Talk:Countdown (Polystyle Publications)

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Comics: British Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by British comics work group.

Discussion: Should we merge this article with TV Action (comic)?[edit]

Disagree -- I think we should keep the two apart, as they are now, and try to develop the differences. -- Beardo 01:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Agree -- They are the same book, with the same numbering scheme. Also, the name went through several slight permutations, including TV Action + Countdown. It's really quite futile trying to separate them if you look closely at the evolution of the title. CzechOut 12:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a memoir[edit]

The article was written in a chatty, digressive, anecdotal style, without references. I suspect it was written by someone who worked for the paper.

The style was very non-encyclopaedic. I've tried to fix that, but the article probably needs additional tightening in places I've missed. I've also removed some material that was either repetitious or that could be regarded as padding. Given the lack of sourcing and the highly anecdotal (not to say tangential) nature of much that remains, a great deal of what there is could still be excised under a strict interpretation of the rules. Nonetheless, the article gives a rewarding glimpse of the world it describes, and will be of great interest to many of us who read successive variants of the paper when we were children. I think it would be a shame to lose this in the cause of rigour.

(I remember seeing Dennis Hooper's signature on an introduction he wrote to a 1973 holiday special, and copying it in a bit of empty space next to it.) Notreallydavid (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]