Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Comics creators work group Information & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Comics creators work group Links at HealthHaven.com

(Rated NA-Class)

Comics portal

This page 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 page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Related work groups:

	Comics creators work group

edit · history · watch · refresh

To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Comics creators work group:

Here are some tasks you can do:

Requests: Dave Taylor (comics), Neil Googe, Ron Wagner, C. B. Cebulski
Cleanup: Bryan Hitch, More >>
Expand: Kelley Puckett, Tom Peyer
Stubs: More >>
Infobox: More >>
Other: Requested photos

Comics Portal

WikiProject Comics

talk

⇒ Get Involved

Intro

Notice Board

⇒ Article alerts	New!
⇒ Cleanup tasks	Help
⇒ Peer Review	Help
⇒ Tasks to be Completed	Help
⇒ Assessments	Help
⇒ B-Class FAQ	New!

Resources

⇒ Copyright

⇒ Manual of style

⇒ Naming Conventions

⇒ References

⇒ Templates

⇒ Statistics

Workgroups

⇒ British comics	talk
⇒ Comics creators	talk
⇒ Comic strips	talk
⇒ DC Comics	talk
⇒ European comics	talk
⇒ Marvel Comics	talk
⇒ Spider-Man	talk
⇒ United States comics	talk
⇒ Webcomics	talk
⇒ World comics	talk

Category:WikiProject Comics

[edit] Getting invovled

Hello, not sure where to post this. I'm wanting to get involved with this project but I am fairly new to wikipedia, I've been wanting for a while to make an index of comic artists and thought this would be the group to work on that with. I made my first article today Skottie Young but it still needs some work, let me know where I can help out. Drroett 03:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

There is a list of related articles requiring cleanup generated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Comics creators work group/Cleanup listing. Any help in clearing the backlog would be appreciated. Hiding T 09:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

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)

[edit] Project tagging

Just an FYI to let everyone know that I've hit all the creators articles in the various World Comics categories, and I feel pretty confident I got all of them tagged with the comics project and biography project tags. Whew! :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 04:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Comics creators

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 22:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:59, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] BLP issues

It looks like this may be a bone of contention with both the infobox and the articles, especially on 3 data points:

Date of birth
Place of birth
Nationality

Looking at WP:BLP, and the non-public figure section, 2 of those are real sketchy for us to include.

Most of the people we are dealing with are definitely not public figures, so date and place of birth seem to be outside the information relevant for notability.

I'm thinking that the following may need to be done:

The place of birth and place of death fields be removed from the infobox or restricted to the most general of terms.
The date of birth and death be recoded to only show in the 'box if a "sourced" flag is present. Even then these may need to be paired down to just month and year. (I know, this screws the age calculation template.)
Nationality needs a serious look since it'll need sourcing to justify being there, in the 'box, in the article, and in the category sorting.
The last also applies to the "People from State/Province/Region/City" cats and Wiki projects.

As it stands we've got ~900 of the almost 1400 bio article that fall under BLP and editors that are very stringent on making sure BLP is enforced. We need to look at this.

- J Greb (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I have less problems with birth date and place, if they can be verified. Having an incorrect birthday in your article is not a very serious problem (one date is not more negative than another, unless you have the age wrong by thirty years or so). Nationality can be contentious, so we should indeed be careful with that one. It is the other personal info (often outside the infobox), like names and ages of partner and children (wo are almost certainly not public figures), that cause me greater concern. I'm probably reading too much into this, but an article like Ben Templeton is calling the co-creator of his comic strip three times his "partner". Work partner? Life partner? Quite an important distinction, but not made clear in the article or the source given. This is the kind of stuff we need to be watching out for, more than the date of birth, in my opinion. Fram (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict> I think we're okay on birth and death details if they're published in a secondary source. A lot of the Comics Journal interviews get into place of birth, not so much date of birth, so that might make those facts okay. I think for date of birth and death, if there is an obituary, then that's fine too. The nationality I think is perhaps too contentious and should perhaps be left out. The age calculation isn't too much of an issue, there's one you can use for just the year, which will give you a rough estimate of the age, I've used it recently at, um... R. C. Harvey, it's {{Birth year and age}}. But I'm no BLP expert. That said, BLP wouldn't apply to death dates, would it, by definition? Hiding T 11:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The way the BLP material is worded it seems that the concern is the same with both sets of dates and places, it's just that BLP allows a "delete first, don't worry about BRD" mechanic. In either case, with a citeable source it should be good. The thing is getting that source.

As for nationality... If we're leaving nationality out, then we're going to be hard pressed to justify categorizing living people in anything but the general writer/artist/penciller/editor/etc cats.

- J Greb (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What I was getting at regarding death dates was that if someone has a death date, they are dead, and therefore not living, and therefore Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons would no longer apply. Hope that clarifies, ;). Regarding nationality... yes, that's a tricky one. Mind, it always has been. I don't have an answer beyond getting a source. Hiding T 23:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

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) 01:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality and the infobox

I've been working through the articles checking the infoboxes and I've run into something I'd like the work group's input on. Is there a desire to make the text/link that shows up under "Nationality" in the infobox consistent?

Right now, using Americans as an examples, there seems to be 3 ways the information is entered:

Unlinked text - American
Linked to the country - [[United States|American]]
Linked to a list - [[People of the United States|American]]

It is possible to standardize this through the infobox template, but it would be helpful to know which way we want to go. I'm thinking the "People of..." articles would be preferable with the "Nation" articles being used as a fallback.

This also raises issues with the following:

China/Hong Kong/Singapore/Taiwan
British/English/Northern Irish/Welsh/Scots

(There may be others, but these seem to be the two obvious ones)

IIUC, there is a sore spot with categories and in article nomenclature with respects to China. Right now we've got the writer and artist cats breaking down into each of the 4 groups. With Hong Kong and Singapore, would it be a good idea to note "Chinese (Hong Kong)" and "... (Singapore)" in the nationality? And with Taiwan, would there be problems with using "Taiwanese" in the infobox?

As for the UK quintet... is there any type of guide line as to when to use English, Northern Irish, Welsh, or Scots instead of British? IIUC, "British" is the more general term, but it seems it is being used interchangeably with "English". And this one not only affects the "Nationality" field, but also which categories the articles wind up in.

- J Greb (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Contents