Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Comics creators work group

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)

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)Reply

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)Reply

• <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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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) 03:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Comics creators work group/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you. Okip 02:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm the main administrator for the Women in Comics Wikia site, which features articles about female creators, women's comics organizations (e.g. Friends of Lulu), and all-women anthologies (e.g. Girl Comics). We'd like to remain separate because of notability issues, but I think that cross-pollination between our wiki and this WikiProject would help us all out. We have articles about creators you don't, and Wikipedia articles often form the basis of ours, which we then expand. Also, we can put the female creators you want articles/expansion for on top priority, so that both projects can grow in tandem. What do you think? LadiesMakingComics (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Hi! I am very new to editing Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if this is necessarily the right place to ask this, but I was updating the article on Dennis Hopeless, to reflect the fact that he is now credited in Marvel Comics as 'Dennis "Hopeless" Hallum'. He explains the reason for this change in a tweet from Jan. 22, 2019.

I was wondering what should be done in a situation such as this, where the name a person uses with the public changes. Should the title of the article be changed to reflect the name change? If so, what is the process for doing that to ensure the article is both accurate and also discoverable?

Sorry if I'm asking this the wrong way, and if there is a proper way to ask questions like this, please let me know, so that I can do it correctly! – SlayerWatcher6

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)Reply