Talk:Topps Comics

Fair use rationale for Image:LadyRawhide v1n1.jpg
Image:LadyRawhide v1n1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MartianChronicles comic.jpg
Image:MartianChronicles comic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NightGlider1.jpg
Image:NightGlider1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bombast1.jpg
The image Image:Bombast1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:Exosquad comic cover.jpg
 * Image:X-Files comic 5.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --21:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required
This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project
As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit WikiProject_Comics/Assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability tag?
I'm really at a loss to understand how this article doesn't meet notability guidelines when this was a well-established company issuing a large number of high-profile products by name creators and featuring major licensed properties. Unless the nominator can articulate a reasonable rationale for this tag &mdash; as he or she is supposed to &mdash; I see no reason not to remove this. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Topps is a well know company, but Topps Comics must meet notability on its own. I searched there doesn't seem to be any national news coverage of Topps Comics.  It may just have to be folded into Topp Company article. Spshu (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Following are just some of the many citations I've found in such sources as The New York Times, Billboard, Comic Book Resources and a whole slew of books. Given this coverage, assembled with fairly cursory effort, and the sheer notability of the high-profile creators and many licensed characters (Zorro), TV shows (he X-Files), movie (Jurassic Park) and book(Ray Bradbury) adaptations involved, I think we'd ver very hared-pressed to say Topps Comics is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article.
























 * --Tenebrae (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * --Tenebrae (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It was tagged by a bot. Bots make mistakes.  Just revert it (although loading it up with reliable refs would be even better).  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 03:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not a bot, Curly Turkey.
 * Tenebrae, notability is not not inherited so the "..sheer notability of the high-profile creators and many licensed characters..." is not relavent. The question is notability of Topps Comics.

"Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.'"
 * The NY Times article is on the right path. The Billboard article was not about Topps Comics and did not other wise provide significate coverage (only one paragraph mentioned it and was more about the comic book).  "Of Comics and Men" does not give enough coverage, Topps is just mentioned in lists of launched then failed comic book publishers.   The comic book news source are minor news stories (CBR, TwoMorrows, etc.), while can be used to fill in the article as reliable sources they don't apply for notability.  Pedia Press is just a outfit generating WP based books. I think I saw some Notability guideline that 2 major sources (like the NY Times) is enough but I can not find it any more. But give all the other sources that seems reasonable in this case. Spshu (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Spshu. I'm assuming there's a typo in the sentence above and that was supposed to be, "But given all the other sources that seems reasonable in this case." So does that mean Topps Comics is notable from your perspective?


 * Just to clarify, since you underlined and linked one sentence, not of the above examples are directory listings or advertising, and there's only one press release among them. While many of these cites are from books, mentioning Topps within a larger context, the fact is Topps is mentioned where many, many companies are not. As well, some of the TwoMorrows coverage, particularly the Jack Kirby Collector article are full articles about Topps Comics and its characters, and not tangential mentions.


 * Also, I think we may interpret the "inherit" guideline differently. I can see where if a notable person buys a restaurant, that doesn't make the restaurant notable. But this seems the opposite case: The restaurant (Topps Comics, metaphorically speaking) hired celebrity chefs, a famous DJ, and notable managers and designers. and in turn helped notability on some of its lesser-known talent. So it's rather the opposite of the example given at the guideline. It's certainly as notable as Fiction House, Tower Comics or any other company that's not Marvel, DC, Image or Dark Horse: Part of the notability for any comics company is the talent they use and the characters they publish. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Penciler John Cleary
"Kirby himself wrote and drew eight pages of the Satan's Six premiere, interlaced with story pages by writer Tony Isabella, penciler John Cleary and inker Armando Gil." The hotlink points to a page about Canadian politician John Cleary. Is this really the same person? WaxTadpole (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * LOL! Good catch! Adjusting. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)