Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/British comics work group
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page. | ||||
| NA | This article has been rated as NA-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here. | ||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||||
|
|||||
 Comics Portal |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Category:WikiProject Comics |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] Updating British comics
I dropped in a note on recent developments in British comics [1] 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))
- 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))
[edit] To do
So what areas do people think need addressing? I think the main one is polishing up things like Eagle (comic) and looking into starting entries on some of the British girl's comics which were huge at the time but seem to have faded away. I've not yet watched Comics Britannia but one of the three episodes was on this area and could be a handy resource.
Anything else like earlier comics? We have some entries on the classic (and no reprinted) Golden Age characters like The Spider and the Steel Claw but there are many others. (Emperor 14:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC))
- Hi. I am happy to crack on with aspects of British girls comics but am slightly wary of falling foul of questions of notability and of conflict of interest. I think there's clearly some interest in Jinty, Tammy, and Misty as the triumvirate of Fleetway girls comics with an edgier sensibility, and Bella is an important title though I know less about that. Should I perhaps initially look to doing an article specifically on girls comics rather than concentrating on the individual titles I know best? Also, on the conflict of interest front - those three Fleetway titles are the ones I've written about most, so is there a problem with that?
- I also have a question on references. Various of the Wikipedia style / help pages I've read say that blogs are not good sources, for instance. However, something like Steve Holland's Bear Alley blog (http://bearalley.blogspot.com/) is surely allowable? And if so, what about less scholarly webpages such as Briony Coote's writing on 26pigs.com (http://www.26pigs.com/tammy/index.html)? Guidance would be helpful. Jenniscott (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Blogs aren't viewed as reliable sources mainly due to their lack of reliability in the sciences and biographies. For our purposes they are slightly more reliable, since we use them to source opinion and facts we attribute to that blogger. Steve Holland is perfectly acceptable, he's an expert talking within his area of expertise. I'd argue you could say the same of Briony Coote, and I would be prepared to defend that on those grounds. It's a tricky question of judgement, and of arguing your case. If you cite and format properly, then really you can move the argument onto the nature of the information. Notability is, and probably always will be an issue. I tend to take the view that if you can present an article in the most encyclopedic way possible, conforming with footnote style and so on, and write three or four paragraphs minimum, all showing sources, you can usually avoid deletion in a deletion debate. But it is tricky and an area where the community is divided. Right now there's a move to create lists rather than single articles, but you're best bet is to just be bold, and see what happens. Myself and Emperor are pretty well versed in the ins and outs of how the rules play out, so give one of us a shout if you do hit major problems. Hope that helps. Hiding T 10:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes indeed. One important thing to bear in mind is that the "rules" vary in how strictly they should be applied. Policy has little wiggle room but most are guidelines and there are exceptions to this but it is a good idea to discuss them before hand. So on your points:
- Blogs and forums can be used but it is wise to discuss them on a case-by-case basis. Newsarama uses forum software as a publishing medium (rather than use a more bespoke system) and is OK for using as references (it has a lot of interviews which can help satisfy WP:V). Equally I raised the issue of using creators blogs to reference their own thoughts on their creations with regard to inspiration, etc. and as long as we keep an eye on WP:BLP and avoid controversy then the consensus is they are OK (for example, I use D'Israeli's blog comments on Stickleback (comics) as he often prints annotations and a lot of background). Sooooooo while there are lots of comic blogs out there and we can't use most of them, but if there are experts who use blogs to publish in-depth pieces on topics then, as long as we have examined it beforehand, I can't see any reason we can't make use of them just because of the software that is used for publishing.
- On the conflict of interest: WP:EL is pretty strict on the fact that you can't link to your own material or sites you run and there is no wiggle room that I am aware of. However, there are easy ways to keep things moving forward and ensure we aren't losing useful resources - WP:COI has advise on this and the simplest way is to drop a note into the article's talk page with the relevant links, other editors can then look them over and see if they are worth adding and then they can add it in. Feel free to drop a note in here so it won't be overlooked and there isn't a big delay.
- I'd say expand Jinty, Misty and Tammy (quick note Jinty and Misty might need moving as the general disambiguation is "(comics)" but I know a number of British comics use "(comic)" so it might not be a big deal). General material on British girls comics can go in History of the British comic for now. I think an article on British girls comics could be very interesting but what we really need in the short term are is for the existing articles to be expanded and rounded out and the ones that don't exist (like Tammy and Bella) need starting. So I'd suggest focusing on those and we'll see how it goes. I have those on my watchlist so will keep an eye on things and while I don't know an awful lot about the topic I'll try and chip in on formatting and the like.
- So that is my advice, it should be easy enough to make sure all the good resources get used to produce solid, well rounded and useful articles. Although not an expert I'm always happy to help where I can. (Emperor (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC))
- Thanks to both of you, Hiding and Emperor. Much appreciated all round. I think I just might move Jinty and Misty right now to disambiguation (comics) as they're still pretty underdeveloped. It's not going to move all that fast but more on the slowly-but-surely pace... Jenniscott (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- D'oh - also, where I said Bella above I meant Bunty, which already exists. Bella Barlow or Bella at the Bar would probably be a section within Tammy or John Armstrong (comics) I should think. Jenniscott (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- The main problem I've found with the slightly older generation of comic creators is that sourcing is a pain. I did OK with John Stokes (artist) but only because he keeps working away in the industry. That is where, I hope your expertise can come on ;) (Emperor (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC))
- Yes I'm afraid most British comics are disambiguated to "(comic)" but that doesn't mean they should be but some (like 2000 AD (comic)) have a tonne of incoming links and moving them would create a lot of work fixing the links. That said Hiding has a bot that could be tasked to the job so it might not be such a bit problem after all. The exception seems to be Eagle (comic) as there are a lot of others in the field: Eagle (comics). There are an awful lot of articles out there that need some work (like David Lloyd (comic artist), John Ridgway (comic artist) and Tom Tully (comic writer)) - I may make it a mission to hunt them down and fix them. (Emperor (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC))
- D'oh - also, where I said Bella above I meant Bunty, which already exists. Bella Barlow or Bella at the Bar would probably be a section within Tammy or John Armstrong (comics) I should think. Jenniscott (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you, Hiding and Emperor. Much appreciated all round. I think I just might move Jinty and Misty right now to disambiguation (comics) as they're still pretty underdeveloped. It's not going to move all that fast but more on the slowly-but-surely pace... Jenniscott (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes indeed. One important thing to bear in mind is that the "rules" vary in how strictly they should be applied. Policy has little wiggle room but most are guidelines and there are exceptions to this but it is a good idea to discuss them before hand. So on your points:
- Blogs aren't viewed as reliable sources mainly due to their lack of reliability in the sciences and biographies. For our purposes they are slightly more reliable, since we use them to source opinion and facts we attribute to that blogger. Steve Holland is perfectly acceptable, he's an expert talking within his area of expertise. I'd argue you could say the same of Briony Coote, and I would be prepared to defend that on those grounds. It's a tricky question of judgement, and of arguing your case. If you cite and format properly, then really you can move the argument onto the nature of the information. Notability is, and probably always will be an issue. I tend to take the view that if you can present an article in the most encyclopedic way possible, conforming with footnote style and so on, and write three or four paragraphs minimum, all showing sources, you can usually avoid deletion in a deletion debate. But it is tricky and an area where the community is divided. Right now there's a move to create lists rather than single articles, but you're best bet is to just be bold, and see what happens. Myself and Emperor are pretty well versed in the ins and outs of how the rules play out, so give one of us a shout if you do hit major problems. Hope that helps. Hiding T 10:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Advise needed
I need some input on a change I've made to some of the infobox templates. Specifically:
- {{Collectedarcbox}}
- {{Infobox future comics}}
- {{Supercbbox}}
With these three I've added a logical operator to flip between US and non-US context. To the best of my knowledge, this only affects the colorist/colourist field. Is there anything else in the templates that would/should be affected?
Similarly, should the operator be added to {{Graphicnovelbox}} or any of the other generic 'boxes?
Thanks, - J Greb (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers. I would say yes graphic novel box.
- What it does underline is a larger issue that I kicked around with Steve Block a few times. British comics are usually comics anthologies so you have stories running in titles and I am unsure the current structure really reflects this, e.g. we have Category: 2000 AD titles and while something like Judge Dredd is the equivalent to long running comic book titles, the title is actually 2000 AD and it is a story within it. Which might suggest {{Supercbbox}} isn't really infobox for comic stories or it needs something else like a field for the parent publication (as technically the published would be IPC/Rebellion and you'd need a... "published in" field to cope with anthologies. Given that there are a lot of them out there it might be worth adding something that allows it to work better with an anthology. The name does look increasingly clunky though and the potential for confusion is there as it is often used when it isn't about superheroes and isn't about comic books (that said a change to "comicsbox" is probbaly not worth doing at this stage). (Emperor (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC))
