Talk:David Beauchard

Copyvio
Copyright violation alert: The content added by Helldjinn was, unfortunately, taken from the Dupuis web site and sloppily translated (I assume by Helldjinn or by Babelfish, since the Dupuis English version  is more readable). So instead of just copyediting, I'm heavily rewriting it (and incidentally getting rid of the obsessive listing of every story title). &mdash;Hob←Talk 22:01, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC) (Note, Helldjinn has clarified that the content came from another site which had copied from Dupuis.)
 * Thank you to have rewritten my poor English. But why have you removed every link on the albums of a series? For instance, about The Sandman, there's one article per album, so why not for every series ? Helldjinn 07:41, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, in the case of Sandman, people actually wrote articles about every album, so of course there's a link for each one. See Make only links relevant to the context: "What should not be linked ... every book and short story by an author, unless you're prepared to back it up by writing all the articles, as the Robert Heinlein enthusiasts did. Otherwise, leave the various works unlinked until you get around to writing an article." So, really, nearly all of the links that are still in the list should have been removed too - which I'm doing now.
 * I'm not familiar with all his books so I don't know how much there is to write about them, but keep in mind that (a) many European albums are pretty short compared to U.S.-format paperback collections like the Sandman books (and at least three of the titles in the list are just short stories published in a tiny pamphlet format); (b) unless there's a huge amount of plot you want to describe (and I think the plot summaries on Wikipedia are often excessive, and obsessive), it's often easier to discuss the works of a series collectively (see New York Trilogy or His Dark Materials).  &mdash;Hob←Talk 20:34, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

lambiek
What makes you think it's reliable?P4k (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a reputable collection of knowledge.. community consensus RS defined per WikiProject Comics/European comics work group. What makes you think it's not? M URGH   disc.  13:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no way to tell how much fact-checking they do, it's basically self-published, and the articles aren't signed. The burden of proof isn't on me though.  Honestly you're probably right, but just from looking at the site there isn't any indication that it's "reliable" as Wikipedia defines it.P4k (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also I mean...in this case "community consensus" means you added it and four other people didn't object to it.P4k (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Post indicates an AGF issue. I did add it to this recently established workgroup but it was used as RS in WP:CMC long before I had anything to do with WP. Lambiek is employed so widely within the wikiproject that if you object to it, doing it here is pretty futile. And yes, the burden of proof is on you. M URGH   disc.  14:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah you're right, looks like it's all over the place. I'm starting a thread about this at Reliable sources/Noticeboard.P4k (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, examine it, but I think you'll find it a decent resource maintained by professionals. M URGH   disc.  17:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)