Talk:The Adventures of Tintin

Files for deletion/2011_March_28
Check WP:NFCC. All opinions welcome. Thank you. walk victor falktalk 19:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Number of copies sold and of translated versions
In the opening paragraph it is stated that The Adventures of Tintin has sold more than 350 million copies worldwide, and has appeared in over 80 translations, with reference (footnote 1) to a Guardian article dated 10 Nov 2003, which mentions more than 200 million copies and 50 languages. I find this unnecessarily confusing and misleading. Incidentally, is Dutch the only language in which Tintin is named after his trademark quiff ("Kuifje")? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.23.44.130 (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point; the text must match the reference. Text has been corrected. —Prhartcom   (talk)  13:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

History section replaced by more appropriate text from different article
The History section of this article contained somewhat inappropriate text (added after this article reached Featured status) that had a few sentences which could be incorporated into other sections of this article but as a whole was not the best choice to describe the history of The Adventures of Tintin. It has been archived here (see also the Archive text box above):

History section as of 10 December 2011.

Meanwhile, in several of the series' articles including The Secret of the Unicorn and Red Rackham's Treasure, there existed (the same text in each article) a History/Background section that contained very well-written text that is truly the history of the entire Adventures of Tintin series. For that reason, that section has been removed from those articles and moved to this main series article. See the talk pages there.

This new History section of this article now requires one additional paragraph explaining the history of The Adventures of Tintin after Nazi-occupied Belguim, which would include Tintin (magazine) and Studios Hergé. I have made a small attempt at that paragraph and absolutely welcome other's creative input to complete it. —Prhartcom  (talk)  14:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Tin Tin?
Shouldn't there be a small note on the pronunciation of Tin Tin? Americans pronounce his name as if it was a "tin" in "tin can" Europeans pronounce Tin Tin, with the tin rhyming with "han" as in "Han Solo".

Nasukaren (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed -- a brief pronunciation guide is worth including. That reminds me, has anyone established a connection between the origin of the name Tin Tin and Rin Tin Tin? Seems too close to be merely coincidental. Cheers, Mabuse (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Surely the pronunciation of Tintin depends on the language used? Not all 'Europeans' pronounce it the same way, viz. the British who pronounce it as in 'tin can', as in most English-language countries. In its original language, French, the nasal I is pronounced [e(n)], where "e" is pronounced like ê and (n) equals the nasal sound (and is silent), so rhymes with 'pain' (= bread). It's also never written in two words as in Rin Tin Tin, but always one. I don't think there was any connection with Rin Tin Tin by the way, and the origin of the name Tintin is explored in more detail in the character's own page.--Stelmaris (talk) 10:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Userbox Tintin
If you like the graphic novels of Tintin, you may put this Userbox on your userpage like this: --Tangopaso (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Shooting Star
According to the article book 10 (The Shooting Star) "was the first to be originally published in colour". However, the article on the book states that "the Shooting Star was first serialized in the newspaper Le Soir in black and white". --Oddeivind (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct; that story, like the others before it, was serialized in a black and white newspaper, and when the series ended the volume was published, in this case in colour. —Prhartcom   (talk)  18:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Top Importance?
There's a discussion on which comic-related articles should be listed as "Top Importance" on the importance scale, and I feel this article should not be included. If any user disagrees or wishes to contribute, please do so there. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Featured Article Reassesment
NOTE: In October, 2004 this article was nominated for FA and then in January 2006 it became FA  appearing on the main page a year later. —Prhartcom  (talk)  12:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This article received its featured article status years ago, and quite evidently no longer warrants such a status. I am proposing that we put it through reassesment. Any objections ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Midnightblueowl. I have been heading in that direction with this article for some time now. My latest improvements have been finding references to dead web links and converting to other live references, converting all remaining inline references to use Template:cite, convert all remaining inline short footnotes to Template:sfn, and I am currently in the process of moving about eighty of these now converted inline citations into the bibliography, which hasn't been touched since FA. None of this touches the article text, though I have edited many improvements for quite awhile now. Let me know what you think should be done after this.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  22:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is done, all source references have been moved from the citations into the bibliography. Next is to replace all thirteen of the 'citation needed' tags with a new researched reference. Please, anyone, feel free to check the citations and their sources. —Prhartcom   (talk)  21:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It should definitely be reassessed, but wait until all the known issues are dealt with first. Otherwise, we'll just waste the reviewers' time and our own as they point out issues we're already aware of.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That was a tremendous job done by User:Prhartcom, converting all the references to sfn. Kudos!
 * Now yes, what are the most problematic issues? Prose?--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the prose is pretty good, thankfully. Please reread it and see if any improvements should be made.  I think the Legacy section is a bit too big.  I have made corrections to the article where needed over the past year or so, but am focusing on references rather than prose at the moment. Oh, something that should be done: Identify prose that should be moved out of the main body text and into a nota bene footnote instead.  Please take a look at the article and help where you can.  Thanks for the kudos!  —Prhartcom   (talk)  23:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Large swathes of text remain unreferenced, which is still a major problem. I think a large part of this issue lies in the choice of references. We make very scant use of either of the main English-language biographies of Herge or from the wider literature of Tintinology. Compare this article with that at Tintin in the Land of the Soviets, itself only a GA status article, and you'll see a world of difference in quality; this page is far inferior. I think it might be time to go ahead and get this delisted. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I do agree there's a lot of work to be done, but I worry that having it delisted might take some of the urgency out of getting it fixed up. Why don't we set a reasonable deadline for FAR (say, a month or three?).  If there's really too much work to done by such a deadline, then that's the strongest evidence that it should be delisted.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My vote would be to delist it now, and then work on it from there. However, if I am out voted on that then I will happily follow the concensus. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Midnightblueowl, I agree completely with your assessment about the unreferenced material and the underuse of the best source material. For that reason I have just purchased and started reading Tintin: Herge and his Creation by Harry Thompson, as well as Tintin: The Complete Companion by Michael Farr, two of the best English-language books on Tintin that this article should cite more often.  I pledge to complete my reading of this source material as soon as possible and remain focused on the task of improving the citation of the existing prose.  I do not plan to change prose at this time. I am excited to say I foresee a time in the next few weeks and months when the existing bibliography completely references the existing text.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  12:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Midnightblueowl, great job on your recent work on the Herge article! —Prhartcom   (talk)  12:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Prhartcom, it's going to be a slow process (I have various other Wikipedia things going on, plus a living to earn), but hopefully I can pull the Herge article up to FA at some point, and will try and do the same to this page too. Its great that you have a couple of the aforementioned books, they are pretty good texts; it would be great if you could work with me on achieving this ultimate aim. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I own and am using The Pocket Essential Tintin also. Yes, it would be great "if I could work" on this article to achieve this ultimate aim. I have been doing so for some time. I assume you mean it would be great if you joined me. Which, with your experience, I would be honored. —Prhartcom  (talk)  23:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I must apologise; I did not realize that you have been working on this article already! Looks like a great job. I will try and help you where possible of course, although you seem to be doing pretty well already :) Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for acknowledging that. Yes please feel free, anyone may do pick an item from the To Do list; there's some good work to be done.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  12:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Another stab at the lead
I don't have access to the sources the two of you have, so I won't be making substantial content contributions, but I hope you don't find my copyediting too picky. I would, at the least, like to have another stab at the lead—it seems unbalanced to me, putting emphasis on things I don't see as important, while burying important things later on. For instance, not mentioning ligne claire until the last paragraph, while putting sales figures front and centre in the very short first paragraph (which I don't think should even be in the lead at all).

I'm going to throw up my proposal here and see what you think. I don't think there's anything substantial that's missing from what was originally there (dropping Hergé's real name is not information loss—having it there is only distracting).:

"The Adventures of Tintin (Les Aventures de Tintin ) is a series of comics by Belgian cartoonist Hergé (1907–1983). Noted for the variety of genres of its adventures, an attention to detail and accuracy, and its "clear line" drawing style, the series is one of the most popular and influential in the European comics tradition. ; its popularity was such that in 1966 French president Charles de Gaulle declared Tintin his "only international rival". The protagonist of the series is young Belgian reporter Tintin, aided by his faithful dog Snowy. The cast includes the brash and cynical Captain Haddock, the highly intelligent but hearing-impaired Professor Calculus, and the incompetent lookalike detectives Thomson and Thompson.  Set in a realistically-depicted 20th century in well-researched settings, the series' plots straddle a variety of genres, including swashbuckling adventure, fantasy, mystery, political thrillers, and science fiction. The stories feature slapstick humour, offset by dashes of sophisticated satire and political or cultural commentary.

The series debuted as a comic strip on 10 January 1929 in Le Petit Vingtième, a children's supplement to the Belgian newspaper Le XXe Siècle. The strip later moved to Belgium's leading newspaper Le Soir, and from 1946 ran in the long-lived Tintin magazine. In 1950, Hergé founded Studios Hergé, which produced the twenty-four volumes that make up the Tintin canon. The series has seen adaptations for radio, television, theatre, film, and video games, and translations into more than 50 languages. Tintin merchandise is available in Tintin Shops. Hergé's work is the subject of frequent exhibitions, and a body of work on the study of Tintin and Hergé has grown to be called Tintinology."

——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's some nice work there Curly, but I think the reference to de Gaulle is effectively trivia, and thus not lede material. It certainly doesn't fit with the Manual of Style/Lead section as I understand it. Other than that, no problems jump out at me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've struck it, but I disagree strongly that it is "trivial". It's symbolic of the degree to which Tintin had permeated modern French culture that such a thing could be publicly uttered by the single most prominent and powerful man in the francophone world.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. —Prhartcom   (talk)  16:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree that it is "symbolic" in that respect, but I think that alone, it represents an example of trivia nonetheless. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is trivia, that is true. Perhaps one of the most non-trivial pieces of Tintin trivia ever. This isn't bad; we may want to consider this.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  02:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * One big problem jumps out at me. In all of Wikipedia, I never see any reason to barge into an article and say, "I'm here now and I am deleting all of this and rewriting it the way I like it."  Instead, I begin from a position of great respect for the editors that have come before me.  Some of these words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs have been crafted and then protected by others for years.  I myself have been watching this particular article diligently and have reverted many edits that failed to show this article this respect.  Occasionally I look at a phrase or sentence critically and realise it needs either an improvement in text–source integrity or plain old improvement in sentence structure.  Of course if a sentence needs work, it needs work and should no longer be protected.  But I try to make these improvements carefully, correcting only where necessary.  I wonder if other editors whom I respect also agree with this respectful, careful approach.
 * The To Do list has three very generally stated but also specifically stated prose-related tasks which I hope others will help with. As I said earlier, I am working on improvements to this article's citations at this time; I am not sure I am up to lengthy discussions on anything else (but will if I must).  If an experienced editor would like to work on this article I am hoping he or she will re-read those tasks, adding to and improving the To Do list when appropriate, and focus their work. I am greatly appreciative of the help of others and look forward to finally not being the only experienced editor to care deeply about this article.  Cheers.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  12:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been waiting for an explanation ever since you reverted an edit of mine without so much as an edit comment, as if it were common vandalism. I couldn't be more disappointed now to see that you are Assuming Bad Faith with me with comments like "I'm here now and I am deleting all of this and rewriting it the way I like it."
 * No sentence is "protected" anywhere on Wikipedia, nor is any other part of any article. WP:BOLD is one of the most commonly cited guidelines, and WP:OWN is official policy.  I think it's important that you read them, and try to understand the motivation behind them.  It is not a sign of disrespect to edit another's words on Wikipedia—it is, in fact, what Wikipedia is all about, from the ground up.
 * I see significant problems with the lead as it is. I've proposed a solution here.  It's not something to take personally—it's something to ask yourself, "Does this or does this not improve the article?"  Which is the only question that matters.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not taking it personally and you shouldn't either. I already asked myself and I answered myself that your edit made the lead worse. You know you shouldn't both edit the lead and propose a lead on the Talk; do one or the other. I know I don't own the article.  I have, however, been protecting the article from errant edits for some time.  Please don't be disappointed in me, as I truly prefer collaboration over what I have experienced here on this article for the past two years, which is: No one has been helping me. I stand by my point: We should show respect to the writing of the editors that came before us. Nothing in this entire article is absolutely terrible, it is fairly good. Yes it can be improved, but let us keep intact what we can.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  16:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with the "no one has been helping me". I've been doing mostly early comic strips and alternative comics.  The only times I get help is when I beg for it, like at WP:PR or WP:GOCE.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 18:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks CT, I appreciate that. —Prhartcom   (talk)  20:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I am finally taking a good look at your proposed lead. I don't agree that the current lead has "significant" problems...if they were significant they would have been corrected by now...possibly by me...but I certainly do agree that the lead can be improved. I like the direction you are going with the first paragraph, inserting the attributes that really define Tintin there. I like how you feel we can eliminate the fourth paragraph and move it's facts into the first and second paragraph. Let's certainly keep what we know is already good, which I see you also are doing. In fact, with that said, may I please list those sentences, or the facts and ideas they contain, that I feel are already good. Let us keep intact what we can: Dear editors, can you please comment on each of my comments above? —Prhartcom  (talk)  17:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "The Adventures of Tintin (French: Les Aventures de Tintin) is a series of comic albums created by Belgian cartoonist Georges Remi (1907–1983), who wrote under the pen name of Hergé." (A good, fact-filled opening sentence, one that is consistent with the other Tintin articles. I believe you and I worked on this opening sentence several months ago--you taught me that saying "cartoonist" is the way to go--and we got this sentence to the point it is now. While we deliberately avoid mentioning "Georges Remi" in all other Tintin artices, absolutely we keep both "Georges Remi" and "Hergé" in this article.)
 * Given that "Georges Remi" is not important enough to be mentioned anywhere in the copy of King Ottokar's Sceptre that I have in front of me—not even in the indicia—I fail to see why it would be important to clutter up the lead with this. Curly Turkey (gobble) 18:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * True, Hergé left his real name out of his books. However, consider this: Other books and articles about Tintin tend to mention the name of his creator, and when they do they tend to give both names.  We should too, if not in the lead of individual book articles, at least in the main series article lead. I assume you are OK with the rest of the sentence?  —Prhartcom   (talk)  20:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article itself gives this information, so it's not like information is being lost. A lead should get to the point and quickly orient the reader to the subject.  Hergé's real name is tangential to the goal of orienting the reader to "What is The Adventures of Tintin, and why should I care?"  Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe so. Let's hear what MBO says.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  02:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally think that "Georges Remi" has no place in the introductory paragraph; he published under the name of Hergé, and it is under this that he is internationally known. When an author is known primarily under a pseudonym, I see no need to include their birth name in instances such as this; for instance, we would state that Animal Farm was written by George Orwell, not Eric Arthur Blair. That's not to say that "Georges Remi" shouldn't be mentioned later on in the article (we use it in the "Background" section over at Tintin in the Land of the Soviets), but I don't think it important enough to be included within the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "The series is one of the most popular European comics of the 20th century." (This is a strong statement and I have always liked the strength it conveys.)
 * (Question: Shouldn't we bring up Franco-Belgian comics? Do we keep mentioning European comics?)
 * I think it would be a good idea to throw in Franco-Belgian comics as well, but its significance (as is Franco-Belgian comics in general) is to all of European comics. Curly Turkey (gobble) 18:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I defer to your expertise on this one. —Prhartcom   (talk)  20:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "translations published in more than 50 languages and sales of more than 200 million copies." (OK there is the translation bit and the sales bit. I see you kept the one and not the other.  I rather think the latter is important to keep also, hopefully with some recent numbers.)
 * Unless the number itself is of some significance, I can't see it helping the reader get oriented tot the subject. The lead already says it's one of the most popular series.  The number is redundant and reads like advertising copy.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 18:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe so. Let's hear what MBO says.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  20:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that it does sound like a promotional slogan, but that being said, I am not particularly averse to its inclusion, particularly considering that simply calling it a "popular series" is relatively subjective. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Simply calling it a "popular series" is subjective, but saying "the series is one of the most popular and influential in the European comics tradition" is not. Such a line puts the series into a comprehensible context.  200,000,000 is a "big number" but gives the reaer no context.  Is 200,000,000 "a lot"?  How about 20,000,000?  2,000,000?  2,000,000,000?  Honestly, you could throw any of those numbers into the lead, and the reader would just gloss over it as a "big number".  Just what significance is this number supposed to have?  Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "The series first appeared in French on 10 January 1929 in Le Petit Vingtième, a children's supplement to the Belgian newspaper Le XXe Siècle." (Followed by the sentences on Le Soir, Tintin magazine, and Studios Hergé; these can certainly be reworded but what they say are important and to keep.)
 * "The series is set during a largely realistic 20th century." (This is another powerful sentence that I have always liked and should be kept.)
 * Technically, it's not the "20th century" that is realistic, but the depiction of the 20th century that is. Curly Turkey (gobble) 18:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, that's true. I still like this sentence and don't think anyone would find it confusing. —Prhartcom   (talk)  20:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps only the rare native speaker would, but still it is technically incorrect, and exactly the kind of semantic error that FAC/FAR reviewers would target. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I defer immediately on this one. Please provide a corrected sentence, keeping the sentence. —Prhartcom   (talk)  02:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, we could rewrite this one. I think that the idea of Tintin's world being "largely realistic" is subjective; is any fictional universe containing made-up countries, Yeti, and aliens flying around Indonesia "largely realistic" ? Many people would say no. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, this is certainly an issue. Somehow we need to get across the fact that the series is noted for the unusual amount of accurate, realistic detail that went into the artwork, while not actually calling it "realistic" (as it clearly is not).  Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "the ...series of twenty-four Tintin albums." (We certainly need to say this number somewhere in the lead.)
 * "The Adventures of Tintin have been adapted for radio, television, theatre, and film." (Absolutely correct, and a good, crisp, summary sentence of many sections. We could mention more types of adaptation, but I'm not convinced we should; it bogs down.)
 * We could always add "and other media" or "media such as". Curly Turkey (gobble) 18:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe so. Let's hear what MBO says.
 * I'm happy to leave it as is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Its hero is Tintin, a young Belgian reporter. He is aided by his faithful fox terrier dog Snowy (Milou in the original French editions). Later, popular additions to the cast included the brash and cynical Captain Haddock, the highly intelligent but hearing-impaired Professor Calculus (French: Professeur Tournesol), and other supporting characters such as the incompetent detectives Thomson and Thompson (French: Dupont et Dupond)." (All of this is pretty good, and I believe you agree because you kept most of it.  It can be reworded as you have done but I like how you recognised the wording should be mostly kept intact, unless it can truly be improved.)
 * I think we might have a problem with a few POV words here, such as "hero" (conceptions of heroism are subjective), "brash", "incompetent". Maybe words like "protagonist" would be preferable here ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point normally, however if needed I believe I'll be able to find a source saying Tintin is the hero, that Haddock is the brash cynic, and that the Thompsons are incompetent. I'll start looking.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  20:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be esay to find a source that claims Tintin was the greatest series ever, but it wouldn't be NPOV to claim that in the lead. "Hero" has certain baggage; "protagonist" is neutral.  It would be nice if we could find a neutral word that had the "punch" of "hero".  Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I defer immediately on this one. Please correct the issue with these words, keeping the sentence. —Prhartcom   (talk)  02:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "The series has been admired for its clean, expressive drawings in Hergé's signature ligne claire ("clear line") style." (Quite recently you translated "ligne claire" for us and that was a good decision.  We absolutely should not lose the "ligne claire" phrase though.  I like how they say it is his "signature" style.  I like the phrase "clean, expressive drawings".)
 * How about "its clear, expressive "ligne claire" drawing style"? I've struggled with this.  I'm not fond of "foreign term ("translation")" in the lead except as a last resort.  It won't keep an article from FA (for example, check out Franz Kafka—that drives me nuts), but I think it's unhelpful if you look at the lead as giving a bird's-eye view of the content of the article.  I think it's best generally to avoid jargon.  Is suppose the issue is that "ligne claire" is the term most used even in English, so I guess it's best to retain it, though I'd like to think there's a better solution.   Curly Turkey (gobble) 18:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But why struggle with this when this sentence is already good? We don't have to change everything!  —Prhartcom   (talk)  20:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Mainly because I'd like to see it moved to the first paragraph of the lead (as it is a defining feature), but I'd also like to see it kept concise. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your concise proposal half-sentence "its clear, expressive "ligne claire" drawing style" is inferior to the current sentence "The series has been admired for its clean, expressive drawings in Hergé's signature ligne claire ("clear line") style." Lift the good sentence and move it into the first paragraph and try it there. —Prhartcom   (talk)  02:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My two cents: I think "ligne claire" should definitely be used over "clear line" here, simply because it is the term most commonly used in the English literature. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How about: "The series is one of the most popular and influential in the European comics tradition; it is noted for the variety of genres of its adventures, an attention to detail and accuracy, and its clear, expressive "ligne claire" drawing style."
 * "well-researched" (Absolutely true, and you of course know this and wish to move that fact to the second sentence, a good idea.)
 * "plots straddle a variety of genres: swashbuckling adventures with elements of fantasy, mysteries, political thrillers, and science fiction." (I really like this writing. I like how it conveys the truth about the variety of Hergé's stories--a fact you are suggesting we put front and center, again, a good idea.)
 * The issue I had was: do the swashbuckling and fantasy always accompany each other? An individual adventure might have "swashbuckling adventures with elements of fantasy", but does that typify the series?  Curly Turkey (gobble) 18:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hang on, this passage is giving examples of a few prominent Tintin plots. And yes of course, these examples typifies the entire series that Hergé created and show the plot diversity.
 * All the genres are still up there in the version I posted above; I just split up "swashbuckling adventure" from "fantasy", because they don't necessarily appear together. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I defer immediately on this one. Please use the corrected version of this sentence, changing only what is necessary. —Prhartcom   (talk)  02:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "The stories feature slapstick humour, offset by dashes of sophisticated satire and political or cultural commentary." (I have always liked this sentence, another one that has survived almost completely intact since the 2006 FA days, and for good reason.)
 * Dear editors Curly Turkey and Midnightblueowl, once again we are collaborators! Which fills me with both dread and excitement.  I am junior to both of you, but I appreciate the respect you show me and my work.  I always relish a new opportunity to learn from more experienced editors, and I am thrilled we are working on the great article The Adventures of Tintin.  Let's hope others join us and that the technical as well as the artistic tasks are quickly accomplished.  Soon we will see this article deserve it's FA.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  21:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've put a notice up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics calling for more help. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good show; I have also canvased to three Wikipedians. —Prhartcom   (talk)  02:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Curly Turkey, after we get feedback from Midnightblueowl and perhaps others, please take another stab at the lead, starting with the existing lead then editing it, making your discussed changes to it.
 * Actually, that's exactly what I did: I copy & psted the original here, and then started moving things around, cutting things out, and adding things like "Tintinology", "Tintin shops", etc. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi
I'm not that active anymore but I recall being involved in the push to make this an FA. If it helps, I relied heavily on Thompson's book on Herge which was to be honest a disappointment for me. I couldn't trace a copy of either of Farr's books in our library system here, someone had taken out his Tintin companion and never returned it way back when. I do still have copies of Sabin's works if they're of any use but I mined them for all they worth all that time ago, and I still, somewhere, have The Comics Journal issues. If I can be of any assistance, let me know, preferably via my talk page, but my time here is limited and is tied up on another project at the moment. I recall User:Fram also being interested in this article so it might be worth asking them if they can be of any help. Good luck with it, and thanks for the kind words regarding my prose.:) Hiding T 13:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome back, Hiding. Fortunately I own four important Tintinologist books, two of which you mentioned, and am currently reading them. You are of course welcome to return to the task of making this article deserve its FA, it would be an honor to have you.  I have personally invited User:Fram and two others who have stopped by recently to help us if they can; Fram told me he also participated on some of the work on the original FA. I did not know it was you who wrote some of this prose (I see your edits now in history) that I and others have managed to keep intact in the article.  I am honored to know that, and I wish you would stay and, unless there is a good reason otherwise, help keep it in the article.  Please see the To Do list above and help if you can.  I hope you can stay.  Cheers.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  19:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Idea note: Highlight that Speech bubbles were a new idea
"In one instance, the success of Tintin in 1929-30 was tied to a specific innovation: People in Belgium had never actually seen speech bubbles before--they were a new American idea. Herge virtually pioneered their use in Europe.  The effect was seismic: Readers reacted to the early words and deeds of Tintin as if they were carved on tables of stone."

—Prhartcom  (talk)  02:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made mention of Hergé's interest in the American speech bubble system in the second paragraph of the "History" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

New History Section
I'm amazed! you must have been working on this for some time. What a dramatic, wonderful change; I am completely in favor of it. This article has not seen such bold editing in years. I actually encountered an edit conflict with you as I was working at the same time, improving the citations. You heard about the first phase of the History section, and what it's been through to get here, right? This enhances the existing text of the History section wonderfully. —Prhartcom  (talk)  22:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello there; thanks for your kind comments. I must admit, I copied and pasted a lot of that material from the work I've put in at the Hergé and Tintin in the Land of the Soviets pages, and then edited it to better serve this particular topic. So it wasn't all 100% new prose that I put together here. I will endeavour to continue to expand this History section (and various other sections) over the coming months, but it may take time, so please bear with me! My intention is to simultaneously work on this page, on the Hergé page, and on the individual articles devoted to different Tintin books (hence why Soviets is going through our FA nomination and I have just put Congo up for a GA review; America is next!) Of course, continue with the great work that you have been doing here too ! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Passages removed from the Legacy section
The Legacy section of this article contained somewhat inappropriate text (added after this article reached Featured status) that had a few sentences (many with cited references) which could be incorporated into other sections of this article but as a whole was not the best choice to describe the legacy of The Adventures of Tintin. It has been archived here (see also the Archive text box above):

Legacy section as of 16 June 2013.

—Prhartcom  (talk)  04:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The blueline system?
Hello to User 84.210.44.152, who added the new section "The blueline system". There are a few problems with your work and it was necessary to revert it; I would be glad to go over it with you if you would like. However I wanted to let you know I did greatly enjoy reading the source material you provided from author Paul Gravett about Hergé's "clear line"; I will be adding it to this article's bibliography so others may enjoy reading it also; thanks for introducing it! —Prhartcom  (talk)  19:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You welcome. Sure, if you wish to go through the information and use it to create a new section or even article, or adding the info elsewhere, be welcome to do so. I'm not sure what you mean by problems, so instead of using the trial and error approach, it will probably be better if someone with more experience are willing to do it. 84.210.44.152 (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This does bring up an issue: there's no section on the artwork, even though many aspects of the artwork are defining aspects of Tintin—so distinct it readily lends itself to easily-recognized homage and parody. Surely a concise version of what 84.210.44.152 wrote could (should) be worked into such a section? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Curly Turkey I do agree with you and in fact, before reading your post I had only just realized I had never noticed, until now, that the article has no section titled "Production" or "Technique". It would come after section Research. Note: User 84.210.44.152's contribution discussed the normal process of comic book lithography. Note: The article's table of contents is already quite long, and this would make it one more section longer. Note: We would need prose that would absolutely reflect the source material.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  00:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * One way to handle long tables of contents is to use TOC limit, which can be used to suppress subsections to a chosen depth. For instance,  would suppress the sub-subsections under "Characters".  Also, I was thinking that maybe the "Adaptations and memorabilia" could be moved to its own article—it's got nine subsections all its own!  Pretty overwhelming, and somewhat tangential.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Brilliant, that helps, thanks. —Prhartcom   (talk)  05:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Assouline & Raus: 2009 or 2011?
Assouline & Raus is listed as 2011 in the references, but as 2009 in "Further reading". Could you double-check which is right? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I also noticed some other mysterious cites: Peeters 1989? Peeters 2012? Farr 2001? Gravett 2005? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm so glad someone is double-checking, thanks Curly Turkey; I am checking into these that you pointed out immediately, BRB. We need to go though every citation and check the citation properties then double-check text–source integrity; it's even on the To do list. This article's citations must be perfect.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  23:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Gravett 2005 would be: I have it on my shelf here. Hiding T 23:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Farr 2001 is listed in the sources as Farr 2011, note the listing for 2011 also mentions the 2001 edition. Not sure if you then need to list it again or to redo the sources, as I'm not sure if the pages have changed in the new edition. Hiding T 23:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Peeters 1989 is likely, although the article itself states 1988 as year of publication. Hiding T 23:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Land of the Soviets article, Peeters 2012 is : . Hope that helps. Hiding T 00:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This does help, thank-you Hiding. Earlier I realized I had created a problem for myself by acquiring and referring to later editions of the Farr, Lofficier, and Thompson books that were newer editions of what had been come before, realizing I must now go back and double-check each each item in the bibliography to ensure I am properly identifing the correct edition, page, isbn, etc. This will be done.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  00:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Tom McCarthy
Is Tom McCarthy (writer), novelist the same man that writes for The Guardian? I'm honestly not convinced. —Prhartcom  (talk)  21:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that they are one and the same. My copy of Tintin in the Secret of Literature specifies that he is the author of Remainder on its dust jacket. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I know Tom McCarthy (writer) is the author of the novel Remainder, his Wikipedia article says so. I asked if he is the same person who writes for the newspaper The Guardian.  Nowhere on Wikipedia nor on The Guardian website does it confirm this, nor anywhere else that I can find. When we cite an article from that newspaper written by the person named Tom McCarthy, I want to know if we should link that newspaper writer's name to the Tom McCarthy (writer) article.   —Prhartcom   (talk)  14:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Model for Castafiore
The article mentions various female opera singers. As far as Castafiore's look is concerned, however, there's an almost striking resemblance to Swedish opera singer Birgit Nilsson, who certainly was known to Hergé. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.28.219 (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Castafiore was primarily inspired by Maria Callas, who recorded a very famous Jewel Song, and possibly also her rival Renata Tebaldi or even Elisabeth Schumann. I am a fan of Birgit Nilsson but I don't see reliable sources mentioning her as an inspiration. Hergé sided with Captain Haddock; he didn't like opera. Prhartcom (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * With respect, Castafiore wasn’t, and couldn’t have been, “primarily” inspired by Callas, as Callas would only have been about 16 when Bianca first appeared in 1939, and Callas’s version of “The Jewel Song” was years later. An earlier opera diva has to be, therefore, a far better candidate for the model. Hergé’s dislike of opera arose from visits to an aunt who insisted on playing it to him, but whether as a performer, or by means of recordings, I am not sure.

History section
The history section seems to have a bias of coverage towards the earlier period (the first 5 years is covered in much greater detail than the last 40!), and lacks any mention that Hergé disavowed the xenophobia and racism of the early comics. I can't work out if this should prompt removal of the material or expansion. I am concerned that the section seems to focus almost exclusively on how right-wing Petit-Vingtième was, which is in turn supplemented by a "criticisms" section that points out much the same thing. Meanwhile the fact that the strip when taken as a whole exhibited a much broader ideological and social perspective isn't mentioned. Slac speak up! 02:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You make a good point, Slac. I think the primary editor of the History section was more familiar with the earlier period at the time this information was contributed, and there may be an imbalance of history that may need to be corrected. Please do feel free to make appropriate edits from reliable sources, removing a bit of the earlier history adding later history.  The Controversy section appropriately mentions the offenses and includes Hergé's mea culpa, but perhaps this should be made clearer, as Hergé clearly disavowed the offenses of the early comics. I can also look at it improving these sections myself.  Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Who could have been more popular in Europe ?
Article states "The series was one of the most popular European comics of the 20th century,", but what other comic would even come remotely close to Tintin in wstern Europe ? Lucky Luke ? Asterix ? Valiant ? No I don't believe so. Boeing720 (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Popular" is such a subjective term that it's better not to present it as an absolute. If it was an objective measure, such as "best-selling", then yes - but what exactly does "popular" mean? Maybe people bought fewer Asterix but enjoyed them more. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It was one of the most popular, no one will really dispute this (even though I agree with DavidWBrooks' statement above as well). But as soon as you would change it to "the most popular", people will (correctly or not) start complaining. Each country has its own favourites (e.g. Spike and Suzy in Belgium and the Netherlands also sold 200 million copies, but with less sales spread over more titles of course), and cross-Europe (or across Western Europe), there is no measure to state that it was more popular than Asterix, Lucky Luke, or the Smurfs (as a media franchise at least, purely as a comic it didn't match Tintin's popularity). Sales figures for new Asterix titles are still huge (8 million?). Fram (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested Move notification
Hi, people may be interested to comment at the requested move discussion at Talk:Tintin. Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 15:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Controversy over copyrights
The article should probably mention the issue discussed at. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you make a fair point Piotrus, this article should include that information. Feel free to create the cited prose in the article yourself if you have all of the sources, or I or one of my colleagues can get to it soon. Prhartcom (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Page views
The mobile app currently has this as the top read on Wikipedia so I'm adding this chart to help see if it's spiking for some reason. There is indeed a massive spike and this seems to be associated with the recent terrorism in Belgium: Brussels attacks: how Tintin became a symbol of solidarity on Twitter. Andrew D. (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

There's some dispute about where this should go. This should be a permanent feature at the head of the talk page, as it's always of interest to see what the readership is. The graph seems to need a caption to explain what it is so I might try embedding it in a template of some sort. Andrew D. (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This "new feature" may not be accurate. Page views. Prhartcom (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Graph:PageViews shows the traffic on the article page. Prhartcom is comparing this with the traffic on this talk page, which is different and comparatively small. Andrew D. (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (I posted stats of the talk page earlier, instead of the article page). You're right, there are a lot of page views. Prhartcom (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Over 600× the average traffic! Talk about a jump!
 * Sorry, I don't have anything intelligent to add to the conversation. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 14:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha, ! And thanks for the heads up and the edit, . I'll add that I'm proud that the article is in good shape when people started to read it by the hundreds of thousands. Prhartcom (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
I was surprised to see Mobygames and Sinclair Infoseek used as sources in an FA... they're patently unreliable sources as user-contributed databases without editorial oversight. (See WP:VG/RS.) Those citations should be removed and replaced. czar 17:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess there has not been any response to this. Aoba47 (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , wasn't expecting much (since it's been almost a decade since its last review) but it's more for if/when this article goes through review in the future Eye close font awesome.svg czar  17:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Make sense, and I apologize for the random message. Thank you for your response. Aoba47 (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Featured article status
Apart from the unreliable sources, there are also paragraphs of uncited text. This article no longer meets Featured article criteria. DrKay (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. It should be delisted. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

(My earlier comment, relocated here from Featured article candidates:) I have a lot of sources (in French), and could certainly assist other editors who raise issues to resolve, and/or to be corroborated by reliable sources. I’ll watch this page and participate where I can. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 13:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Exhibitions
The The Adventures of Tintin section starts in 1983. I don't know all that was before then, but I remember there was an 1980 one in Montreal. Google tells me that it was in 1979 and 1980, and the 45-page guidebook for it titled Le musée imaginaire de Tintin. It travelled to Montreal, France, and Brussels, with the dates Exposition tenue au Palais des beaux-arts, Bruxelles, du 28 juin au 28 août 1979 ; 2 autres lieux et au Musée des beaux-arts de Montréal, du 19 juin au 24 août 1980. according to the gouvernment du Quebec; elsewhere I can see it was in Bordeaux October 1-31, 1979 and Paris November 17 to January 4. I'd think that something about this should be added. Presumably there are contemporary references in newspapers of the day. Nfitz (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Changing the profile picture
Hello everyone! I request if someone could please change the profile picture into the first issue cover of the series, because this is a comic series with many issues and placing the very first one is the most appropriate to do so. It also includes the logo, so there shouldn't be any problem at all. Please reply! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.231.158.189 (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Hergé's origin
Hergé is made up from the letters R and G, (Rémi George) wich sound in french: Her Gé in English: Air Jae 2405:6E00:248F:FC53:8891:A6E8:2B06:1551 (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)