Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Comics creators work group

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by

Thanks. —

It looks like this may be a bone of contention with both the infobox and the articles, especially on 3 data points:

• Date of birth
• Place of birth
• Nationality

Looking at

Most of the people we are dealing with are definitely not public figures, so date and place of birth seem to be outside the information relevant for notability.

I'm thinking that the following may need to be done:

• The place of birth and place of death fields be removed from the infobox or restricted to the most general of terms.
• The date of birth and death be recoded to only show in the 'box if a "sourced" flag is present. Even then these may need to be paired down to just month and year. (I know, this screws the age calculation template.)
• Nationality needs a serious look since it'll need sourcing to justify being there, in the 'box, in the article, and in the category sorting.
• The last also applies to the "People from State/Province/Region/City" cats and Wiki projects.

As it stands we've got ~900 of the almost 1400 bio article that fall under BLP and editors that are very stringent on making sure BLP is enforced. We need to look at this.

- J Greb (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I have less problems with birth date and place, if they can be verified. Having an incorrect birthday in your article is not a very serious problem (one date is not more negative than another, unless you have the age wrong by thirty years or so). Nationality can be contentious, so we should indeed be careful with that one. It is the other personal info (often outside the infobox), like names and ages of partner and children (wo are almost certainly not public figures), that cause me greater concern. I'm probably reading too much into this, but an article like

Fram (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• <edit conflict> I think we're okay on birth and death details if they're published in a secondary source. A lot of the Comics Journal interviews get into place of birth, not so much date of birth, so that might make those facts okay. I think for date of birth and death, if there is an obituary, then that's fine too. The nationality I think is perhaps too contentious and should perhaps be left out. The age calculation isn't too much of an issue, there's one you can use for just the year, which will give you a rough estimate of the age, I've used it recently at, um... R. C. Harvey, it's {{Birth year and age}}. But I'm no BLP expert. That said, BLP wouldn't apply to death dates, would it, by definition? Hiding T 11:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way the BLP material is worded it seems that the concern is the same with both sets of dates and places, it's just that BLP allows a "delete first, don't worry about BRD" mechanic. In either case, with a citeable source it should be good. The thing is getting that source.

As for nationality... If we're leaving nationality out, then we're going to be hard pressed to justify categorizing living people in anything but the general writer/artist/penciller/editor/etc cats.

- J Greb (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I was getting at regarding death dates was that if someone has a death date, they are dead, and therefore not living, and therefore Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons would no longer apply. Hope that clarifies, ;). Regarding nationality... yes, that's a tricky one. Mind, it always has been. I don't have an answer beyond getting a source. Hiding T 23:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working through the articles checking the infoboxes and I've run into something I'd like the work group's input on. Is there a desire to make the text/link that shows up under "Nationality" in the infobox consistent?

Right now, using Americans as an examples, there seems to be 3 ways the information is entered:

• Unlinked text - American
• Linked to the country - [[United States|American]]
• Linked to a list - [[People of the United States|American]]

It is possible to standardize this through the infobox template, but it would be helpful to know which way we want to go. I'm thinking the "People of..." articles would be preferable with the "Nation" articles being used as a fallback.

This also raises issues with the following:

• China/Hong Kong/Singapore/Taiwan
• British/English/Northern Irish/Welsh/Scots

(There may be others, but these seem to be the two obvious ones)

IIUC, there is a sore spot with categories and in article nomenclature with respects to China. Right now we've got the writer and artist cats breaking down into each of the 4 groups. With Hong Kong and Singapore, would it be a good idea to note "Chinese (Hong Kong)" and "... (Singapore)" in the nationality? And with Taiwan, would there be problems with using "Taiwanese" in the infobox?

As for the UK quintet... is there any type of guide line as to when to use English, Northern Irish, Welsh, or Scots instead of British? IIUC, "British" is the more general term, but it seems it is being used interchangeably with "English". And this one not only affects the "Nationality" field, but also which categories the articles wind up in.

- J Greb (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me,

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me,

Ikip 02:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Comics creators work group/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you. Okip 02:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the main administrator for the Women in Comics

Because of the way it's written, volunteer editors writing about what they're interested in, Wikipedia's coverage of comics has an unavoidable bias towards the recent and the American. In an effort to get a bit more historical coverage of British comics, I've put together an Unofficial biographical dictionary of British comics in my user page, which takes the lead from proper biographical dictionaries by only including those no longer living.

I've included everyone I can find who has a known date of death, plus anyone with a known date of birth more than 100 years ago, and anyone without dates who worked in comics before 1930. There are a lot of redlinks, naturally, and I'm gradually compiling sources and writing articles for those who seem most important, most interesting and best sourced. Anyone like to give me a hand? --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Please note that Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thank you, talk) 07:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply ] (From the TAFI team)

I've nominated the

Hi! I am very new to editing Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if this is necessarily the right place to ask this, but I was updating the article on Dennis Hopeless, to reflect the fact that he is now credited in Marvel Comics as 'Dennis "Hopeless" Hallum'. He explains the reason for this change in a tweet from Jan. 22, 2019.

I was wondering what should be done in a situation such as this, where the name a person uses with the public changes. Should the title of the article be changed to reflect the name change? If so, what is the process for doing that to ensure the article is both accurate and also discoverable?

Sorry if I'm asking this the wrong way, and if there is a proper way to ask questions like this, please let me know, so that I can do it correctly! – SlayerWatcher6

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]