Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/British comics work group

message: I dropped in a note on recent developments in British comics  following a few news reports on the growth of homegrown graphic novels and manga and was wondering if anyone had anything else to add? (Emperor 14:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done an update but it might need a bit of tightening - I'll go back through it later and have a look at it with fresh eyes. What concerns me is that the references I added account for nearly all the inline citations which seems like it needs to be addressed - although most of the information does probably come from the books (and it is easier to source recent things) there are specific statements that probably need sourcing. I'll run through it at some and flag the bits that concern me. (Emperor 21:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating British comics

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 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for British comics 

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) 01:35, 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 British related images are at :Category:Comics images lacking original published source/UK.
If it's ok, I'm going to ad this clean up to the "to do" list.
- J Greb (talk) 15:36, 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) 03:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP 1.0 bot announcement 

message: Because of the way it's written, volunteer editors writing about what they're interested in, Wikipedia's coverage of comics has an unavoidable bias towards the recent and the American. In an effort to get a bit more historical coverage of British comics, I've put together an Unofficial biographical dictionary of British comics in my user page, which takes the lead from proper biographical dictionaries by only including those no longer living.
I've included everyone I can find who has a known date of death, plus anyone with a known date of birth more than 100 years ago, and anyone without dates who worked in comics before 1930. There are a lot of redlinks, naturally, and I'm gradually compiling sources and writing articles for those who seem most important, most interesting and best sourced. Anyone like to give me a hand? --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unofficial biographical dictionary 

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: 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 

message: I'm not sure how much of a going concern this project is but I would like to ask for the thoughts of any editors still interested in the topic at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tri-Man, where the discussion seems like it could greatly affect a variety of British comics pages. Thanks. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article deletion 

message: Because I have some plans to do some work on the AP/IPC/Fleetway side of things and I'd be interested in some thoughts but there doesn't seem to be much point in typing up an essay here if no-one checks it =) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This groups still on my watchlist, so I'll check it. But I wouldnt consider this group active. Eopsid (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply! =) That's a shame; obviously I'll continue editing as before, but it would have been nice to bounce some ideas off people; I'm especially interested in working on some way of finding a solution to providing medium-wide information about some of the oddities of the British industry (the predominance of anthologies, what annuals are, information on mergers, that sort of thing) rather than repeating information on so many individual pages. My fault for getting here late, I guess! BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also interested in improving the pages on British comics, count me in for ideas bouncing? Piskiekid (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also in for idea bouncing. I have a good few books on British comics that can be used as sources. Eopsid (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Eopsid@Piskiekid appreciate it! I have a few good sources myself, the problem sadly is time. Generally though I'm looking to try and get some uniformity into pages from the "anything goes" era of Wikipedia without hopefully losing any information. A lot of the pages for individual strips and characters are not that well sourced and in some cases sadly are likely to stay that way (e.g. Fuss Pot). I feel lists of stories for publications large enough to warrant them (e.g. List of Valiant stories) is a better chance of getting cumulative notability, and if in the future any individual strips that don't yet have their own entry reach critical mass it's easy enough to do that then; anything picked for the Treasury of British Comics, for example, seems to generate the necessary coverage. I've been picking around the edges of stuff like Miracleman, some Marvel UK and some other bits off and on, but like I say I'm trying to hone in on the Fleetway weeklies at the moment, as I have a few books on the subject to hand (not to mention life-endangeringly huge piles of yellowy disintegrating back issues!) and it gives a fair base to push off from for character and creator pages. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this group still active? 

message: As some of you may have been unfortunate enough to notice, I've been mucking with all sorts on the AP etc. comics articles and one thing I've noticed is they tend to reference small bits of shared company history, policies and other foibles but naturally only show a small bit of the companies' history, piecemeal. Likewise the same for the articles on the publishers, which also don't focus on the comics too much for perfectly sensible reasons. I have a real hankering to write an overall history of the comics, juvenile, whatever side, which has what I feel is a pretty clear lineage despite the changes of ownership, and feel it could be a useful 'master' article to cover the corporate changes, the events shared across multiple titles at different times (the move from story papers to comic strips, WW2 paper rationing, the various bedshittings whenever DC Thomson or Eagle scared the crap out of them, hatch match and dispatch, the general collapse of the industry in the 80s and 90s, Rebellion; maybe even glossary-style stuff on mergers and annuals which make sense to us but are batshit concepts for readers from other parts of the world) and so forth. Sourcing and notability shouldn't be too hard, there's actually a fair bit out there these days. 
The only question I have is whether it would actually be encyclopaedic. That and what to call the damn thing. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[History of AP, Fleetway and IPC comics publications]]? 

message: Again, I've been working heavily on articles for various AP/Fleetway/IPC (Fleetway Eaglematic Harmsworthverse? No?) strips and one thought that pops up is how to handle the growing number of revivals in "in-universe" sections. Revivals of certain characters in pre-Rebellion 2000AD, Albion and Rebellion specials often contradict each other (indeed, The Vigilant seems to go out of its' way to annul Albion, which is fair enough as it was shit; ironically a lot of The Vigilant itself seems to have been unofficially binned off since the change in licencing gave Rebellion use of the characters people actually like), and there's no equivalent of a Marvel/DC editorial edict declaring this and that 'canon' or not 'canon'. There's perhaps a certain argument to be made for material by Rebellion (as owner of the characters, and seemingly on a much longer-term basis than - say - Wildstorm) being 'canon' due to being the latest adventures from the official publishers, but it doesn't feel like that's our call to make without some sort of statement to follow. I've toyed with subheadings but the problem is you spend a sentence explaining the premise of whatever revival you're talking about and then often only have about the same amount of actual summary, and I really try to avoid subheads for only a line or two. 
So far I've simply been avoiding recounting the events of revivals in the in-universe sections, which has on occasion meant separating well-meaning stuff from around Albion's publication, something that illustrates the potential pitfalls as Albion didn't really go anywhere despite all the noise at the time. However, Rebellion do seem to be sticking at bringing out new material, which generates not just content but sources lovely lovely sources too, and I feel we could do with coming up with some way of handling it in case something like Paul Grist's Smash series becomes a regular thing. 
BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revivals in plot summaries & character histories?