Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Comic strips work group

Comics: Strips Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This page is supported by Comic strips work group.

To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Comic strips work group: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2008-07-10 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : More >> Infobox : More >> Stubs : More >>

Archives

/Archive 1

WikiProject Comics
Information
Main page Discussion Cleanup listing Getting Involved Notice Board Outstanding content Popular pages Recognized content
Contents Threads older than 20 days may be archived by MiszaBot II .
Departments Assessments ⇒ B-Class FAQ Peer review Outreach
Project organization Article alerts Deletion sorting Improvements Participants Project banner Project category Stubs To-do list
Resources Copyright Manual of Style Naming conventions References Maintenance Templates
Task forces British talk Batman talk Canadian talk Comic book films talk Strips talk Creators talk DC Comics talk European talk Marvel talk Spider-Man talk Superman talk United States talk talk World comics talk
Comics Portal
v t e

Testing out how many have watchlisted this yet, and raising an issue I've wondered about. While this work group will focus on comic strips, I'd like to know what others think about the single panel cartoon and how it fits into this work group, and WP:CMC as a whole. I'm not a follower of the "sequential" definition as far as comics go, but figure comics have room for a wider interpretation of drawn storytelling. Aren't sources divided on this? Does the single panel cartoon belong here or elsewhere? Thoughts? MURGH ^disc. 15:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here. (how's that for brevity?) The difference is often too small, what with some Far Side 's with six mini-panels, and some Calvin & Hobbes 's with only one (long) panel. It is drawn, recurring, published in newspapers (or in magazines or comic magazines, European style), often on the funnies pages as well, and often by the same people who also create regular comic strips. There is a bigger gap between political cartoons / other (fictional) panel gags than between panel gags and comic strips, IMO.

Fram 16:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I echo what Fram has said. I'd put editorial/political cartoons within the WP:CMC remit too, although I'm not sure if they would fit within this work group. In the UK there's a healthy overlap between people doing editorial cartoons and strip work as well, Steve Bell springs to mind I'm definitely one who favours a non-sequential definition as well. Hiding Talk 18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know Hiding has argued strongly for this in the main talk page and I agree. There is a lot of crossover. As I said there was one point where the category Comics was both a child and parent of the category Cartoons, which pretty much highlights the issues - are comics lots of cartoons strung together or are cartoons one panel comics? I think it is legitimate for us to take an interest in a lot of cartoons although more due to crossover than cartoons falling under comics (I think the best view is that comics are a child of cartoons). (Emperor 18:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm glad this is the general feeling. I see how the political cartoon segment could become difficult, that the work of, for instance Steve Bell or Ralph Steadman or less "signature-themed" cartoonists might not make a clear case within the strip definition, but still, that syndicated (mostly) single-panel features like Non Sequitur, Ballard Street, Herman, The Flying McCoys, Strangebrew and such, make the strip cut. Then there's no need to press for a "Single cartoon work group" to be formed. Cheers, MURGH ^disc. 01:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your bot tagging Talk:Asterix as being in your work group. This surprised me, as I never thought of Asterix as a strip, but on checking, I found that the article was in Category:French comic strips, so I guess the robot was just doing its job. :)

I'm inclined to remove the article from that category (it is already in Category:French comics) and revert the bot, but I figured I'd ask the experts first. What say ye? :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a language issue. In Europe the term comic strip is more expansive than that used in the US. The categories need better defining, but you are entirely free to revert this bot account. Comics-awb (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as I am and always have been in Europe, that surprises me somewhat.  :) But if the experts think Asterix belongs in the strips category and work group, I have no problem with that. — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of
  a rubric
  , and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as
  described here
  .

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notice to let you know about