Talk:Free Comic Book Day

Wording in the Halloween ComicFest passage
I hope that we can discuss some of the recent changes to the Halloween ComicFest paragraph of the article. At some point – if the event itself stabilizes around COVID – I'd like to take it to GAN and any appearance of edit warring in the article history might disqualify it from consideration.

One of the changes was promoting titles with a "spooky" theme &rarr; promoting titles with a Halloween theme. The edit summary cited WP:TONE. I understand the point, and I wouldn't mind a more formal word being used there if we can agree upon one. I object to using "Halloween theme" because neither of the two sources used for the paragraph state this, and Halloween is not a synonym for spooky (the term used by the source). To me, "a Halloween theme" suggests trick-or-treating, costume parties, jack-o'-lanterns, etc. The sources don't mention these elements in the comics. To me, spooky suggests 'frightening' but with a light-hearted tone (noting that the titles are family-friendly and not hard horror). Is there another way to convey this? "Eerie" comes close, but I'm not sure it's that much better than "spooky".

WP:TONE states Standards for formal tone vary a bit depending upon the subject matter but should usually match the style used in Featured- and Good-class articles in the same category. I checked a few event FAs for informal language: The Chaser APEC pranks uses "gag" (informal), Disco Demolition Night uses "shock jock" (slang), Truthiness uses a number of neologisms and portmanteaus. So maybe one instance of "spooky" isn't too bad? If we can't agree to an alternative, I suggest changing it back to "spooky" which satisfies verification policy (while WP:TONE is neither a policy nor a guideline).

Some other changes to the paragraph were explained in an edit summary as "trim fluff, reword". I felt it was important to state it plainly that the comics were free as, unlike the other events, Halloween ComicsFest does not have "free" (or gratis) in its name. The party/costume contest was an attempt to briefly show that it was developing into an event like the article subject. I felt that that content was important enough to include, though I don't mind attempts to rephrase it.

Please let me know your thoughts when you have time; no rush on this. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I really don't care that much about the word "spooky" in the article one way or another. I removed it because I thought it sounded a little too close to the source and I was coming in from a CCI. You put it in and I left it. I literally never would have looked at the article again had you not reverted me, and haven't looked at it since except that you've now pinged me to it again like two weeks later. Now that I am here, I will say that I stand by the rest of my removal. Having details about exactly how retailers can celebrate an event that isn't even the main topic of the article is an undue level of unencyclopedic trivia and should be left out. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you feel resentful about being invited to discuss your edits. For the delay, reverts were being reverted instead of discussed and I felt that a cooling down period was warranted.  Thanks for your diligence. (I placed the  banner on this page, if that had anything to do with it.)
 * WP:NOPAGE discusses subtopics included in a larger page about a broader topic; this makes more sense to me than creating a stub, and would avoid a lot of repeated material. Assuming it is agreeable to include Halloween ComicFest here, shouldn't we follow the basic practice of summarizing what reliable secondary sources have to say about it? (see below) – Reidgreg (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My rationale is not predicated on the notion that "Halloween" and "spooky" are synonyms. It's predicated on the notion that informal modes of speech, such as slang or jargon, should be avoided whenever possible.
 * Nor does it matter whether the source cited for that sentence specifically uses the phrase "Halloween theme". Part of relating what sources say is paraphrasing, which involves conveying the essential meaning, and not necessarily the exact words. The word spooky is defined as "sinister or ghostly in a way that causes fear and unease", which is indeed part of the imagery, motifs and themes related to Halloween, just as trick-or-treating, costume parties and jack o'lanterns.
 * For the purpose of this editorial matter, saying that the books in question were Halloween-themed conveys the essential relevant point adequately and clearly.
 * (And btw, there is only one source in question, not two, as we're talking about that one sentence, not the entire paragraph. That second source is cited to support the sentence that follows the one with the "Halloween theme" passage, and it's a dead link, one for which I could not find an archived version at the Internet Archive, so we don't even know what it said in the first place.) Nightscream (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was hoping that either of you might find a source to support your edits. I've gone ahead and found a few more sources for Halloween ComicFest:  Bleeding Cool, Hollywood Reporter, Freemont News-Messenger, Jackson Free Press, Bloody Disgusting, Entertainment Weekly, Hometown Station, Lima News, Flickering Myth, Tampa Bay Times, Houston Press, We Got This Covered, Cleveland Scene, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Nerdspan.  Of these (plus USA Today), 3 use "spooky" theme, 1 uses "spooktacular", 1 uses "scary" and 5 use Halloween-themed or Halloween-inspired.  So good, that's all I was asking for (assuming the sources themselves are OK). 15 note that the comics are free. 4 mention parties, 6 mention costume contests, and 4 mention mini-comics to give to trick-or-treaters.  So about 1 in 3 sources mentions these things – not a majority, but significant coverage, I would think, to be more than trivia. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Back to the Halloween-theme, we've got enough sources to say it but now there's the problem of repetitive phrasing with Halloween being used three times in one sentence. I think it'll be fine if we move that part down a bit.
 * Is this agreeable, if I expand and rework it a bit using some of the above sources? I'd also like to include the number of participating stores from one year. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was hoping that either of you might find a source to support your edits. It makes zero sense for you to expect me to have a source that supports the trimming of unencyclopedic content. It honestly amazes me that you're spending this much time and energy trying to keep this trivial content in an article that isn't even about Halloween ComicFest. This article should be focused on Free Comic Book Day, not some other event that's jumped onto its coattails. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty certain that Halloween ComicFest is directly descended from FCBD and from its inception followed the FCBD format, with the same organizer and publishers – no jumping involved. Lots of articles on books or movies will have a paragraph on adaptations and sequels, which would seem to be the same case. Even if this is a coattail-jumping situation, so what? The FA Scouting has the section "Nonaligned and Scout-like organizations". – Reidgreg (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and frankly it's a much better example of how to do such a section than the one in this article. You'll notice that it isn't burdened with details about the uniforms, camping activities, merit badges, or other ephemera of those other organizations. Stop acting like I've gutted the article of vital details. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "I was hoping that either of you might find a source to support your edits."
 * Sourcing is not the issue. Formality of speech is. I thought I made this clear above.
 * "...but now there's the problem of repetitive phrasing with Halloween being used three times in one sentence."
 * I honestly don't understand why you're making such a point of this. Repetition, much like many other problems of composition, can be addressed by simple rewriting. Here's one way it can be rephrased to avoid that dreaded third "Halloween":
 * Halloween ComicFest is an annual promotion launched by Diamond Comics in 2012, held roughly six months from FCBD on the Saturday before Halloween and promoting titles thematically tied to that holiday.
 * As a "problem", this is a case of "Move along, folks, nothing to see here." Nightscream (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The strongly expressed viewpoint that the material is trivia continues to strike me as no more than opinion. The guideline explanation page Handling trivia mostly deals with trivia sections and articles rather than in-text inclusion of a fact, but it does note the "importance" of a fact is subjective. It is not reasonable to disallow all information that some editors feel is unimportant, because that information could be important to some readers. and Stand-alone trivia usually make excellent candidates for integration into the articles they appear in. While the guideline does recommend to "be bold" in removing items from trivia sections, it also notes that There should be no specific timetable for the integration of trivia. I still hold that this isn't trivia to the subtopic, and I briefly included the subtopic in the article per WP:NOPAGE. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no universe in which you are going to convince me that mentioning precise details of how a retailer can promote an event via costume parties and decorations is not unencyclopedic fluff, especially considering that the event in question isn't even the main topic of the article. Continuing to participate here is just going to be me repeating myself, so I think I'm done trying to get you to see sense. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I just noticed that the entire paragraph on Halloween ComicFest was plagiarized by (by, not from) Bleeding Cool. Amusing. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "The strongly expressed viewpoint that the material is trivia continues to strike me as no more than opinion."
 * Get outta town!


 * Really?


 * You figured that out?


 * Of COURSE it's an opinion! What did you think I was presenting it as? A fact brought down from Mt. Sinai from Moses himself?
 * Much of the statements made during editorial disputes constitute opinion. That's a given. If they weren't, and were carved-in-stone facts, then typically, such discussions would tend to be more infrequent, be shorter in duration, or not happen at all.


 * The issue is whether the opinion is well-reasoned, internally consistent, intellectually coherent, whether it has a foundation in fact (regardless of whether or not it is a fact itself), whether it reflects the editing practices of the community here, including the other editors with whom you are discussing the matter, etc.


 * PMC's point is that the article is about Free Comic Book Day, which is true. He has made the point that the passage at issue here concerns an event similar to FCBD, in a section called "Related events". That section is near the bottom of the article, long after the portions of the article that deal with the salient information that goes to the article topic's notability, and which is only tangentially related to that article topic. For this reason, in my opinion (GASP!), it is of less importance than that more salient information, and will naturally be presented with a lower amount of detail, in proportion to its relevance. I agree that this is reasonable. Do I agree with PMC that it should be "left out"? No. But I don't see how it's possible to have a "source" for the position that material should be trimmed, or that your over-emphasis on whether a word appears three times in a sentence requires anything other than a simple rewording (which I did), rather than a protracted talk page discussion (which you began and have continued). Dismiss this as "opinion" if you wish. Toodles. Nightscream (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Toodles and happy editing! – Reidgreg (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead
You changed (or restored?) a passage in the lead: usually taking place on the first Saturday of May. &rarr; taking place on the first Saturday of May, with exceptions for 2004, 2020, and 2021. In your edit summary, you stated Much more precise than "usually". While that's true, I feel that it's a level of precision that isn't needed for the lead – when summarizing the event through its whole history. Also, I feel that it makes for a rather long and awkward MOS:LEADSENTENCE. I should try to rewrite the lead to better reflect the expanded article. Would you mind if I tried changing it back? – Reidgreg (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Possible DYKs
We've got a GA reviewer (please don't edit the article until the review is posted, btw) so I thought I'd invite frequent contributors to brainstorm on a DYK. I was worried about making the date and am not sure that I have any strong hooks. Some possibilities:


 * ... that Free Comic Book Day was inspired by Free Scoop Night at an ice cream parlour beside a comic book shop?
 * ... that millions of comic books are given away on each Free Comic Book Day?
 * ... that Free Comic Book Day has been described as "a combination of Christmas, Halloween and Burning Man"?

Please feel free to comment or add suggestions. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * First hook is the most interesting, in my opinion. Second is kind of a given with the event name (I guess the number itself is of possible interest, but it makes me think, "Yeah, makes sense for what it's called."), and third sounds like just someone’s opinion. The first actually makes me think, “Huh. Who’da thought?” Pretty cool. If you go with that one, I’d recommend moving that clause to the start of the sentence. As it is, if feels pretty unnecessary to the sentence and reads a bit clunky to me for something you might be trying to highlight.  -2pou (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So ... that Free Scoop Night at an ice cream parlor inspired Free Comic Book Day? – Reidgreg (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry. I wasn’t clear at all. I think the wording of the hook was fine as it was, though this works as well. I actually meant that the sentence in the article itself could be tweaked to read a bit smoother if the first hook is the one selected. I.e. improve this sentence: In his August 2001 "Big Picture" column in Comics & Games Retailer magazine, inspired by Free Scoop Night at the Baskin-Robbins ice cream parlor next to his store, Field proposed Free Comic Book Day. Reading like this makes the reader throw away the the statement you're highlighting. I think better free scoop emphasis would come at the beginning. Inspired by Free Scoop Night at the Baskin-Robbins ice cream parlor next to his store, Field proposed Free Comic Book Day in his August 2001 "Big Picture" column in Comics & Games Retailer magazine. or Field was inspired by Free Scoop Night at the Baskin-Robbins ice cream parlor next to his store, and in his August 2001 "Big Picture" column in Comics & Games Retailer magazine, he proposed Free Comic Book Day. Or changing the subject to the scoop night instead of Field: Free Scoop Night at the Baskin-Robbins ice cream parlor next to his store inspired Field to propose Free Comic Book Day in his August 2001 "Big Picture" column in Comics & Games Retailer magazine. (But then there might be more weight going to DYK rather than FCBD) Just some options... -2pou (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, I gotcha. Done, thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Much thanks to all involved
Feel free to copy this to your userspaces. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * thanks, Reidgreg! :) raked in a fair amount of views, too theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Too bad it doesn't include the mobile views from everyone standing in line! – Reidgreg (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! Spidey  104  16:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)