Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Wikipedia 0.7

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Comics
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's quite a selection! Anything important missing there? BOZ (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's see, a few honorable mentions from Marvel: Hawkeye, Blade, Luke Cage, Defenders, New Mutants, Henry Pym, New Warriors, Black Panther, Ms. Marvel, Skrull, Green Goblin, Bullseye, Black Widow, Mystique, Spider-Woman (Jessica Drew), Thanos, X-Factor, Thing, Human Torch, Thunderbolts, Aunt May, Howard the Duck... well, it goes on from there. Any of these, or others, that we should add nominations for as suggested above? BOZ (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Any reason that Jessica Alba is related to the comics project, never mind being of "mid" importance for us? Having acted in movies based on comics is quite a stretch (the movies are of course part of this project, but having all the actors as well seems like overkill). Fram (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Having said that, the nomination criteria are:

1. Articles that give context (Poverty for Poverty in Pakistan) 2. GA+ articles of mid importance or higher 3. B-Class articles of high importance or higher 4. Start-Class articles, only if they are part of a set or are essential. 5. Articles needed for completeness 6. Country subdivisions of major countries (for example, Australian states)
 * I guess that we should focus on articles on categories 2 and 3. B-class articles of mid importance should in general not be included. Looking at WikiProject Comics/Assessment, this would still mean that about 200 comics related articles should be included (most of the already selected ones are amongst those 200, as are some of the ones suggested by BOZ). Perhaps the C-class articles of top importance can be added as well. Fram (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep - and I think we should nominate as many qualifying articles as possible. The worst thing that can happen is that they won't be accepted. :) I would count C-class articles in the same boat as the Starts, personally - so anything C-class or Starts that could very easily be ranked higher if someone would work on them. We should take some kind of initiative on this, since it's due in about a month. And thanks for posting that criteria set so handily! BOZ (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * More important is cleaning up the selected articles, to be honest. There is a high potential for embarrassment here. Let's try and make our articles the best they can be.  There's a list here, which is updated every hour.  Akira_(manga) needs the plot summary culling for starters, and Archie Comics is a mess. Thoughts welcome.  Hiding T 13:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good point then - I'll agree on that. :) BOZ (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing I quickly notice after the most cursory of looks, is that this list is at least a month out of date – that is, it's taking the quality ratings from before we started the B-C-class assessment drive. While some of those many B-class articles selected have been retained as such, many of them have been demoted to C-class, and many have yet to be reviewed. One step I think we should take is to get the remaining ones reviewed to give both us and the people running the editorial team a better idea of where they stand.

As for the Marvel side, the following could use a good B-class review. I'll try to get to some of them as soon as I can, but feel free to beat me to it: Wolverine, Jean Grey, Marvel Universe, Punisher, Professor X , Rogue, Civil War, Carnage, S.H.I.E.L.D., Invisible Woman , She-Hulk , Scarlet Witch , Ghost Rider (comics), Havok , Juggernaut , Namor , Emma Frost , Sabretooth , and Quicksilver. I suspect most of those will fail and have to be demoted to C-Class, as so many have before them, but I'm sure some will make it and stay at B.

One we've settled up on the selected articles for assessment, I suggest we go through them class-by-class to see what cleanup, if any, is necessary, starting with the FA's, GA's, and A's, then moving on to the B's, and finally the C's. This way, we can be more certain to get the highest quality articles in the highest quality condition, no? We can also have another look at the B-class articles and have a peer review or GA review or something to see what can be done to improve them. BOZ (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding my list above, I handed out a few quick C's to some of the X-Men characters who had little or nothing in the way of a publication history section. The other articles could use a more in-depth look. BOZ (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a good next step after settling up with the assessments, would be to create a subpage that lists each grade (FA through C) with all the selected articles in each grade, and then as people check each article for cleanup we can check it off or something. What do you think? BOZ (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree - I'll try and get through those flagged on the list (as they are deemed the most useful for the general reader). I just had a look at Flash (comics) (and will be looking at other listed start articles) and it could do with a quick rewrite and denser referencing so perhaps we could also flag some for quick clean-ups. If we can draw up lists we can break them down into those that need assessing, then those that could be improved easily and target some extra effort at it. Also it might be worth picking a version of the current articles that seems to be the best snapshot. That way we can kick things around and get our contribution up to speed.


 * Some things I notice are the inclusion of Dark Horse Comics and Hellboy - both of which are "Starts" (although I suspect they are really Cs and will look them over now). It strikes me they both look like a split might be in order to create "Dark Horse Comics publications" (see above) and "Hellboy franchise" (see previous discussion on franchises) and if you see any other articles that might benefit from some quick intervention like that then let me know and we can look into setting the ball in motion. (Emperor (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC))


 * I have posted some thoughts on the D&D talk page as to why some articles are higher or lower despite how they've been assessed. Note also, that you can look and see articles that did not make the 1250 mark and how far they fell short. Ones that didn't fall too short could probably be nominated and easily make it if improved. BOZ (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the additional assessments, Emperor; of those originally listed above, that leaves Marvel Universe, Punisher, Rogue, Civil War, Carnage, S.H.I.E.L.D., Invisible Woman, Ghost Rider (comics), and Namor . Much better!  If I get a chance, I'll sort out the non-Marvel ones as well, although that will take some time. BOZ (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Archie Comics and related pages desperately need some "expert" eyes, not least because there are some fairly odd edits and omissions. (Much the same is true elsewhere - and sometimes sources continue to be elusive for reasonably 'obvious' "facts" - but Archie comes to mind before looking at the list in much depth). Does anyone have any of the Archie Decades collections, and do they have sourcable information, for example..? ntnon (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are the rest of the B-class articles in this set (in addition to the 9 mentioned above) that need an assessment: DC Comics, Justice League, Popeye, Superhero, Wonder Woman, Comic strip, Donald Duck, Osamu Tezuka, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Joker, Mad (magazine), Two-Face, The Smurfs, Robin, Catwoman, Robert Crumb, Jean Giraud , William Hogarth, Sin City (film), Penguin, Mr. Freeze, Lois Lane, Snoopy, Kryptonite, Lucky Luke, Phantom, Gotham City, Kevin Smith, Little Nemo, Superman Returns, Batman: The Animated Series, Crisis on Infinite Earths, Sin City , Darkseid, DC Universe, David Lynch, Riddler, Jimmy Olsen, Dr. Seuss, Todd McFarlane , Ultimate Marvel, Maus, Cerebus the Aardvark, Poison Ivy, EC Comics, Comic-Con International, Speech balloon, Hugo Pratt, Spawn , Comics Code Authority, Jason Todd, Spirit, Bane, Batmobile, Dick Grayson, Batman (TV series), Infinite Crisis, From Hell, Ra's al Ghul, Tarzan, Perry White, Teen Titans, Clayface, Uncle Ben, Winsor McCay, The Ren and Stimpy Show, Onslaught, Justice Society of America , King Features Syndicate, Roy Thomas, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Harry Osborn, Atom, Krypton, Bizarro, Metropolis, Brainiac, Beavis and Butt-head, X-Men (TV series), Daredevil (film), Spider-Man (1994 TV series). Didn't take quite as long as I'd expected. :) BOZ (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest we remove Two-Face, Darkseid, Sin City (film), Penguin, Mr. Freeze, Kryptonite, Gotham City, Kevin Smith, Superman Returns, Batman: The Animated Series, Crisis on Infinite Earths, Riddler, Jimmy Olsen, Ultimate Marvel, Poison Ivy, Jason Todd, Bane, Batmobile, Dick Grayson, Batman (TV series), Infinite Crisis, Ra's al Ghul, Perry White, Clayface, Uncle Ben, The Ren and Stimpy Show, Onslaught,Harry Osborn, Atom, Krypton, Bizarro, Metropolis, Brainiac, Beavis and Butt-head, X-Men (TV series), Daredevil (film), Spider-Man (1994 TV series) from the list of selected articles, for starters. I'd also suggest people forget about adding more characters and in-universe details; I'm amazed I'm the first person to notice Stan Lee doesn't appear to be selected.  We need to identify creators more than teams and characters who should be added.  Jack Kirby, Bob Kane, Bill Finger, Will Eisner, Frank Hampson, Joe Quesada... I think we need to cull our list right back to the basics.  The very basic. Boz, if you want to do the B-Class reviews on all those articles, go for it.  I trust your judgement. We've got until October the 20th, I believe.  That's not long at all. We need to get each selected article as tight as we can. Hiding T 10:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed that Stan Lee and Steve Ditko and probably others were close, but did not quite make it. I think Siegel and Shuster (sp) did though?  I agree that getting more comics creators in there would be beneficial; you may want to tap Tenebrae and Stoshmaster on that. I'm not too worried about cutting anything (I ASSume that they have someone doing quality checks before an article is approved?), and I agree that any additional nominations should be minimal since their list is already in the many thousands and there are bound to be many cuts as it is. BOZ (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no quality checking. It is assumed we've done that through our assessments. The bot just picks and list GA+ articles of mid importance or higher and B-Class articles of high importance or higher. We're all there is. If no-one else does it, I will flag up articles I personally don't think cut the mustard. Like I say, there's just over a month; I suggest effort is concentrated on which articles we really feel should be on there, and getting them referenced, compliant with the manual of style and so on. They're putting this thing on computers in classrooms in Africa amongst other places; how much do you think they really need to know about Bizarro? Hiding T 13:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They're awfully trusting - someone could go and list a bunch of articles as GAs and if no one notices... but then, I guess that's why we'd be checking. Still, I'll leave worrying about the cuts up to someone else - me like Bizarro? I'll try to drum up some more support around here to get people working on articles, but to be honest there's likely to be a lot here and I wanted to work on geting some interested parties working on the D&D project first (very sleepy around there, it is, and has been for months). Oh yeah, earlier I said I thought Stan Lee did not make the cut; he did and so did Ditko (and Alan Moore, Kirby, Gaiman, Frank Miller, Will Eisner, R Crumb, Charles Schulz, Bob Kane, McFarlane, and a number of others). Now, if you want to talk about people who didn't make it onto the selection list, John Byrne, Grant Morrison, Wally Wood, Garth Ennis, Dave Sim, Chris Claremont, Bill Finger, Charles Addams, John Buscema, Jim Shooter, Neal Adams, Marv Wolfman, George Pérez, Peter David, J. Michael Straczynski, Gil Kane, Jim Steranko, Mark Waid, Scott McCloud, Bill Everett, John Romita, Jr., Warren Ellis, Barry Windsor-Smith, Joe Simon, Don Heck, Mike Mignola, Steve Gerber, Alan Davis, Frank Frazetta, Brian Michael Bendis, and Joe Quesada (in that order) all got over 1000, and could probably be nominated by interested editors.BOZ (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Better yet, why not consult the Comics creators workgroup list selections directly? Now here's something odd I noticed when looking at the Marvel workgroup list and comparing it to the main comics wikiproject list - looking at that link confirms it for me. Notice that some make it on one list but not on another?  I wonder why.  I assume that if an article makes it on *any* list then it's up for consideration? Notice that John Byrne, for example, made it on this list but not the main one. BOZ (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggested adding too many articles to the selection list. As we've been discussing at WikiProject Alternative music, given the limited space in this release version and relative importance of pop culture to other topics, we should instead be looking at where cuts can be made. In a related note, as I've been one of the major contributors to Batman, I'll do some cleanup and choose the selected version for that article, if no one minds. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to evaluate some articles. Is there a page somewhere of what to look for when evaluating an article? I haven't been able to find one yet but considering the time crunch we're on, I thought I could help out. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have started a new page to help keep track of the articles which have been selected. If you wish, we could move discussion to that talk page, or we could just direct people there? I forgot to add the articles which appear only on workgroup pages, so I'll get to that now. BOZ (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah I'd say we could move a lot of the discussion over there.


 * On a sidenote the list does seem rather focused on the Big Two and I'm wondering if we really need Two-Face or Mr Freeze and if we do need Dan Dare, Eagle (comic book), Dandy or the Beano amongst British comics or Robert Kirkman, Image Comics, The Authority outside of the Big Two? However, they aren't the Big Two for no good reason!! It is clearly a simple algorithm that they've run across things and it might not be completely representative. There are also articles with problems: Neil Gaiman, Todd McFarlane and Spawn (comics) all discuss the legal situation with few if any sources and that is a big deal in relation to WP:BLP - it should be fixable surely, but as it stands it is unsourced contentious material and should, strictly speaking, be removed (which would be a pity, although it might have undue weight in the relevant articles). (Emperor (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC))


 * There is only one article currently I would like to add to the list, which is Willy Vandersteen. At 1,230, it has just missed the cut, basically because it doesn't attract a lot of visitors. But it is a GA of High importance, so it shouldn't need a lot of work (if any), and would be one more representative of worldwide comics. An encyclopedia should not only contain what people already know (like Batman, which has to be included, don't get me wrong), but also those things that people probably have never heard of, but which are of huge importance in another part of the world (and with 200 million copies sold, he is commercially speaking one of the most important comics creators in the world). I'm not objective about this article though... Fram (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You can always nominate anything that's not on the list (and please note what you've done here), although it remains to be seen how well that procedure works. :)  I'm of the opinion that the closer it got to 1250 (Vandersteen is a good example) the more likely it is to be listened to, although a legitimate change in the assessment should also be a good indicator of it's viability. Likewise, we can remove anything that's apparently not relevant enough or in need of fixes that it's not going to get. Until those processes go through, though, it should be assumed that they're on the list.  I don't know what other steps the editorial team will be taking to decide what does and does not make the final cut for the release. BOZ (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That is exactly the kind of article we should be suggesting and for the reasons you outline. The English-language Wikipedia is going to tend to be skewed towards American comicdom, which shouldn't stop us from trying to promote a few things people might not normally think of looking up. Did you have any luck finding someone who can provide a picture? (Emperor (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC))

Clean-up crew
I'm starting a clean-up crew. Any volunteers? Today the focus is on Akira_(manga) and Archie Comics. Any and all help appreciated. Hiding T 10:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I might be able to find something in Comic Book Nation to reference about Archie. I'd recommended splitting off the character list and cutting out the huge swaths of unreferenced text. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'm wading through Akira_(manga) at the minute, I've decimated the plot to one paragraph and started to build a lead.  I'm getting a little angsty over how simplistic to be regarding language though. I think I'll also hive off the character list. Hiding T 11:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The references section seems to be screwed up. Must be a misplaced ref tag somewhere. BOZ (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone caught that, but thanks for pointing it out. Today it is Doctor Doom. Hiding T 09:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Moving on to Stan Lee. Hiding T 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good stuff - when I did the B-class assessment I flagged the statements that needed sourcing and you are doing a great job putting a dent in them (the main problem areas seem to be where legal matters or someone's motivation comes up). There are other problems - it is a concern wherever it appears but a section along the line of parodies/homage/appearances as a fictional character is always a magnet for unsourced opinion and trivia bloat and holds back just about every article they are on without careful policing (best we can do is keep it trimmed down hard to what we can prove and let the fan sites obsessively catalogue every possible appearance). I added more of my thoughts on the talk page (as it is clearly an important article that deserves to be of the highest quality - and it should be possible to do with the sources available). I've pretty much done the same for Jack Kirby and the same general comments/concerns apply there too.  (Emperor (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC))
 * You got a little goofy when you did the Stan Lee assessment though, but I fixed it. ;) BOZ (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - I find my brain turns to mush after doing a batch (and it didn't start off well!!) - looks like a copy and paste slip up. (Emperor (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC))

I've done some cleanup on Jimmy Olsen but it could probably use some more. Mostly what I did is add to the lead and removed some statements that had markers on them and separate large paragraphs into smaller ones. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the WP:OR from Archie Comics, but it took the article from 50K to 25K. That might have been a bit to drastic.  What do you guys think?  Feel free to revert. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are some suggestions to work on - they may have been too obvious to notice, but one would think they should be as best as they can as they form the basics for the medium: Comics, Comic strip, Comic book - there are others, but of the selected articles those are the foundation for everything in this wikiproject. BOZ (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mind taking Comics, I have a rewrite in my sandbox I need to drop in. Hiding T 11:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles that should (not) be on the list
Taking from the above lists and other sources/thoughts:

These (probably) ought to be included for reasons of "high importance" and/or context (characters they created, for example, or key contributions):

THE Comic Strip Classics
 * The Yellow Kid
 * The Katzenjammer Kids
 * (Little Nemo in Slumberland)
 * Bringing Up Father
 * (Krazy Kat)
 * Rube Goldberg’s Inventions
 * Toonerville Folks
 * Gasoline Alley
 * Barney Google
 * Little Orphan Annie
 * (Popeye)
 * Blondie
 * (Dick Tracy)
 * Alley Oop
 * Nancy
 * (Flash Gordon)
 * Li'l Abner
 * Terry and the Pirates
 * Prince Valiant
 * Brenda Starr

CHARACTERS
 * Dennis the Menace (UK)
 * Vampirella
 * Commissioner Gordon

OTHER
 * Spider-man 2
 * Superman II
 * Vertigo Comics
 * Warren Publishing
 * Image Comics

THE CREATORS
 * Stan Lee, Jack Kirby & Steve Ditko
 * Bob Kane, Siegel & Schuster
 * Alan Moore & Frank Miller
 * Carl Barks
 * Will Eisner
 * CC Beck
 * Bill Finger
 * Gardner Fox
 * David Lloyd & Dave Gibbons
 * John Wagner & Pat Mills
 * Carlos Ezquerra & Mike McMahon
 * Brian Bolland & Kevin O'Neill
 * Brian Michael Bendis & Mark Millar
 * Geoff Johns & Mark Waid
 * Kurt Busiek & Alex Ross
 * Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson
 * Martin Goodman
 * Max Gaines
 * Julius Schwartz
 * Bill Gaines
 * Frank Hampson
 * Jerry Robinson
 * Dick Giordano
 * Carmine Infantino
 * Gene Colan
 * Wally Wood
 * John Buscema
 * Curt Swan
 * William Moulton Marston
 * Art Spiegelman
 * Alex Raymond
 * Chester Gould
 * Dave Sim
 * Scott Adams
 * EC Segar


 * Scott McCloud
 * Wendy Pini
 * Rene Goscinny
 * Albert Uderzo
 * John Byrne
 * Chris Claremont
 * Charles Addams
 * Neal Adams
 * Marv Wolfman
 * George Pérez
 * Gil Kane
 * Jim Steranko
 * Joe Simon
 * Frank Frazetta
 * Leo Baxendale

THE COMICS
 * Marvels
 * Kingdom Come
 * 2000 AD 
 * The Dark Knight Returns
 * Secret Wars
 * Young Romance
 * All-Star Comics
 * New Fun Comics
 * Crime Does Not Pay
 * Vault of Horror
 * Our Army at War
 * ElfQuest
 * Creepy
 * Eerie
 * The Beano
 * The Dandy
 * Warrior
 * The Eagle


 * Can we do a mass nomination? :) I mostly agree with your choices, but some are probably not of as high importance as others. BOZ (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, and just to repetetive, for those who haven't seen it yet, or need to see it again: WikiProject Comics/Wikipedia 0.7. BOZ (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's my thinking. If we can - as a project - mass-nominate the more crucial comics-related articles (the JSA's first home, DC's first comic, the editor responsible for the Silver Age, the most productive comics writer, the highlights of the UK comics scene, the 'best' newspaper strips, etc.)
 * More:
 * Rodolphe Töpffer
 * Punch
 * Max and Moritz
 * Wilhelm Busch
 * Rudolph Dirks
 * Ally Sloper's Half Holiday
 * Rudolph Dirks
 * Ally Sloper's Half Holiday


 * Richard F. Outcault
 * Le Petit Vingtième
 * Underground Comix
 * Webcomic
 * John L. Goldwater
 * Jack Davis
 * Sergio Aragonés


 * Don Martin
 * Al Feldstein
 * Harvey Kurtzman
 * Jeff Smith (cartoonist)
 * Bone (comics)
 * Archie Goodwin


 * Would it help or lengthen the process to try and qualify each nomination..? Bone and ElfQuest are almost as important as Cerebus (with their creators); early artists & works; TinTin's debut publication; founder/creator of Archie & the Comics Code; key EC/MAD people
 * I appreciate the comment, but Le Petit Vingtième should not be there (even though i understand the reason), both because it wasn't that important compared to many other things (the magazines Spirou and Tintin were much more important), and because it is a dreadfully underdeveloped and undersourced article (I wrote it, so I'm not really offending any editors here :-) ).
 * The 0;7 aims for some 30,000 articles, if I'm not mistaken. While comics are important and we may be proud both of comics in general and what we have achieved for many articles, we shouldn't overdo it. Comics is only one of the ten or so arts, which is only one of the five or so main human occupations (love, science, art, war, and work?). We need to cover all countries and main cities, history, the natural world (animals, plants, space, physics, ...), and so on. We really should be limiting ourselves to the articles already listed (minus some we feel are overrated perhaps), plus a limited number of articles which are really essential. 21:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically, yes. We should probably be adding only key articles. And I have seen the 30K figure as well, so that makes me think that a few hundred comics articles is not realistic. :)  100, maybe, but I'm sure everything originally on the selected list is not going to make it, so doubling that seems counter-productive.  Picking some very important stuff (oh, how could we forget that one?) to include is good though. I'll agree on the Yellow Kid, Little Orphan Annie, Blondie, and definitely a few more strips as we're frightfully short on those. As for the rest, maybe the top 10% of those? BOZ (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, Spirou is more important than Le Petit Vingtieme in the long run, but I was trying to sellotape over the cracks between the chosen few and "normal" people being able to understand the chosen few...! It's great to see most of Alan Moore's titles on the list, but DKR should join them; Popeye ought to be complimented by Segar, etc.
 * On the flipside, I notice that several of the articles on the main page here have NOT been (yet) selected for 0.7 - e.g. Superman III and James Gordon. While I assume those are supposed to be the 'noted' ones, there are still some errors - X2 is already included; Batman (1989) is already included. Superman III doesn't really need to be (much as I enjoy it). Neither does the Dick Tracy film or She Hulk. And the Hellfire Club has no business being on the list whatsoever..! ntnon (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Anything you see on the mainpage that was not listed on the spreadsheet was actually selected for one of the comics workgroups but didn't make it into the actual "comicsproj" list. Weird, but there it is - see the links provided after each. BOZ (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added something to the page that will hopefully offer a useful persepctive. :) BOZ (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The 300
Looking over the list and the discussion above (as well as talking to a few of you about specific articles) it strikes me that we'd be wise to try and keep the 0.7 as tight as possible as some are bad (Dark Horse Comics is functional but pretty poor) and some are troubling on the legal front (Neil Gaiman/Todd McFarlane - I'm going to invoke WP:BLP and remove the unsourced legal statements, as should have been done before to be honest), as well as an awful lot of the rest being a bit shabby. Keeping the list tight means only the best and most important material is preserved, but the ideas, enthusiasm and debate can also be channelled into a longer term effort with the same kind of concept just broadened out slightly.

What I'd suggest is then drawing up a list of the 300 most significant articles which we can work on with an eye to 1.0 - starting with checking for images/infoboxes and working from there - targeting those that need a lot of work (like Dark Horse). This should mean that by the time 1.0 comes around the 300 are at least presentable and are more consistent across the board (as the attention and quality often depends on people's enthusiasm, which tends to focus on the bigger names and shift over time and doesn't tend to match 1:1 with an article's importance, especially outside of the Big Two). We should have everything up to a C and hopefully the bulk will be bordering on Bs (usually the failing is lack of references which tends to be a slow process but it usually means things are fairly solid and are awaiting a bit of a polish).

BOZ has made a start in another section on the main page sorting things by type and ntnon has made another list here. It looks like we should be able to thrash out a list that contains a solid set of material that covers popular and important comic works but also makes sure it avoids a recentist (and Big Two?) bias. (Emperor (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC))


 * I've swiftly (i.e. the references need tidying up so they read properly) sourced the Gaiman end of the Gaiman/McFarlane/Angela/Marvels & Miracles/Cogliostro/Medieval Spawn/Miracleman/Spawn lawsuit. Much more use than BLPing it all away. :o)
 * I agree that the '300' should be a long-term goal, not a mad rush for 0.7, although there are definitely some currently-nominated articles that need to be quashed/moved (from 'comics' to 'film,' for example) and some unnominated articles that should be offered up.
 * Just make that we cover the major areas, and arbitrate wisely between the crucial, the important and the middling. Superman and Batman, Spider-man and the X-Men ARE comics. Stan Lee - whatever people may think of him - IS 'the man,' while Jack Kirby basically created the visual look of comics. The fifth - and following - spot for American characters/teams is probably JLA/Wonder Woman/Wolverine(?), while the third person might be Eisner, but its tempting to say Moore would be third. From there, the Gaines' did as much as anyone to kickstart the whole industry; Joe Simon worked with Kirby to create a wealth of comics titles, Ditko is important, while Kane (& Finger and Fox), Siegel and Shuster are iconic and vital. Action & Detective are the primary comics, the F4 are integral, and Hellboy & Sin City are Dark Horse's standouts. Vaults and Tombs are widely known outside of EC, while at least two of the Image founders are highly notable.
 * Captains Marvel and America are very important; Namor and the Torch were the primary Timely/Marvel characters, and the JSA is a landmark. EC and Image changed the face of comics, while Dark Horse is, well.. the dark horse. Eclipse was important in its day, as was Charlton in its, but neither are on the level of Marvel, DC, Image, EC and Dark Horse. Vertigo is probably sixth. Honorable mention to Warren, whose output is widely held to be the pinnacle of comics' creativity (after EC). Wertham and the Comics Code are an important part of comics' history, while the Golden and Silver Ages are of extreme importance (and need to be rigorously dealt with soon - preferably from various Overstreet Guides - to be a better resource. Comics/American comics/comic book, etc. need to be condensed and sorted out. Perhaps they are different - comics is the field, a comic book is an item, and the American industry differs from the rest of the world, even as it is widely seen as the 'standard'.
 * The pioneers and proto-comics ought to be mentioned, but may not be individually worthy of especial note - I'd like to see a Platinum Age of Comic Books article covering the landmarks for clarity and helpfulness. Again, Overstreet is the starting point.
 * Internationally, Moebius is immensely important, and so is Hugo Pratt. Milo Manara, Goscinny & Uderzo, and above them Herge (and at least two others that I'm blanking on) would probably round out the best of the Europeans, Mills & Wagner stand with Moore and Bolland as the cornerstones of the (modern) English scene with Neil Gaiman surpassing them all in international stature. Frank Hampson and Leo Baxendale, Frank Bellamy and... again, my mind wanders, but there are a couple more important UK names, standing with the Beano, Dandy and Eagle (plus Bunty, and maybe Mandy), fastforwarding to Roy of the Rovers and 2000AD. Warrior, Action and Whizzer & Chips are probably only important to the UK, and not comics as a whole.
 * Of individual works, Watchmen stands supreme, DKR and Maus able supporters. Understanding Comics is vital and epoch-making, as was Sandman, and probably Spawn. UnAmerican, Asterix and Tintin are a massive phenomenon; Akira is the standout manga title, although there are newer followers, and Judge Dredd is probably the best British bet. Two Dennises, a dozen strips from the Yellow Kid and Little Nemo to Calvin, Garfield and Snoopy, and I'd suggest the major elements are covered. Cerebus is the independant success, the Turtles are a bigger one; Crumb (and maybe Pekar) are the true underground legends, Love & Rockets is widely acclaimed, and maybe Persepolis or Ghost World for indy recognition. Perhaps "Wizard" and the "Comics Journal" are worth a mention, perhaps not. The Eisners certainly are.
 * Comics. People. Strips. Characters. Teams. Companies. (Maybe films). 'Other things - awards, codes, bodies'. America. Japan. France. Europe. South America. Everywhere Else. Are those the main areas to see represented in the mooted long-term 300..?
 * What did I miss?! ntnon (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, great brainstorming. :) On the bright side, most of what you mention is already in there on the main page (did you see the mega-sort I did today?) so that's an excellent start. Like I mentioned to Emperor when I had finished, sorting the articles the way I did should give us a good idea of where the holes are that need to be filled. BOZ (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "I agree that the '300' should be a long-term goal, not a mad rush for 0.7" - that's the plan. I think that rather than trying to be comprehensive with 0.7, we should trim the list right back but use the ideas and suggestions thrown out during the process (as has already been taking place) to work up a longer list (and 300 seems about the right number looking at your list) which we can work on with the aim of having a decent set of articles of a consistent quality to put forward for the 1.0 release. We might get most of the current set rated by 0.7 but we don't have the time to do anything major with the article so we just have to make the best of what we have to hand for this release but start putting things in place for the major one down the road (which, of course, has the added bonus that it will mean the articles that are most important keep getting better - all of them not just the popular ones but the ginger stepchildren of the bunch too!!).


 * Good work on the Spawn lawsuit - it should have been removed before now (although only to the talk page so it could come back when someone tracked down the sources, which must have been out there after all!!) but that should keep 0.7 from containing some very iffy legal problems (which could cause wider trouble). (Emperor (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC))


 * One thing that I will mention is, that in the case of things like the Spawn lawsuit or other items in the article that really shouldn't be there but you are afraid they'll get reverted right back, there is a way around that. You can nominate a version of the article.  So, all you do is remove the section, then keep a link to the diff; if the offending text is put back in, then you just tell the editorial team to use the "safer" version and why. BOZ (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Except that surely Emperor's point is that the lawsuit is quite important, so it's not so much a fear that someone will stick it back in; more a worry that it (was) unsourced. True, though. And mostly accurate as was. I think the whole release idea is so shot-through with potential lawsuits that it might not be a particularly great move... does 0.7 imply that there have been previous releases, or not? ntnon (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep - they should have been removed long ago under WP:BLP (at least until someone could source them) but it is rather an important aspect of the Gaiman story and so I was leaving it in, in the hope someone could source it. If it had been removed under WP:BLP it couldn't have been put back as that kind of thing is pretty much the definition of things that have to be removed unless they can be sourced. (Emperor (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC))


 * N.B. BOZ: I did your sorting, and it's helpful, thanks. But could I have a go at moving a couple of your sorted articles, please..? And do either/both of you (or someone else, clearly) agree that Digimon and David Lynch shouldn't be in the comics nominations, although at least the latter should probably be in the selection. (Why is he under comics anyway?) Also, could someone suggest to the 0.7 people that Rocko's Modern Life and Ren & Stimpy are cartoons, not comics (and fairly minor ones at that); Hogarth should be included irregardless of his proto-comics links, not because of them, and Kevin Smith is FILM (like Lynch and Alba). ntnon (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Smith and Lynch fall into both Projects although it is clearly the film work they are best known for. I don't see a problem with leaving them in here as it isn't like we have to give them a list of 50 and so their presence will force out something we do want in. They have to be in 0.7 and all that is being flagged there is that they are part of our purview. I'm not worrying about this - Alba was clearly a mistake as her personal article shouldn't be part of the project. (Emperor (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC))


 * I agree with Emperor on everything he said. And oh, did I forget to say that you can feel free to move stuff around in the "by type" list?  merge catogories, add news ones, whatever... I was just kind of going by first impression in my mind, but I'm not perfect.  :)  Move the assessment ones around as well, but only to reflect what the current assessment is. BOZ (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a note for the future really but if this is deemed a good idea the first thing we should do is run through them and check for missing infobox and images and flag these up on the list (also keep an eye out for cleanup tags and the like too so we can fix those). Once we've got things up to a basic standard one thing I want to look at are leads as the articles should have them (and need them if they are to progress on to higher quality classes) and I have noticed there is a lack of them (see e.g. Galactus) and is an angle the Project as a whole is going to have to stepping up (that said it seems to have gone down like a lead balloon, no pun intended, at Henry Pym so it might be worth seeing how that works out first, although personally I can't see a way around it). (Emperor (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC))

Webcomics
Um, at the VERY least three articles need to be added to the list above, Webcomic, PvP and at least one webcomic author... otherwise this very large portion of independent comics will be missing from any reference at all. And that would leave us looking quite a bit out of touch - anyone see at how much the webcomic industry is reflected in the last three comicons? I would also like to see many others - xkcd, Ctrl+Alt+Del, Penny Arcade, The Order of the Stick, etc - but if we want it to be "tight" there has to be at least a couple references to webcomics in our representative area of "Comics". Please Discuss. Timmccloud (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Webcomic is covered - it's there, trust me. ;) I think we can afford to get at least 2-3 if not more of the most notable webcomics in there.  It's a newer medium so I wouldn't go crazy, but I agree that they need to be represented.  Let's figure out which ones should be there, make sure the quality is good, and nominate them.  :) BOZ (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See also this; note that anything anywhere near 1250 on the overall score shouldn't have a problem getting in with a bit of work - anything not even close may need more than cosmetic work. BOZ (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Good Articles
It seems to me like we might want to nominate some of the A & B class articles for GA. That would help give us pointers on how to improve them, as well as improving their chances of getting into the next release(s). BOZ (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, I've been working on getting Gary Gygax a GA nom. The advice from the reviewer has been really helpful on improving the article. :) BOZ (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Silver Age of Comic Books
Sivle Age shoud be added. Probably Goldent Age although it isn't in as good of shape. Can articles just be added? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 13:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't just add it, but you can nominate it here and see what happens. :) Hurry up! BOZ (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Galactus
By reassessing Galactus from A to B class, it will possibly drop out of the selection (drop below the 1250 points limit). Furthermore, a whole bunch of articles at the bottom of the list have been reassessed from B to C (a loss of 75 points) and will not meet the limit either. Perhaps a rerun of the list for the Comics project would give a better idea of where we stand now. Fram (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you know if there's a way to get an update? Can we find out somehow? That would help a lot. Dropping Avengers (comics) to C might kick that one out too. But to be honest, it's fine if we lose quite a few of those... we can always work the more deserving ones back up to B or better by the time 1.0 is ready to go.  ;) BOZ (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes that is the main aim - all we can really hope for is a reasonable percentage of articles get properly assessed. That way we'll be set up for the push for 1.0. (Emperor (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC))


 * Avengers should be fine, A to C is a drop of 175 points (400 to 225, IIRC). I have personally no problem with any of them going (or being included), the only oneI really worried about was Little Nemo but that should still be clearly above the threshold. But people may thing that their favourite article is already included, while "new circumstances" (i.e. more accurate assessments) may get it down a bit without them realising it. Fram (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You have a point that reassessing an article will drop it down, although that may not be enough to take it out. The number of links to an article can also affect its status, although this wouldn't have changed by much since the last audit (July?); however the one stat that can change thins is the page views, which is likely to always increase.  That would be why updated statistics would helps us redetermine where things *really* stand. Without that, we have to determine ourselves where things are likely to lie, thus the list I made. ;) BOZ (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Status?
Has anyone posted diff links yet? I ask because I'm about finished wrapping up my rewrite of Watchmen for Featured Article Review and I want to make sure the current version is selected. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have yet to do anything with that, but hopefully someone has? BOZ (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, make sure to go ahead and list the articles that should be removed on the removal page. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Great news!
Watchmen, Willy Vandersteen, and Silver Age of Comic Books have been approved for WP 0.7! :) If you know of any more high quality high importance articles that you really think should get in, now is the time to stop procrastinating! :)  Make sure you nominate them soon, because I think the deadline is tomorrow! BOZ (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If there is a preferred version of an article that needs to be selected over the current version, please post it here. :) BOZ (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nominate articles for the next release
The Editorial Team is now taking nominations for the next release after 0.7, at Release Version Nominations. We can take our time, to an extent; anything of sufficient quality and importance can be added. BOZ (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)