in the project being added to the projects supported by WikiProject United States. Any thoughts? JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 07:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added United States comics work group to the WikiProject United States banner since there any no objections. I will begin to asses some of the articles myself. If have any concerns or questions, please let me know or ask at the project. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 22:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to add United States comics work group under WikiProject United States 

message: One or more articles relating to this project have been nominated to be a future United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month. All editors interested in improving these articles or voting for next months collaboration are encouraged to participate here. --Kumioko (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomination as a [[Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM|United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month]] candidate

message: --Kumioko (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: December 2011 Newsletter for [[Wikipedia:WikiProject United States|WikiProject United States]]

message: --Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: January 2012 Newsletter for [[Wikipedia:WikiProject United States|WikiProject United States]] and supported projects

message: There is a proposal at WikiProject United States to start an A-Class review process for United States related articles. Please stop by and join the discussion. Kumioko (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for United States A-Class review process

message: I've nominated the George Herriman article for FAC, with the hope of having it appear as Today's Featured Article on 13 October 2013, which is the 100th anniversary of his signature work, Krazy Kat.  Any attention, feedback, and support would be greatly appreciated. Curly Turkey (gobble) 16:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[George Herriman]] FAC 

message: Greetings, there is a discussion regarding removal of the logic used to populate Automatically assessed article categories from Template:WikiProject United States. Most of the categories (over 220 Wikipedia wide) were deleted in February 2013 because they were empty. These categories were previously populated by a bot that hasn't run since 2011 and the categories aren't used. Removal of this uneeded/unused logic will greatly reduce the size and complexity of the WikiProject United States template. Any comments or questions are encouraged here. Kumioko (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Lest there is any confusion for people who don't speak the same language, the words "logic used to populate Automatically assessed article categories" refer to the feature that was supposed to allow this WikiProject's template to "inherit" class and importance ratings from other WikiProjects. Kumioko says that there are no longer any bots performing the function that formerly copied those ratings. --Orlady (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion to remove the Automatically assessed logic from the WikiProject United States template

message: I've opened a community GA reassessment of Wanted. The article has had quite a fall from grace since its promotion in 2009, and I believe it needs to be demoted. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Wanted (2008 film)|Wanted]]'' GA reassessment 

message: I realize this might be a little out there, but seeing as how comings are one of the most frequently adapted media...  There's an RfC regarding a single-line chapter-to-episode section over in Oathkeeper, though it's mostly an RS issue.  Any participation would be welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC participation request 

message: https://wikiconference.org/wiki/Submissions--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please See - Submissions 

message: ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject United States - 50,000 Challenge 

message: We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month,  will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of .
 
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
* The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
* The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
* The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).
We're grateful to  for his original , and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of , and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular pages report 

message: The article Wheelie (Transformers) has been nominated at Articles for Deletion. See this article's entry at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Wheelie (Transformers) (2nd nomination). Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 04:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wheelie (Transformers)]] at [[WP:AfD|Articles for Deletion]] 

message: I've put up Little Nemo (1911 film) as a Featured Article canditate, and would appreciate any and all feedback on the article.  Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Little Nemo (1911 film)/archive1. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Little Nemo (1911 film)]] Featured Article canditature 

message: Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information on WP1.0 web tool