Talk:Pocket God (comics)

	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 United States comics work group.

Photo of comic[edit]

Can someone please place a comic in the article? I don't have the privileges yet.

GWPSP090 (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, I do.

GWPSP090 (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Pygmy Peril[edit]

Hey, if someone would be able to provide more info about The Pygmy Peril in a sub-article, that would be great, before I do it.

GWPSP090 (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket God (comic series) now 42 kilobytes, larger than Pocket God.[edit]

I think I've spent too much time on this, if ANYONE has something they want to edit, just as Nike's motto said, just do it.

GWPGPSP090 (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Xmas Marks the Spot" own article[edit]

I will move Xmas Marks the Spot to its own article soon

GWPGPSP090 (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you don't. This is highly excessive in terms of plot summary and other copyrighted work, and there aren't even enough sources to sustain this article yet, let alone about every issue. The plot needs trimmed way down, and the article needs to be about the work, not a retelling of it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article too long[edit]

Since you said it, I'll cut down on it.

GWPSP090 (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All points have to be met.[edit]

So, does all five points, from checking if the article is qualified for the criteria of B-class, have to be met? The coverage one is a bit of a problem for now, but I'll see what I can do on both of no. 1 and 2. GWPSP090 (GO!) (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I think the first point: Referencing and citation is actually now met, I have cited every reference. GWPSP090 (GO!) (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]