Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Comic strips work group

message: Testing out how many have watchlisted this yet, and raising an issue I've wondered about. While this work group will focus on comic strips, I'd like to know what others think about the single panel cartoon and how it fits into this work group, and WP:CMC as a whole. I'm not a follower of the "sequential" definition as far as comics go, but figure comics have room for a wider interpretation of drawn storytelling. Aren't sources divided on this? Does the single panel cartoon belong here or elsewhere? Thoughts?  MURGH disc. 15:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here. (how's that for brevity?) The difference is often too small, what with some Far Side 's with six mini-panels, and some Calvin & Hobbes 's with only one (long) panel. It is drawn, recurring, published in newspapers (or in magazines or comic magazines, European style), often on the funnies pages as well, and often by the same people who also create regular comic strips. There is a bigger gap between political cartoons / other (fictional) panel gags than between panel gags and comic strips, IMO. Fram 16:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I echo what Fram has said.  I'd put editorial/political cartoons within the WP:CMC remit too, although I'm not sure if they would fit within this work group. In the UK there's a healthy overlap between people doing editorial cartoons and strip work as well, Steve Bell springs to mind I'm definitely one who favours a non-sequential definition as well. Hiding Talk  18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know Hiding has argued strongly for this in the main talk page and I agree. There is a lot of crossover. As I said there was one point where the category Comics was both a child and parent of the category Cartoons, which pretty much highlights the issues - are comics lots of cartoons strung together or are cartoons one panel comics? I think it is legitimate for us to take an interest in a lot of cartoons although more due to crossover than cartoons falling under comics (I think the best view is that comics are a child of cartoons). (Emperor 18:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad this is the general feeling. I see how the political cartoon segment could become difficult, that the work of, for instance Steve Bell or Ralph Steadman or less "signature-themed" cartoonists might not make a clear case within the strip definition, but still, that syndicated (mostly) single-panel features like Non Sequitur, Ballard Street, Herman, The Flying McCoys, Strangebrew and such, make the strip cut. Then there's no need to press for a "Single cartoon work group" to be formed. Cheers, MURGH disc. 01:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Panels

message: I noticed your bot tagging Talk:Asterix as being in your work group.  This surprised me, as I never thought of Asterix as a strip, but on checking, I found that the article was in :Category:French comic strips, so I guess the robot was just doing its job. :)
I'm inclined to remove the article from that category (it is already in :Category:French comics) and revert the bot, but I figured I'd ask the experts first.  What say ye? :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seeing as I am and always have been in Europe, that surprises me somewhat.  :)  But if the experts think Asterix belongs in the strips category and work group, I have no problem with that.  — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asterix? 

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) 22:05, 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 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Comic strips 

message: 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) 01:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

message: Right now I'm going through :Category:Comics images lacking original published source and sorting the images by work group. The comic strip related images are at :Category:Comics images lacking original published source/Strip.
If it's ok, I'm going to ad this clean up to the "to do" list.
- J Greb (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources in FURs 

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) 03:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP 1.0 bot announcement 

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) 16:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[George Herriman]] FAC 

message: I was browsing today and came across the pitiful article for Charlie Brown. Rerun van Pelt's article is nearly twice as large and has much more detail despite him being a much lesser Peanuts character. If I had the sources and knowledge of the subject, I would address this, but it is out of my area of expertise. I just want to bring it to your project's attention with the hopes that the article will be fleshed out. Thanks. Kinston eagle (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Charlie Brown]] 

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) 07:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Little Nemo (1911 film)]] Featured Article canditature 

message: Calvin and Hobbes, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Reassessment of [[Calvin and Hobbes]] 

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: 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