And great good thanks for your kind words. Knowing that a fellow Comics Project editor has access to tons of archival and reference material practically makes me salivate. So much of comics history before the 1990s just doesn't appear readily online, and you have to go to hard copies of 1960s mainstream interviews, 1970s and 1980s fanzines and niche pubs., and books by the likes of Goulart and Horn. I will definitely be bugging you to see what reference books and zines you have! Looking forward to collaborating. Wityh regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a top of the head idea of the reference material stash lurking menacingly around the house -

• tons of books (probably literally) - Gerber Guides, several Goulart's, The Steranko Guides (£2 each, sigh, those were the days), Paul Sassenie, about 18 Overstreet's, all the McAlpine UK Price Guides, 'All In color for a dime' and a couple of other Thompson collaborations, Bail's 'The first heroic Age' and a load of others ...
• shedloads of UK comics - Eagle (both series, nearly complete), the first 1100 2000ADs, Judge Dredd, Crisis, lots of 60s/70s runs - Victor, Lion, Wham, Pow, Fantastic, Whizzer and Chips, Beezer, Commando comics and heaven knows what else; about 150 annuals, pretty well everything Marvel UK have produced, most of the 70s undergrounds and 70s/80's small press ...
• books full of strips and cartoons cut out over the years - Alan Moore's 'Stars my degradation' from Sounds, NME's 'Lone Groover' and other Ray Lowry cartoons, 'Jeff Hawke' from Sunday Express, J Edward Oliver's Disc and Music Echo strip (a largely unsung genius [[1]], complete run of Look and Learn's 'The Trigan Empire' ...
• hundreds of fanzines - very near complete run of Amazing Heroes, 100-odd TCR's (I still love that magazine and religiously dig them out every couple of years to read again), Golden Age, Alter Ego, Comic Book Marketplace, Comic Media, LOC, etc etc. There's a large box of Comics Interview and Comics Journals I haven't tracked down yet, somewhere unmarked from when we last moved! Loads of UK fanzines - BEM, Fantasy Advertiser, Fantasy Unlimited, and the later Comic World and Comic News ...
• around 3,000 Marvels, 9,000 DCs and 1500 Indies, Graphic Novels etc from early 60s to about 1998 (I sold a lot of Marvels years ago). There's also pretty well every DC, Marvel, UK and GA title that's been available online on 2 1T hard drives, together with choice Indies. Very useful for quick reference instead of ferreting in boxes - for example I've just noticed that the 'Blue Beetle' page needs a lot of citations, I might tackle that next week, it should only take a couple of hours of flipping through. (not to get too wrapped up in piracy issues n copyright stuff, but I've spent all I can over the years - probably more than most - and I'll plead 'research purposes', m'lud before doing a runner). Aside: Great for holidays too - last year I read the first 20 years LSH stories on the beach without paying a fortune in excess baggage charges or worrying about damage/loss.

and that's not mentioning the matching record collection/library ... Yep, the car lives in the drive; and I have a VERY understanding wife (with impeccable musical taste. The bratettes think I'm completely mad though - they just don't have a clue those youngsters. I plan a nice quiet retirement one day - Cheers!

 Gongshow ^Talk 19:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - I must admit I can't think I have ever heard of them. I got a lot of Marvel reprints via Marvel UK but I did grab a lot of earlier comics at school fairs and the like, so I suspect if I really dug in I'd find some of these though. Anyway good stuff - it can be difficult finding sources on such topics. (Emperor (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

For ref: I've managed to find one more source of Class info. Once I've tracked a hard copy down I'll add any relevant Archiveangel (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

well, yes, I thought that it would be useful adding a quote signaling that Windsor-Smith's early art was basically a cheap Kirby (or, should I say, Kirby-Steranko) imitation. It's really worth mentioning, because his early art is quite poor : anyone these buying old comics just to see Windsor-Smith's art would be sorely disappointed, unless he is a diehard completist. I read Daredevil#50 and it's really and eyesore (and I'm a Windsor-Smith fan, so it was quite a shock to me). I even have a book about the history comics industry ("The comic book heroes", by Gerard Jones) which calls the early Smith a "terribly crude" Kirby imitator, who did some "hideous fill-ins", but I guessed that it would be nicer to use a quote by the artist himself. cheers, JJ Georges (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you said to me, you should "leave the Americanizations to others," hence my reverting your relocation of the commas next to titles. As for your question about Wikilinks, I don't understand how "copying direct from the Wikilink on the relevant page" could possibly result in either a redirect or a disambiguation page. That's effectively what I did wherever you left one of those two things. --Tbrittreid (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for your kind words. I probably should have sent cites for the policies I was citing. The couple of main ones Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Uniform_cover_artwork_crediting_convention and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name).

I'll go ahead and do something up for the St. John title. -- Tenebrae (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been the suggestion of re-organising the Archie pages for 18 months at Talk:Archie_Comics

The current Wikipedia pages and links don't deal with the subject properly for anyone looking at it even on a cursory basis (many potential title and character links don't even exist) - and it's a long, complex history which even fanzines haven't generally covered very well over the years. Seeing as DC Comics are now committed to a new revitalisation of the characters, I think its time the info was there.

I have access to nearly all MLJ/Red Circle/Archie publications, the associated DC cross-over stuff, and many articles and other resources and and am working on this over the next few months. I'm happy to slash and burn through what's there if no-one else wants to, but would prefer to take any thoughts into account on consensus. Bearing in mind the history and the complexity of linkage and etceteras, we should be able to restructure to present a concise back-history to be proud of. Below is an ongoing plan of work, with a suggested restructure. Discussion here is welcome, although I will pick up anything posted elsewhere.

there is now a suggestion of making a workgroup for this project Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics#Revision_of_MLJ.2FArchie.2FRed_Circle.2FImpact.2FDC_pages

in the meantime ....

Plan of work for Archie/MLJ etc superheroes[edit]

This is an ongoing plan of work to be done as I pick it up. It's also my scribble pad. Changes to this section will happen as new items for action are found and as old stuff is dealt with. Please add any thoughts below the table, or new items within it. Thanks!

Character pages are identified by * before the name, to distinguish from comics titles (ie Black Hood for the comic * Black Hood for the character.

I will do all the pages relating to book titles first; followed by character pages. So Black Hood Comics will be updated well before 'Black Hood'.

Links from other existing pages which have not previously been linked will be updated as each page is done. Any issues raised will be dealt with as going along, unless they need extensive discussion for contention - if a workgroup doesn't start up the issues will be raised here, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics, and on the relevant page if one exists already. Archiveangel (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title / Character	work needed	status
MLJ 1939 - 1945
MLJ Publications	new page, info up to changeover to 'Archie Comics' and relationship. Moving some text to consider.	in process for 15.03.10
Blue Ribbon Comics	revise page	done 19.02.10
Jackpot Comics	revise page	done 02.03.10
Pep Comics	revise page	done 26.02.10
Top-Notch Comics/Top-Notch Laugh Comics	revise page	done 21.02.10
Zip Comics	New page	done 08.03.10
Special Comics	only 1 issue - mention on main Archie publications page /MLJ page? and Black Hood pages	in process for 01.04.10
Black Hood Comics	adapt existing page to publishing history for title, separate from Black Hood character page (no mention of GA at present). Transfer any relevant information	in process for 01.04.10
Hangman Comics (MLJ)	new page - separate details from Red Circle page it is currently on. Publication history, not character history. Disambiguation	in process for 01.04.10
Shield/ Wizard Comics	new page - separate from Shield page and Wizard page. Publication history, not character history.	done 27.02.10
* Dan Hastings	insufficient info for own page	no action
* Doc Strong	New page. Publication and brief character history
* Green Falcon	New Page. Publication and brief character history
* Rang-A-Tang	New Page. Publication and brief character history
* Corporal Collins - Infantryman	New Page. Publication and brief character history
* Captain Flag	update existing page
* Ty-Gor	New Page. Publication and brief character history
* Loop Logan, Air Ace	New page. Publication and brief character history
* Inferno (Archie Comics)	New page. All versions - Publication and brief character history. Disambiguation
* The Fox (comics)	update. All versions - Publication and brief character history. Disambiguation check
* Hercules (MLJ Comics)	new page? - very little information. If so, disambiguation required
* Mr Justice (Archie Comics)	New page. Publication and brief character history. Marvel Mr Justice page to rename. Dsambiguation
* The Wizard	update. Needs adapting to publishing history/fictional history and refs
* Scott Rand	insufficient info for own page	no action
* The Mystic	insufficient info for own page	no action
* Wings Johnson of Air Patrol	New page. Publication and brief character history
* The West Pointer	New page. Publication and brief character history
* Black Hood	update. All versions - Publication and brief character history.
* The Firefly	update. Needs adapting to publishing history/fictional history and refs
* Kardak the Mystic	New page. Publication and brief character history
* Bob Phantom - The Scourge of the Underworld	New page. Publication and brief character history (mainly frop Top-Notch Comics)
* Fran Fraser, girl photographer	New page. Publication and brief character history
* The St Louis Kid	New page. Publication and brief character history - or could add to Bob Montana page. Intriguing enough storyline for own page.
* Dotty and Ditto	add piece to Bob Woggon page. Include 2 Pep appearances
* The Comet	update. All versions - publishing history/fictional history and refs
* Scarlet Avenger	new page
* Mr Satan	New page
* Madame Satan	New page. Publication and brief character history
* The Shield	update. All versions - publishing history/fictional history and refs (including Lancelot Strong etc)
* The Web	update. All versions. Needs adapting to publishing history/fictional history and refs
* Hangman	New page. All versions - publishing history/fictional history and refs
* Sergeant Boyle	New page.
* Queen of Diamonds	New page?
* Fu-Chang International Detective	New page?
* Bentley of Scotland Yard	New page - publishing history/fictional history and refs.
* The Press Guardian	New page?
* The Midshipman	New page - publishing history/fictional history and refs.
* Kayo Ward	New page - publishing history/fictional history and refs.
* Danny In Wonderland	New page - publishing history/fictional history and refs.
* The Fireball	New page - publishing history/fictional history and refs.
* Captain Commando and the Boy Soldiers	New page - publishing history/fictional history and refs.
* War Eagles - the Devil's Flying Twins	New page - publishing history/fictional history and refs.
* Captain Valor	New page - publishing history/fictional history and refs.
* Zambini the Miracle Man	New page - publishing history/fictional history and refs.
* Dicky in the Magic Forest	New page?
* Black Jack	New page - publishing history/fictional history and refs.
* Red Rube	New page - publishing history/fictional history and refs.
* Nevada Jones	New page - publishing history/fictional history and refs.
* Red Reagan of the Homicide Squad	New page? - publishing history/fictional history and refs.
* Kalthar the Giant Man	New page? - publishing history/fictional history and refs.
Archie Comics 1945 - present
Archie Comics	publishers - overview - publication history, all titles, publication history. Link to new MLJ page
Pep Comics	Archie oriented Pep continuation from MLJ on same page
Archie and family character material	how to construct?
Archie Adventure Series / Mighty Comics Group 1959 - 1967
	Overview as part of main Archie publications page. Check redirect
Mighty Comics Group	update. Overview as part of main Archie publications page
Adventures of The Fly/Flyman]]	update
* Flygirl (Archie)	own page? add her details to Flyman? Disambiguation to clarify
Adventures of The Jaguar	update. Needs adapting to publishing history/fictional history and refs
Mighty Comics	update
Mighty Crusaders	update. Needs adapting to publishing history/fictional history and refs
Double Life of Private Strong	only 2 issues. Amalgamate with Shield
Laugh Comics	note issues with The Fly, Fly Girl and Jaguar on own page and character pages
Pep Comics	note issues with The Fly, Fly Girl and Jaguar on own page and character pages
* The Shadow	mention on main Archie publications page, Check Shadow pages and add if necessary
Cancelled 1980's Spectrum line
	Overview as part of main Archie publications page. Add details of specific superheroes to own page
Archie / Red Circle
Red Circle Comics	Overview as part of main Archie publications page. Update own page
Blue Ribbon Comics	update page	done 20.02.10
* Black Hood	add details to own page
* The Comet	add details to own page
* Mighty Crusaders	add details to own page
* The Fly
* The Shield/Steel Sterling	add details to own page
* The Original Shield	add details to own page
Impact (DC)
Impact	Overview briefly as part of main Archie publications page - licensing deal. Update own page
Crucible	update on Impact page. Any necessary detail on individual character page
* Black Hood	add details to own page
* The Comet	add details to own page
* The Jaguar	add details to own page
* The Fly	add details to own page
* Legend of The Shield	add details to own page
* The Web	add details to own page
Proposed relaunch 1993(DC)
Proposed relaunch 1993(DC)	Overview briefly as part of main Archie publications page - licensing deal. Add to Impact page
Mainstream DC Universe 2009 - 2010
	Overview briefly as part of main Archie publications page - licensing deal?
Red Circle mini-series	new page? or add to existing characters pages and overview? seems best
* The Shield	add details to own page
* The Web	add details to own page

Issues[edit]

• Hive off from 'Archie Comics' into new sub-pages 'MLJ' and 'superheroes' - would help solve the problem of length with that page?
• Technically The Shield (Archie Comics) should be The Shield (MLJ Comics) - same for many other characters as they were MLJ publications first. Is it important enough to change?

Archiveangel (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, they are pretty standard WP:MOS tweaks that are easy to catch. If in doubt there is a template for a lot of things and using {{cite web}} (and similar templates) helps keep everything standardised and avoids any issues over someone's personal preferences.

Thanks for starting the article, I have redlinked it in in a few places but it seemed to not be getting much love and it couldn't ask for a better start than that, as it is a solid well-rounded article that should set it up well for the future. (Emperor (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Plus, if you start any pages feel free to add them to the relevant page on the notice board as it'll help attract the attention of other editors who'll give it the once over (I'm afraid I know very little about Archie Comics so can't lend a direct hand to your good work there but an extra set of eyes looking over a page can never hurt. (Emperor (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I'm getting the feeling that you probably just don't write in the wikipedia way. If not, that's fine. The articles are certainly better after you're done. But, if you ever wanted to take one to WP:GA or WP:FA and have it vetted, you'd have to source them in a completely different way. Tell me if you're interested in learning a new way, and we can go through the article bit by bit. Otherwise, keep up the good work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a little history. The reason Wikipedia has put such an emphasis on references is because of the huge number of disagreements that editors have had over the years. We used to just argue, but then we realized we could just prove our statements were correct by backing them up with a ref.

For instance, how do you know "Pep Comics was the third anthology comic published by MLJ Magazines Inc."? I believe you, but it would be nice to have some book to turn to, to back this statement up if some crazy editor comes along and thinks it's the fourth.

And "about a John Carter of Mars-like hero trapped on another planet" is WP:OR. Encyclopedia writers are not supposed to make comparisons. We're supposed to report on comparisons made by reliable sources.

One of the comics GAs I've done is Silver Age of Comics, if you want to look at a GA. That one took me a really long time, but basically every single statement is backed up by something the reader can use to double check (it's deteriorated a bit since then). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is the right infobox, it is just that you hadn't added the most up-to-date version. I always try and pick one up from the template page so it is the most recent version.

I'd definitely encourage you to add what you can to the talk page header as it saves a lot of time (there are folks sweeping through the unassessed ones, so it makes sense to check new articles to add a header - that way they haven't got some never-ending task). Unless someone drops in a full-formed article, most new articles are going to be stubs or starts (usually falling down on referencing and perhaps images) and anyone can do those. If you know the assessment criteria then it isn't a problem assessing something you've worked heavily on up to a C but beyond that I'd seek someone else's input (and do the same on the C-grade assessment if you aren't sure). Just give me a nudge or request one on the assessment page - the B and below assessments don't usually take very long as it is usually easy to spot on a read through if something is failing.

For speed purposes I keep a browser tab open on a sub-page I have into which I drop templates I use a lot (and pre-filled stable templates) which I can then quickly copy and paste over: User:Emperor/Tools. If you find yourself doing the same thing (like adding infoboxes and the like) a lot then it really saves a lot of time if you have them to hand (as opposed to having to dig them out each time. Feel free to take anything you might find useful. (Emperor (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

No problem it was just a bit of tweaking here and there. I'll do more of a thorough read through and see what else I can polish as well as flagging anything that needs sourcing, it is solid and approaching a B (although it will need a photo to get there) so we might as well see what other work is needed to push it over that benchmark. As you say, it is an important article that will get a lot more attention in the coming months so we might as well make sure it is as good as we can get it.

And "smoothly coerced"? Sounds scary. Unless it is me, in which case it was clearly a great idea. (Emperor (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yes it is definitely something that needs... if not properly resolving then at least having the various arguments laid out so the reader can make a more informed decision on what may or may not have gone on.

And Padraig has indeed done some important work on this (and can be considered an expert for all intents and purposes, despite being published on Blogger - like Steve Holland and John Freeman) but it seems I missed the update about a book coming from MonkeyBrain Books (which pretty much clinches his expert status) - I'll be picking that up when it comes out. (Emperor (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, blogs themselves are usually forbidden and there are link bots that will remove/revert the addition of blogger/blogspot to external links. The exception is if they are experts and I can make a good argument for the inclusion of Padraig, Steve and John, as well as Lew Stringer - most of the experts on British comics use Blogger (others that don't include from Paul Gravett). So it doesn't mean we shouldn't add links to blogs but, if you do, be prepared to defend its inclusion at some point (and watch out for the robots reverting edits if they see something they don't like). (Emperor (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I have put a couple of comments on Bongomatic's talk page. Rather than repeat them here I'll await your and his reply. Regards, Mark

I've moved the reply (and your original comment from the top of this page) to here as some of it is not fully relevant to the core discussion, and I don't want to invade any more of Bongomatic's space.

Ok much better :)

1) There are links on wikipedia to covers and selected pages already on certain comic articles.

but as I said, there's none I can find on whole issues or series, which is suggestive.

I bumped across some covers on links including some "add to cart" type stuff

2) All the comics on furycomics are in the public domain .. most of the raw scans I worked with originate from goldenagecomics.co.uk

I guessed as much - nearly added a comment earlier to the effect that if the type of links we're discussing are permissible I would most certainly add that above anything else. Love that site, it's been the source of great pleasure for a long time.

I agree but to the casual visitor you dont get to see content whereas fury you see it straight away

However, once again, I'd want to be sure of the PD status of MLJ/Archie material at the moment. I'm no expert on copyright law, but while rummaging throught the Marvelman legal issues this week for the re-write I'm working on, it's clear that it's no simple thing. I'm sure GA Comics check PD status before upping stuff, (they're too careful to identify what can't be uploaded to not do so) but the issue still needs to be revisited when events such as DC taking over a character happen - and I've not seen anything anywhere as to what exactly the deal is.

I am followiing the general consensus and have googled and found lists including all my comics. I don't think you can second guess what and if's. As an aside if that was the case then wikipedia ought to look at removing images that fall under the Corel vs Bridgeman and maybe "sweat of the brow" as these may well be challenged. I HOPE NOT!! as I am a huge user of wikipedia and commons. Also in my usage the worst that will happen is a "cease and desist" letter, but I am as sure as I can be all it cool You would be on extremely dodgy ground creating new comics using the characters etc

3) Hopefully you'll see my point that they are prime source and great links ... I have spent many months on this project and wanted to share. I have absolutely no intention of spamming, scamming or breaking copyright laws.

Understood, but we still have to live within the rules. If Wikipedia says no links, then there's no links, time spent on the resource has no bearing on that. (still it's not time wasted, there's the basis of a great site).

From all the wikipedia guidelines I have read my links are very valid

4) Sorry if I have been a bit "grumpy" but I spent most of yesterday finding the pages and linking checking links etc and had just about finished. And thought I'd made a great contribution, then I found all my work had been reversed. I will just say again this is public domain content

couple of things. #PD may not even be the issue - it could be something else. #I'd suggest that the correct approach if you're doing something that isn't identifiable somewhere else as 'common procedure' is raise the question on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics before acting. I'm fairly new around here, and I've found there's enough nice people patient enough to explain the whys and wherefores, and you can learn real quick if you ask.

A couple of randoms:

• There's an irony here, the people who scanned or upped the issues originally aren't getting a credit!

Yes and no .. there are "things happening" if you look at digitalcomicmuseum.com/forum you'll see what. I am putting on a small tool bar under or part of the logo with about links etc but wanted to get the other stuff done and wait for the dust to settle .. plus ironically I think I need to alter the logo as I don't think I can use the hooded horseman as whilst the comics are PD I think he might be a copyrighted character. So I will do it then. (You didn't pick up on that one :)) And is the one copyright issue that does minorly concern me

• Personal view on the site - great idea, but some issues: navigation from the front page isn't clear that you click on 'Comic Book Viewer' to access the full list of comics - that took me ages to work out. I had about given up and was altering the page refs instead to navigate, as it reads as if you only gave access to 10 comics a week Always assume people are stupid/lazy when you design navigation - why not have a link that says 'click here to access available issues'.

If you look again You'll find I have 3 links in the intro box all pointing to viewer. As it is the front page may well change as it is a bit legacy, from the first version of the site. But the viewer URL's etc will never alter! I also I will alter text to state that the comics are in the public domain

The cover images are way too fuzzy - lots of work shrinking them (do it in bulk - try Neolics Picture Resizer, easy and fast). Well spotted! The thumbnail images are 100*145 was per my original site .. but I am now using them as very small thumbs on the right and larger in the middle of the page. In other words I am using the browser to scale them up and also down. I just wanted to see the sizes I need before redoing them and I think that the dimensions I have now are fine. So high up my list is to redo them. I'll do them manually as I can give them a bit of TLC and I estimate will only take 2/3 full days. Just a tad nicer when finished

And the interface is a little clunky. Yes it is a little but I have it very robust under the bonnet and not a database in sight to cause me grief. I am also looking to comics under publishing house (probably my next phase).

Another irony is I am toying with putting on historical info and was going to use your work as source (I have no knowledge of comics).

Finally (phew I hear you say) - we all get grumpy (you didn't hear me at 3.45am when the edit on Mick Anglo disappeared and 4 hours work went phhttt, yeah I know, save, save, save). Don't worry about any of it: Pause - hookup when you're not sure - always think, is this what I'd expect someone else to do/want? - don't rush, tomorrow will do, Wikipedia will wait...and you'll find a mistake in the meantime. And people will trust you far more if you sign your posts and have your very own talk page - it looks like you're hiding otherwise, and the natural question then is why?

I really only wanted to put on the links as I actually know nothing about comics and am not into being an editor hence me not setting things up and causing suspicion.

If you are interested I have a few other sites, best page to see is this http://emanac.com/sites/ which lists them. I am planning to spend the rest of this month on furycomics and then get back to my real baby talesofcuriosity.com. I need to make some more videos and sort out proper credits on the existing pages. The rest are either trundling on nicely or mothballed. I tend to spend a bit of time on a site then move on to the next until I am sick and tired of it and move to the next in a circular fashion (unless I have a flash of inspiration and head off on a tangent eg: my twitterbot).

Yes I hope this gets resolved now things have been talked through and hope you'll be batting for me :)

You are also based in England I see, I am in sunny Eastbourne.

After writing this I have just read the discussion and am basically giving up as this will just waste too much of my time. Basically if the Internet Archive is used as an example of what is Public Domain I throw my hands up. I suggest you look at the comics there and draw your own conclusions. Plus there are many other examples of other media files that are def not public domain that I will not say here. I could point you to 100's that I know of. Anyway I suggest you just leave it here and get on editing, best regards Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by EManac (talk • contribs) 10:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the project. Let's see what the result of the query is before moving forward, and hey, the inbox is always open ... Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's best if you answer in a block below the original post, 'block quoting' as you go if you need to. That way others can see the discussion progression later (also technically I guess you're altering someone else's contribution). Have a look at how the editing and punctuation works on the Mick Anglo entry above for a simple example, and how stars and double dots do indents and points - they're about all you need to know.

I assume you've seen the response at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics#External_links_to_sites_with_non-copyright_comics. That's pretty well it, I think. One thing worth remembering is that copyright laws in the US are not neccessarily the same as the UK, and I assume we're following the rules in Florida as (I think) Wikipedia is based there. 'General consensus' doesn't cut it on copyright (see next for a looming problem on that).

Actually you use an odd argument - I wouldn't be happy with 'only a cease and desist' if I'd done all that work - better to get it right first and save having to pull it all down or go pirate. Not to mention that the Digital Economy Bill is just about to be nodded through Parliament, and the ball game changes. I for one am v concerned about how such things will be dealt with after April (I've been involved in battling against it for a long time now; believe me people are in for a shock when it gets passed - as it will because of the lack of time for debate before the election. It's the worst drafted Bill I've ever seen, assumes guilt over copyright issues with no clear path for appeal, massive fines and imprisonment as an option, and the whole thing loaded to the 'rights holder', whoever they are. There's been over 400 amendments tabled, but none will be heard, at most there will be 1 hour debate and it will then be passed). I wouldn't be relying on 'cease and desist' any more - it's in the rights holder's interest to go legal straight away, the costs are the defendants problem. You've already picked up the Hooded Horseman problem, now multiply it. Not really a minor problem, watch your back!

If you look about there's endless problems with images on Wikipedia. That's why I've steered clear, even though it means nothing I do is ever likely to get a 'B' status (which, let's face it, would be cool).

You're more than welcome to use any of the posted stuff (it's free anyway, but it would be my pleasure). I'll be doing more of the MLJ stuff shortly, and plan to cover lots more as time goes on. If there's anything you need, ask and I'll see if I can help.

One small concern (which mitigates against the site somewhat) - I tend to spend a bit of time on a site then move on to the next until I am sick and tired of it and move to the next doesn't inspire confidence, and actually in itself goes against a Wikipedia link, leaving aside the other difficulties.

Site layout - trust me, I've done web design and various public/user interface projects for years. Always assume that the user is dumb, always get others to use the interface first, and don't assume because you like it everyone else will. I messed up using it, and I'm just randomly stupid not a fully-blown divv.

Sunny Eastbourne eh. Old stomping ground that, although I've not been back that way for a couple of years. Many a happy hour belting down great ales in The Terminus. You're nearly in Neil Gaiman territory (one of his best works was based at the Long Man of Wilmington). Say hello to the sea for me, can't beat the South Coast.

Sorry it's turned out as it has. As I said before, good luck, I'll be looking out for the project; and if I can help in any way, ask (although I suggest it will have to be sorted in some other forum - this isn't really the place. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My servers are in the US so that's what I have to adhere to.

No I am not waiting for a cease and desist I am saying that if something has slipped in there inadvertently then that's the worse I would expect but I am not expecting one! I am not working on a "lets chance it and see". I am working from "what everyone says this is public domain and I can see no reason to doubt them"

As an aside cease and desist are often sent out with no regard to the Corel case.

If I were to be creating new comics using DC characters then I would expect big problems, but I am not.

The hooded horseman is an example of using a (maybe) copyrighted character but the comics he appears in are public domain. So I am changing this if I find out someone holds the rights Then I know of no other problems.

When I said I work on a site until I am tired of it I am talking about development. I do it in phases so will revisit with new features in a few months.. I don't just leave things half done!

Its like 3 months of dealing with comics is enough and I want to do some videos now. The sites are all monitored by some utils I have written and I avoid databases so they trungle on nicely and I have no real maintenance. Just spend time in solid development and you get it make it back tenfold not having to fix things.

I know the Terminus well :)

If you fancy writing introductions to 239 titles then please volunteer!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by EManac (talk • contribs) 12:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your frustration, but Wikipedia has to adhere strictly to the law or they are a target which could pull the whole edifice down. They have to play it safe, dancing on the boundary isn't an option, and saying well it's available here or there won't help them. There's people checking stuff and pulling it off all the time, largely because of authors not actually finding out what's allowed and what's not before doing things.

Until now, smaller sites can probably get away with a couple of slips, get a 'cease and desist' and quietly change things, no harm done. From next month in the UK (that great democracy) the law will change so you are responsible for what you post and host - you will have to demonstrate you have taken due care to establish there is no copyright infringement, not 'I assumed it because xxx says so and it's online here'. Ignorance is no excuse, you are guilty if it appears you have infringed; the burden is on you to prove your innocence after the fact AND BEAR THE COST OF DOING SO THROUGH THE LEGAL PROCESS. Democracy in action, matey; you can argue your point if you can afford it. Being found guilty will mean massive fines, cost of loss of revenue, and possible imprisonment, not to mention being banned from the Internet. Your ISP will be required by law to provide the information to identify you and any potential infringement details. Oh, I forgot to say, there's no actual concrete appeal procedure set out in the law. Oh yes, and the Secretary of State will be able to change the rules as they wish as the Act is an 'enabling law', not the complete legal framework. No margin of error there, every site hosting anything that may be a copyright item will need to be very very careful because it's a no loss/cost game for the hunters. Democracy in action.

On a lighter note, as for 239 intros - just how long do you want them? Like the goldenagecomics intros to the companies, but for companies and titles, or longer? Might be possible, give me a way to contact you and I'll happily discuss further, another forum somewhere maybe? Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picked up your e-mail address at FuryComics through the DCM, so I'll be mailing you later Archiveangel (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok cool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by EManac (talk • contribs) 11:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

^Bongo_matic 23:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just saw your post over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics, and I was wondering if you could help me with referencing for some G.I. Joe stuff. I'm trying to get G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel) to Featured Article status, so if you have any magazines or other resources with information on G.I. Joe, I would very much appreciate it if you would share it with me.

Here are a couple of magazines that I know for sure have G.I. Joe stuff in them: Comics Feature #52 (Feb 1987), contains some interviews that were also reprinted in Comic Files Magazine Spotlight on G.I.Joe - The 'Nam - Merc - Frontline Combat (1986) (that's a mouthful!). Also, Marvel Age #56 (1987) and Comics Interview #37 and #38 (1986) have some interviews - the interview from Comics Interview #37 is available online, but I haven't been able to find the stuff from #38. There's a list with a couple of other relevant Marvel Ages and a couple of other things here, although some of the links on that page don't work and/or aren't relevant. I'm also working on a list of electronic interviews and articles at User:Cerebellum/G.I. Joe.

So, long story short, if you can find any of the above mags or can think of any others off the top of your head, I would be very grateful. It's not too much of a big deal, of course, but I couldn't pass up your generous offer. If you do find something, I'm a bit fuzzy on how you would get it to me -- are scans a possibility? Other than that, maybe you could just make a pass over the article and add in whatever we're missing.

Thanks for your time, and also good luck with your Marvelman rewrite! --Cerebellum (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see you're from the UK, so if you have anything on the UK Joe series or Action Force, I would love to get my hands (eyes, really) on that as well. Frankly, I'll take whatever you've got. Cheers, --Cerebellum (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There's an attempt to bring the History of Spider-Man article, which needs enormous work, up to encyclopedic standards. You were among the editors in the deletion discussion, and it'd be good to get your input on, and edits to, the work-in-progress at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You live up to your name! The 'zine stuff sounds awesome — lots of vintage interviews that otherwise never saw the light of day! --Tenebrae (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following a month-long process of multiple editors to have "Fictional history of Spider-Man" conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), one editor has objected and wishes for the article, which has been the subject of three deletion discussions, to remain as is.

Alternately, the proposed new version appears at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox.

Your input, as an editor involved in the deletion discussion, is invited at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite and replacement. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Archiveangel, I was responsible for much of the original Trigan Empire section, but had not bothered with Wikipedia for a while. I glanced back in and noticed your comments. I would be interested in co-operating and making it a better page. I must admit to being guilty of leaving the character section a bit short. Did you ever manage to buy the Don Lawrence reprints? They're still available on places like Ebay, but they're pretty pricey. Personally I wished they had also printed the later artists but it seems that its not to be. Douglasnicol (talk)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hardcore Station has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]