Talk:The Shooting Star

History/Background section moved to main series article
The History/Background section of this article contains well-written text that is truly the history of the entire Adventures of Tintin series. For that reason, this section has been removed from this article and moved to the The Adventures of Tintin article. See the talk page there. —Prhartcom  (talk)  16:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Newspaper vs. book edition
According to the article, The Shooting Star was first serialised in a newspaper in black and white. Are there any other differences between the newspaper version and the book version than the lack of colours in the first one? --Oddeivind (talk) 09:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This article has been touched up quite a bit since this question was asked, and the article now more accurately expresses, "Unlike the previous books in the series, because it was printed immediately in colour, it did not need to be totally redrawn. It was the first volume of the Adventures of Tintin to be conceived from the start in the standard fixed length of 62 pages with colour throughout." (see footnotes in article). Prhartcom (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphan citation
Just to say, in case you haven't noticed it already, that the citation "Lofficier & Lofficier 2011" doesn't link to anything in the bibliography. Whether this is a different edition or simply a different book, could the author please fix it? Brigade Piron (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good catch, and I noticed it also; it's fairly typical to see this in this particular circumstance, I am quite used to cleaning it up (and I don't mind). By the way, and you may know this already: If you're not averse to using scripts, User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js automatically highlights these broken links with eyesore-inducing red messages that make them impossible to miss (as Curly Turkey once put it when he told me about it). Documented here. User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I've added that script to my page. Are you sure it was just a mistake then, and not a reference from another edition? If so, no problem.—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I checked my own copy of the source. Hope you find that script useful! I definitely do. Prhartcom (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Not notable
We may have to delete reference to this person Matthew Screech, as there is no context or explanation for who he is. Prhartcom (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added his book to the Bibliography section. He is not the same as Matthew Screech, as far as I can tell.-- Auric    talk  23:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Masters of the Ninth Art, and definitely notable, thank-you for finding it! Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Questions

 * In one sentence it says that the groups of scientists were all Axis or neutral "reflecting the strip's political slant"—then in the next sentence Thompson tells us this was sheer coincidence. Which is it? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thompson does not say this is a coincidence. Lofficier tells us the scientists "are from Germany, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland". Farr confirms that the nationalities of the team have "come under critical scrutiny" but then assures us "a European expedition assembled in 1941-42 would necessarily have had to draw on experts from neutral or occupied countries" and "this can hardly be a stick to beat Hergé with". Thompson agrees: "Critics point to the nationalities of the scientists ... was this not tantamount to Nazi propaganda? Actually, this is unjustified criticism. There were only two countries left in Europe in 1941 that were not either neutral or occupied." Prhartcom (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, not a "coincidence" per se, but Thompson's comment suggests the choice had nothing to do with Hergé's politics, while the first sentence implies it did. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously, both Farr and Thompson seem to ignore that Germany was neither "neutral" nor "occupied", but the main aggressor of the war... Just saying! Fram (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose one could argue that Germany was "occupied" by the Nazis, who has established administrative control illegitimately, but I get your point. I think "Axis" is hence a better term than "occupied". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The point is, the text implies it both was and wasn't deliberate. That needs to be fixed. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've changed this sentence to "All of the scientists featured were from Axis or neutral countries, which might be a reflection of the strip's anti-Allies political slant." Hopefully that sorts the problem out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * saying that he had only read one of the French novelist's works: do we know if he said which one? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't. Although it sounds like the answer may have once existed, we don't know it now, and Lofficier doesn't tell us. He says, "Hergé always denied having read more than one of Jules Verne's novels, and that with only little attention. Yet, the fact remains ..." Prhartcom (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * it is possible that the influence from Verne came via Jacques Van Melkebeke, Hergé's friend and assistant: do we know why Melkebeke gets singled out as likely? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We do. After explaining that he was collaborating heavily with Hergé at the time, Lofficier says, "Melkebeke was far better acquainted with fantasy literature." Prhartcom (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I will let fill in any gaps the article may have, which these may answer. Thanks for your attentive observations, ! Prhartcom (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: Though I have since filled in some other gaps, this still needs to be done. Prhartcom (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thus, The Shooting Star played into the Belgian political situation at the time.: "played into" sounds to me to imply "unwittingly"---can it be sure that was so?
 * I've reworded this as "The Shooting Star reflected trends in[...]", which I hope conveys the same meaning. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Some may object to have both hyphenated "anti-Americanism" and unhyphenated "antisemitism". I'll let you guys decide if it's worth doing something about.
 * I personally favour "anti-Semitism", but I think that we should use "antisemitism" given that it is this spelling which is used in Wikipedia's own article on the subject. Further, the Wikipedia article on the subject uses "anti-Americanism"; I'm unsure if "antiamericanism" would even be a correct spelling! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the antisemitism article itself acknowledges the hyphenated spelling; if the hyphenated version is what you prefer, then the only important thing is that you use it consistently within the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree it acknowledges that the hyphenated spelling does exist, but yet it still doesn't choose to use it as the title ? I think it best to stick with "antisemitism" for now, even though I am less favourable to that particular spelling. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're misunderstanding: take a look at Color and Armour---is "Color" titled without a "u" because the American spelling is preferred? Is "Armour" titled with a "u" because Commonwealth spelling is preferred?  No, it's because both are correct and appropriate, but only one could be the title, so they went with whatever title it got stuck with first.  This is all spelled out at Article titles, which gives the examples of color gel and colour state.  If you wrote an article that linked to both of these, would you use the American spelling for the one and the Commonwealth spelling for the other?  Of course not---you wouldn't even consider it.  In such cases you should give preference to consistency and your own preferences over whatever happens capriciously to be the linked article title. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I notice Wiktionary prefers "anti-Semitism", as Midnightblueowl, Curly Turkey, and I do. Note: In the quotebox of Hergé it was spelled "anti-Semitism", inconsistently from the rest of the page's "antisemitism" (it is permissible to change spelling in a quote). I have made the change to "anti-Semitism" and all is consistent. Good move changing the section title from Criticism to Anti-Semitism. Prhartcom (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I prefer "antisemitism" in my own writing. Both are entirely correct, but the one that is more consistent with the rest of the text is "more correct". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that Prhartcom has converted all examples back to "anti-Semitism", which on reflection is fine by me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I just stated above that I made this change, and you stated at the beginning of the discussion that this was your preference. Prhartcom (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * the demise of the newspaper it appeared in: was this an insert or a separate paper? Either way, I thin kit's a good idea to explicate. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Le Soir Jeunesse was not a newspaper, but an insert in Le Soir, which disappeared due to paper shortage, according to Tintin.com and Lofficier. Fram (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And according to The Crab with the Golden Claws. I have made the correction. Note: It is Soir-Jeunesse and not Le Soir-Jeunesse or Le Soir Jeunesse, according to both Assouline and Goddin, but amusingly not not according to Englishmen Farr and Thompson. Note: We incorrectly stated the original publication was Le Soir Jeunesse instead of Le Soir in the Infobox (I believe I was the one who made that mistake, years ago; hopefully, since I have now corrected it, I am finally redeemed). Prhartcom (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That may be how those authors formatted it in their books, but Google Image Search shows numerous examples of the paper itself where it's called Le Soir Jeunesse. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, thanks. I wanted to know the name of the newspaper's insert, so I consulted the reliable sources instead of looking at the actual covers of the actual insert. I suppose I should change it back. Prhartcom (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We need to rely on our RSes, but sometimes our sources are not as reliable as they could be—in which case we have to excercise our editorial judgement. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made the necessary correction to Le Soir Jeunesse. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As with earlier Adventures of Tintin: all earlier adventures? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, yes, all earlier ones. I wouldn't call Coeurs Vaillants a newspaper though, it was a magazine. Fram (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's great to see you here in this discussion, Fram! Prhartcom (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fram is right; Coeurs Vaillants started publishing the strip from its first appearance, Tintin in the Land of the Soviets. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case that should be made explicit: "As with earlier Adventures of Tintin" can legitimately be read s "As with (some|many|a few) earlier Adventures of Tintin". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * include a small gold star: meaning, printed in gold ink or foil or something? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've consulted the Assouline biography and unfortunately it does not provide any further depth on what the star would have been made of. That being the case, I think that the prose should probably remain as it is here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The second and third paragraphs of "Critical analysis" could use some rearranging---the "pre-apocalyptic" stuff should be put together. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Curly Turkey and Midnightblueowl, has this been answered? Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Hergé daringly eschews the strip cartoonist's recognised means of denoting a dream, deliberately confusing the reader": this quote should be explained---how does a cartoonist normally denote a dream? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Curly Turkey and Midnightblueowl, has this been answered? Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * He suggests that when hiding on the Aurora, Philippus "plays the role of the Phantom of the Opera": question marks are dancing over my head. What does this mean? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten this section (and corrected the page number in the rference) so that it makes sense. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Tintin is therefore "the perfect one to figure it out in some religious way": how does he do this? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * To be truthful, as the editor responsible for adding this information, I'm not entirely clear what Apostolides is saying here. As with many examples of literary criticism, it can be interpreted in various different ways. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Does he put much emphasis on this point? If he only says it in passing and nobody picks up on it, maybe it's not particularly encyclopaedic—perhaps it's not helpful to a reader simply looking for a comprehensive overview of the topic. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've checked the original book, and I am still none the wiser. I have expanded the Apostolides quotation in the article, so perhaps that sheds more light on the situation for the reader ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * McCarthy further observes that the image of a giant spider in a ball of fire, which appears near the start of the story, reflects the theme of madness that is again present throughout the series.: I'd move this to where madness was discussed earlier---analysis should be grouped by theme rather than by critic. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree to some extent; in those articles dealing with earlier Adventures of Tintin (all of which are rated as either GA or FA), we have analysis grouped by critic rather than theme. This article is simply adhering to that established convention. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid. FA and GA are not summits of unimprovability but thresholds of quality---promotion denotes only that the article has met certain requirements.  I frequently go back over my old FAs to find places they could be improved: style, readability, flow, new sources, etc.  The attitude should be that "good enough" is never good enough. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm with Midnightblueowl on this too. The interpretation is entirely normative, unlike the book's content, so as such, it is much more useful (and verifiable) to group it by critic.—Brigade Piron (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the tail wagging the dog. We put the references way at the bottom out of the way for a very good reason.  Wikipedia serves a general---not specialist---audience.  The prose should be structured to best serve that audience.  I read this article through in order from the first paragraph to the last, and the feeling I got reading it this way was that a subject would be dealt with, then move on, then inexplicably return.  I kept finding myself thinking "Didn't we just cover that?"  It feels choppy and sloppy, putting undue weight on the analysts rather than on the analysis where it belongs.  That vanishingly small minority of readers who want to verify the content have any number of means left to them to do so. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nazi apologists and revisionists such as French Holocaust denier Olivier Mathieu used The Shooting Star as evidence that Hergé was an antisemite with Nazi sympathies.: ditto antisemitism. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've moved this passage to the "Antisemitism" section, where I think it to be far more appropriate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * a series of daily five-minute episodes: do we know how many episodes total? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * According to Hergé's Adventures of Tintin, there were 11 episodes for this story. Fram (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * editor-in-chief of Tintin magazine: do we know when? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * According to Greg (comics), this was in 1966. Fram (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to get more analysis of the artwork---the cover is one of Hergé's most striking. I'm surprised there's no mention of Charles Burns' homage to it. It's been noted a few times. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This topic looks interesting; thank-you Curly Turkey (once again) for your comics knowledge. I will investigate it. Midnightblueowl, I will let you know what I find. Prhartcom (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added information on Burns' graphic novel to the article. Feel free however to add additional references to it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just about to say I had investigated the articles as promised, and learned that the other articles mostly only mention this Tintin book in passing, so the LA Times article is the best source. Apparently Burns also riffed on The Black Island and The Broken Ear. Prhartcom (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Some time should be spent tracking down other works influenced by the book (maybe nothing, but I imagine there's something).
 * I am not aware of anything from my readings in the main Tintinological literature, which I consulted when first authoring this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like someone has access to McCarthy's Tintin and the Secret of Literature. There's something interesting about the feeling of oppression the meteor brings upon them, comparing it to fascism, and the coincidence that Aranea Fasciata resembles the word "fascism".  On Google Books, unfortunately, the book is unpaginated.  Could whoever has the book add aomething about this? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, about that link: We can't read Japanese. ;-) I am looking through my copy and I'm sure Midnightblueowl is looking through hers; if I see an answer to your question I will let you both know. Off topic: I love that one fellow's review: "This book ruined my childhood appreciation of Tintin and Herge!" Prhartcom (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well spotted Curly; I consulted my hard copy, and found the information on page 40. I have incorporated it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Some interesting-looking potential sources:
 * Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it's a good idea to have that quotebox of Hergé defending himself in the "Antisemitism" section. It seems to me to put undue weight on his own side.  I'd un-quotebox it and incorporate it into the text.  Ditto the Lofficier quote. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's brilliant how Midnightblueowl did that; it greatly improves the article's readability and comprehension and make it easy for the "general audience" (as you say) to quickly absorb this book's problem. I found myself in a conversation about the book and mentioned both of those quotes, since they stood out for me. Nicely done. Prhartcom (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a big fan of quoteboxes as a good way of expressing the opinion of an individual who is highly significant to the content of the article (in this case Hergé himself). That being the case, I would quote strongly defend the use of it in this particular article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a big fan of quoteboxes as a good way of expressing the opinion of an individual who is highly significant to the content of the article (in this case Hergé himself). That being the case, I would quote strongly defend the use of it in this particular article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, hopefully all of your questions above have been answered satisfactorily? Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Prhartcom's comments

 * Curly Turkey, I noticed with concern that you changed a link in this article from "Greg (comics)" to "Greg (cartoonist)", then noticed (again, with concern) that you moved the Greg (comics) article to Greg (cartoonist). This goes against WP:NCC. This decision that was made at WT:WikiProject Comics. It includes cartoonists. Not to mention, when one moves an article, one is obligated to do the cleanup after that move, changing the links that point to it to the new name. I'm bringing it up because I am big on consistency, guidelines, and tidiness. I suppose you now plan on arguing against WP:NCC and against cleanup, but it would be great if you would thoughtfully consider moving it back. Prhartcom (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Professions take preference over fields, and the (cartoonist) disambig is well-established. WP:NCC has been caught in violation of higher-level guidelines before—local consensus has long been a serious issue there.  Normally (comics) is used for professionals only when something like (cartoonist) or (writer) is inappropriate (say if they do artwork, writing, and editing, but not necessarily at the same time—Frank Miller (comics) sometimes writes, sometimes draws, and sometimes does both).  If (comics) is used for a professional—especially one with a name like simply "Greg"—it can imply that it is the name of a comic book or a character in comics (although the result of a recent RfC has it so that characters should be under (character) there are scores of articles that have yet to be moved). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Curly Turkey, regarding the ISBNs and their non-existance prior to 1965 and your change to remove ISBNs from the Infobox: I'm all for leaving both the origisbn and the transisbn of the original French and original translated English Tintin books out of the Infobox, for all our Tintin book articles, even those published after 1965 (and I am all for keeping the ISBN of the currently published English Tintin book in the Bibliography's primary source entry). May I ask you for clarification: The Template:Infobox graphic novel documentation says it allows "the current or first edition ISBN of the album"; should we consider putting the current French and English ISBN in the Infobox? Do you want those comments you placed in the Infobox parms to be left there? And do you have other thoughts on this matter? I will then consistently apply this decision across all our Tintin book articles. Prhartcom (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Some issues with ISBNs:
 * It's unclear to readers whether the ISBN is supposed to be the most current or the original
 * The infobox states when it was first published in English, leading readers to believe all information will be about that edition
 * If you choose to go with the "current" ISBN, you're committing yourself to keeping it updated to whatever the most current ISBN is; otherwise, when it changes, the one in the infobox becomes just another random ISBN
 * The infobox ends up highlighting one particular edition of the book, when in fact that are several currently in print: the paperback edition (which has a different ISBN), the 23 cm softcover expanded Young Readers edition, the 3-in-1 edition with The Crab with the Golden Claws and The Secret of the Unicorn. Really, the infobox should only give general information about the book without focusing on a particular edition (with the exception of the first edition—the first edition will always remain the first edition). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * An interpretation of some of these objections could lead anyone to say any ISBN in any research project is bad. I know that is not the case, but I do appreciate your answer: you convinced me we should avoid consistently mentioning ISBN in the Tintin article Infoboxes (but will continue to use it in our Bibliography). Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The Infobox and reference sources serve entirely unrelated purposes. Source references must include ISBNs because books often come in vastly different editions—even simultaneously released hard- and softcovers are often paginated differently due to differnt formatting (different page sizes, say) and different supplemental material (the hardcover may have an illustrated insert not included in the paperback, say).  We must have the ISBN or the page references may be useless.
 * The Infobox is a "reference" in the sense of "quick reference"—it gives the reader a quick summary of the subject of the article. Authors and publication dates are vital in that sense—ISBNs, on the other hand, can be misleading for the reasons I gave above.  The article is not about specific published editions (of which there can be a mind-numbing number and variety), but about the content and history of the book.  This article in particular covers the black-and-white comic strip, the reformatted first edition of the colour album, the revised colour album, the first English edition, and even the notes made toward an unrealized third French edition.  It could also have included other-language versions if there were a story behind them (as in the Tibetan and Chinese versions of Tintin in Tibet).  Including ISBNs in the infobox could be considered historical information if it were for the original edition, but otherwise doing so only confuses form and content.  This is especially so when multiple versions are in print—at least four with separate ISBNs currently in English.  How can we privilege one over the others?
 * Another problem is that I'm not even sure the ISBN in the infobox (978-0-316-35851-4) was the most current. The hardcover being sold at Amazon right now is 978-1-4052-0809-3.  See how this quickly becomes confusing and misleading? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I do, thank-you, Curly Turkey; I'm glad they are gone now. I have consistently removed the ISBNs from all of the Tintin book article infoboxes, also removing some deleted/correcting some changed parameters. Let me know if you have any other infobox suggestions. Prhartcom (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * One more question, Curly Turkey: Should we keep the URL parameter to Google Books in the cite book templates? Or remove the parm entirely and have no link from the book title since the ISBN link is there, which leads to Google Books, Open Library, and more? I checked some FAs you promoted and see that you use them, and I think I like them. Whatever you answer I will apply consistently throughout the Tintin articles. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've actually been told before that we should remove them. I use http://reftag.appspot.com/ to generate  templates from them, and it includes them automatically.  I usually keep them if I actually used Google Books, and not otherwise.  I don't think it's a problem either way—it's somewhat helpful if you keep them, but not harmful if you drop them. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Me too, but I have ignored them, then wondered if they were right. I'll go ahead and keep it. Nifty tool, thanks! Keep sharing tools! Prhartcom (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose there's more to it than that---Google Books is a commercial service, and it offers links so you can buy digital or paper editions of the books, from which Google profits; we really shouldn't be favouring them over another such service---we're not in the business of giving free advertising to Google. At the same time, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT tells us to "SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT", and if we got it from another commerical source (say, Questia) rather than the original source it was digitized from, then we're expected to give that URL. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe I should remove them all then. I wasn't justifying it for the SAY WHERE reason, because that isn't where we/I found them; I was justifying it purely for consistency reasons, to always have a helpful link to a nice picture of the book cover, really. For the profit reason you mentioned, maybe I should consistently remove them all from all Tintin articles. Thanks for your thoughts. Prhartcom (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"All of the scientists featured were from Axis or neutral countries" - what about France?
The article currently states, "All of the scientists featured were from Axis or neutral countries". I have a copy of the 62 page, color version of the comic open in front of me right now however, and one of the scientists is clearly identified as French - Professor Paul Cantonneau, said to be from the University of Paris. I'm not a WWII expert, but I feel like it would be a stretch to call Nazi-occupied France a member of the Axis. I can see that this sentence was under discussion a couple years ago in the Questions section. According to one of Prhartcom's comments in that section, Lofficier identified the scientists as being from "Germany, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland". My copy of the comic includes all but Switzerland. Was the lineup of scientists changed between the black-and-white version of the comic and the color version? Or did Lofficier make a mistake? I'll also ping, , and , as they were all involved with this previous discussion. --Jpcase (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In the original version, Cantonneau was from the University of Fribourg. Opera hat (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Would it be possible to mention this change in the "Publication" section? --Jpcase (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure that's sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in the article. Plus it would probably fail WP:OR anyway.—Brigade Piron (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that nothing can be done without a reference. But this seems like a pretty glaring omission to me. The article as written will appear inaccurate to anyone who has actually read the comic, unless they have access to the black-and-white version. And I'm guessing that the vast majority of modern Tintin readers will only be familiar with the color version. All of these articles have done an impressive job detailing the differences between reprints, so I'd be surprised if Cantonneau's change in nationality has gone completely unmentioned by reliable sources. --Jpcase (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * unless they have access to the black-and-white version—no, the French-language colour version also says he was from the University of Fribourg. It must be only the English version that calls him French. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. And that would be worth mentioning as well, if a source could be found for the fact. But this being the English-language Wikipedia, most readers of this article probably won't have any familiarity with the French version of the comic. --Jpcase (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I just noticed what Thompson 2011 p. 107 says: "Critics point to the nationalities of the scientists in the pan-European party, all from neutral or Axis countries: a Belgian, a Frenchman, a German, a Spaniard, a Swede, and a Portuguese." The "critics" Thompson referes to are obviously European sources, but the volume he's working from is obviously the English one.  Is he confused, or does he consider occupied France a "neutral or Axis country"? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well...that's peculiar! Thanks for digging that up, Curly Turkey. I'm looking through the article again, and the following text, also sourced with Thompson, complicates things even further - "the only two nation-states in Europe that were part of the Allies at that point were the Soviet Union and United Kingdom" Is it really accurate to say that France was no longer a member of the Allies, upon occupation? I know that we're pretty much tethered to the sources, but again - I get the impression that readers of this article will be left with some question marks hovering over their heads. And that's a shame, because you guys have done exemplary work with the article otherwise. --Jpcase (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hunting around, some of the French sources out there use the phrasing similar to "neutral or occupied countries" ("pays neutres ou occupés par l'Allemagne", "pays occupés par l'Allemagne ou neutres") ... also "countires that were neutral, occupied, or welcoming to the Reich" ("des pays neutres (Suède, Suisse), occupés (France, Belgique) ou bienveillants au Reich"). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , I assume you have not heard of Vichy France, Philippe Pétain and Pierre Laval? —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Paris was in occupied France, not Vichy. Regardless, Vichy France doesn't appear to have been counted among the "Axis countries".  We should go with one of the French sources I listed above and avoid using the word "Axis". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm noticing that, at least in one instance, Thompson also uses the "neutral or occupied" phrasing. I don't have the source myself, but according to Prhartcom in the "Questions" section of this talk page, Thompson says, "There were only two countries left in Europe in 1941 that were not either neutral or occupied". So...Thompson goes from saying "neutral or Axis" to saying "neutral or occupied"? Hmm...what else does Thompson say? Perhaps his comments, when taken in full, make a little more sense. --Jpcase (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging you, just in case you might have missed my last message - any chance to check on Thompson's full comments? --Jpcase (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , you're right that Vichy was not technically a signatory of the Pact of Steel and therefore not technically a member of the Axis - I doubt that would have been much consolation for the British and American troops being shot at by Vichy troops in the Middle East and North Africa though. We certainly consider Romania and Hungary to be members of the Axis, I see no reason why Vichy should not be included too. As for Paris, although it was in the occupied zone, it was in Vichy France in the sense that Vichy did not relinquish de jure ownership of territory occupied by another power.—Brigade Piron (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The "Axis powers" article says Hungary and Romania were members of the Tri-Partite Pact, and that Vichy was "officially neutral" but "collaborated with the Axis". But once again, Paris was in occupied France and not Vichy, and it's Paris that's relevant to the article.
 * Italy and the other Axis powers obviously were neither nuetral nor occupied, so that's just sloppy writing on Thompson's part. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Good point! Then perhaps those French sources you mentioned should be used. Feel free to make whatever changes you feel appropriate. --Jpcase (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So, I still think that it would be good to do something about this. Again, I don't have access to any of the sources; otherwise, I would try to make the appropriate changes myself. No special hurry, and I understand if you're unable to address the matter yourself - but someone should certainly correct the issue before too long. --Jpcase (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've added a French source for the wording "occupied or neutral". Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking that on! Now that I'm looking over this again though, I'm realizing that one of the scientists is, in fact, from Germany - which of course, was neither neutral nor occupied..so...haha...I'm not really sure what would serve as the best solution. One thought is that we could simply use all three terms - "All of the scientists featured were from Axis, neutral, or occupied countries...". And then we could use both the French newspaper you added and Thompson as sources for the statement - how would you feel about that approach? --Jpcase (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To be honest? I think the sources are bending over backwards to make Hergé look bad, thus the wording problem. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I can't say that I have much of an opinion either way as to whether the criticism of Hergé in this instance is fair - but I agree that the wording is problematic, and it's certainly possible that the critics are straining to make a point. My main concern is accuracy. To say that all of the scientists hail from "Axis or neutral countries" is inaccurate; to say that all of the scientists hail from "neutral or occupied countries" is inaccurate. It sounds like no one has come across any sources that use all three words. But of course, removing the criticism altogether isn't an option - even if it is unfair criticism. Again, I'm inclined to feel that the best option would be to simply combine sources, so that we can use all three words. Some might argue that this violates WP:Synthesis, but I really don't think that policy is meant to apply in a circumstance such as this. That policy seems to be specifically cautioning against tying a sourced assertion to a separately sourced conclusion; all we would be doing is combining two separately sourced, related assertions into a coherent whole. To my knowledge - and correct me if I'm wrong, because again, I don't actually have any of the sources on-hand - we have a source that says "neutral or occupied" and we have a source that says "neutral or Axis". So would you support using both sources to say "Axis, neutral, or occupied"? --Jpcase (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

This got away from me for awhile, but I just went ahead and changed the phrasing to "Axis, neutral, or occupied, using both sources. Hope that's okay. Let me know if you have any objections! --Jpcase (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

"Did not need to be totally redrawn"
The sentence "Unlike the previous books in the series, because it was printed immediately in colour, it did not need to be totally redrawn." strikes me as somewhat odd. The other books arguably did not need to be redrawn when they were colorized; Hergé simply decided to do so. Since the source for this sentence doesn't appear to be online (and is in French), I can't do anything to address the problem - nor do I feel like this is a particularly pressing issue. But at some point (perhaps if the article is ever up for FA) it would be worth considering whether there's a better way to communicate why Hergé chose not to redraw The Shooting Star for its initial color release. --Jpcase (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

References in the Background section
I just expanded the "Background" section slightly, using information and sources from The Crab with the Golden Claws. Because I don't actually have access to any of the sources, I can't say for sure whether every source that I brought over is necessary. If someone wants to double-check that everything is properly sourced, that might be a good idea, but it's probably not crucial. I only made changes to the first paragraph of that section. --Jpcase (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mostly for my own peace of mind, here's an explanation of where each new sentence comes from:
 * The following sentences from the Red Rackham's Treasure article, "Red Rackham's Treasure was serialized amidst the German occupation of Belgium during World War II. Hergé had accepted a position working for Le Soir, Belgium's largest Francophone daily newspaper" and "After joining Le Soir on 15 October 1940, Hergé became editor of its new children's supplement, Le Soir Jeunesse, with the help of an old friend, Paul Jamin, and the cartoonist Jacques Van Melkebeke, before paper shortages forced Tintin to be serialised daily in the main pages of Le Soir", were both used to create the following sentence in this article: "Amidst the German occupation of Belgium during World War II, Hergé became the founding editor of Le Soir Jeunesse, a children's supplement in Belgium's leading newspaper, Le Soir." I've used exactly the same sourcing for my sentence as is used for the two sentences from the Red Rackham's Treasure article.
 * The following sentence from the article on The Crab with the Golden Claws, "The Catholic publication Le Vingtième Siècle and its supplement Le Petit Vingtième, where Hergé had always worked serialising The Adventures of Tintin, no longer had permission to continue publication", was used to create the following sentence in this article: "Hergé's previous employer, the Catholic newspaper Le Vingtième Siècle (which had originated The Adventures of Tintin through its own children's supplement, Le Petit Vingtième) was no longer allowed by the German authorities to continue publishing". Both sentences use the exact same sourcing, although the Crab with the Golden Claws article includes an additional sentence about Land of Black Gold before the sources are given (so a few of those sources may be extraneous here).
 * The following sentence from the Red Rackham's article, "Confiscated from its original owners, Le Soir was permitted by the German authorities to reopen under the directorship of Belgian editor Raymond de Becker, although it remained firmly under Nazi control, supporting the German war effort and espousing anti-Semitism" was used to create the following sentence in this article: "Le Soir, in contrast, was allowed to stay open under the administrative control of the occupying military government." Both sentences used the exact same sourcing.
 * The following sentences from the Golden Claws article, "The Crab with the Golden Claws began serialisation in Le Soir Jeunesse on 17 October 1940. However, on 8 May 1941, a paper shortage caused by the ongoing war led to the Le Soir Jeunesse being reduced to four pages, with the length of the weekly Tintin strip being cut by two-thirds. Several weeks later, on 3 September 1941, the supplement disappeared altogether, with The Crab with the Golden Claws being moved into Le Soir itself in September, where it became a daily strip" were used to create the following part of this article: "Le Soir Jeunesse serialized most of The Shooting Star's immediate predecessor, The Crab with the Golden Claws, but ceased publication due to paper shortages in 1941. The Adventures of Tintin was then moved to Le Soir itself..." Both use the exact same sourcing.
 * And finally, the last bit that I added, "where The Crab with the Golden Claws was concluded and the subsequent four Adventures (including The Shooting Star) were serialized", is derived from five different sentences about how each of those five Adventures were serialized in Le Soir; the sentences of course, come from the respective articles on each of those five Adventures. I've used the exact same sourcing as those original five sentences.
 * --Jpcase (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)