Talk:Mek (comics)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mek (comics) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Comics: British / DC Comics Low‑importance

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.

Related work groups:
/
	This article is supported by British comics work group.
	This article is supported by DC Comics work group.

Unencyclopedic?[edit]

Looking at WP:NOT point by point, I'd have to disagree. This is a comic series created by two notable creators (Ellis, in particular, is rather well known) and published by a major company (The Wildstorm imprint of Time Warner's DC Comics). Although it's not the best (or most popular) thing Ellis has done, it was successful enough to be collected and republished - and is still in print. Accordingly, I'm removing the unencyclopedic tag. If anyone disagrees, feel free to restore it - but a response here would also be useful. Thanks! --Mrph 21:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

maybe I'm using the wrong tag, but what was there shouldn't have been it's own article, it should have been merged. At this point, at least the framework is there to expand the article. thanks for working on it. Dstanfor 21:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the best tag to use would be (it's already marked as a stub, but I do see your point) - my understanding is that 'unencyclopedic' refers purely to the topic, not the state of the article, though. I don't have a copy of the comic to hand, but once I get a chance to re-read it, I should be hopefuly be able to fill the gaps in and expand this to a full article... --Mrph 21:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mrph, I think you just need to add a plot summary. The stub tag is appropriate in this case. IMHO, that is. Konczewski 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just added a plot summary, and beefed it up a bit. Konczewski 05:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]