Horror comics was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Anyone got any thoughts on what could work in the infobox? Or should we not have one in favour of a few key images scattered through the article? ( Emperor ( talk) 21:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC))
As with such articles I've tried to hit the key examples and we can't possibly include every example of a horror comic. If anyone is interested we could always start a list of horror comics which would be somewhere we can produce a more comprehensive set of comics. ( Emperor ( talk) 21:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC))
I have several texts at my disposal, including Comics by Reitberger/Fuchs, Ron Goulart's Great History of Comic Books and Comic Book Encyclopedia, David Hajdu's The Ten-Cent Plague, a book on Dick Briefer, several Atlas horror Marvel Masterworks with introductions by Michael J. Vassullo and more, as well as a couple hundred issues of Alter Ego, Comic Book Artist, Back Issue, Amazing Heroes, The Comics Journal, Comics Scene and others. With these in addition to online sources, I'm sure I can help improve the article, which Presto below essentially says is not possible. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The article Horror comics was broken up unilaterally, with no discussion whatsoever, by an editor on 5 February 2009. Just as Romance comics in the United States (1946–1975) was unilaterally broken out and later restored to Romance comics (See as Talk:Romance comics#Requested move), so, too this should not have occurred without discussion. It would be far more intuitive and convenient to have horror-comics material all in one article, as a general-public non-comics fan would have no reason to search for a "1946-1954" breakout — which seems arbitrary: There were effectively no horror comics before 1946, so having that low-end date serve no purpose, and horror comics have continued to this day, Code or no Code. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose. "Horror Comics in the United States, 1946-1954" is a well-written, well-sourced GA article. Once we start merging such GA articles into inferior articles all hell will break loose. Additionally, merging bunches of articles will create something unwieldy. "Horror Comics" is a poorly written and poorly sourced article that needs much, much work before I would even consider merging a well-written article into it. I suggest a world-wide summary of horror comics with break away articles (such as "Horror Comics in the United States, 1946-1954") that deal with certain aspects of the genre in more depth. I prefer to maintain the status quo with some clean up and serious work started on the article "Horror Comics". -- PrestoPrestoPresto ( talk) 04:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Merge: An article with the broad overview title "Horror comics" should not have the key years and major events missing. It's important in such a history to read chronologically with smooth transitional sentences, and one also needs to see all references and links in a single location. Further, the significance of an eight-year period means little to someone unfamiliar with this subject. Pepso2 ( talk) 18:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I wouldn't merge it now. It's Lassie Time and their various socks have a long history copyright violations and the article should be checked and scrubbed before merging to another page and creating a new problem. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 22:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment. Truthkeeper is absolutely correct. ItsLassieTime (a "corporation" of many users I understand at a teen magnet school for excellence) and their dozens upon dozens of socks have a great number of GA articles that need to be reviewed one at a time for copyright violations, too close paraphrasing, and hoaxes. GA and FA articles created by socks cannot be deleted or sent to AfD, and should not be merged without gathering all the cited sources and closely reviewing the article for infractions. This takes an enormous amount of time and reviewing all of ItsLassieTime's GA articles will probably take a number of years. Additionally, articles are being found attributed to ILT all the time, thus swelling the already sizeable list. Interestingly, ILT created GA articles and actually passed an article to FA without being detected. They are a thorn in Wikipedia's side. Why is Wikipedia so concerned about a user who is writing GA articles for this project? Why is Wikipedia playing the exhausting role of avenging angel over a trivial incident that happened at least two years ago? Apparently ITL had a backstage spat with an editor and has been permanently banned. IMHO Wikipedia is cutting off its nose to spite its face. Oh well, we all make poor choices. PrestoPrestoPresto ( talk) 00:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment As the author who provided the Gilberson Publication, Dell, and Gold Key bypass the code section here I have to agree that if the Horror comics in the United States, 1947–1954 article has potential copyright violation problems that merging with this article should be the last thing we do but some of the work there should be saved if only for reference. There is going to have to be a major overhaul if these articles are merged even if there are no copyright violation issues.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Correction and Comment. ItsLassieTime was NOT banned for plagiarism. She was banned for socking. Three years ago, ITL was first blocked, then blocked indefinitly, then banned permanently for socking. ITL is now a ban evader writing GA articles for Wikipedia. In November 2010, she had an article passed at FA as "Susanne" something or other. She then submitted another article for FA review and it was discovered then that she was a sock. She was banned again as a sock/ban evader -- not as a plagiarist. Tenebrae is now rewriting one of her early articles "Horror comics in the United State, 1946-1954. First, Tenebrae should gather the sources ITL used to build the article and methodically go through the article revising passages that are too closely paraphrased from the original source. Essentially, the job is to put some distance between the article passage and the cited source. This is a very simple process. He is not doing this. Instead, he is writing a new article using his own sources. Secondly, he needs to record the changes he makes at this artiicle at the appropriate listing at CCI to prevent other editors from picking up the article for revision and to alert those who are managing this list that work is being done on this article. Thirdly, he is using very questionalbe sources. The business about the Japanese scrolls is cited to two Japanese museums. Neither of these museums posit any connection between the ghost scrolls and the western horror comic book. None whatsoever. One could just as easily say comic books are descendants of Greek vase paintings depicting gorgons and sphinxes. The passage in the article is actually a "fringe theory" of Stephen Bissette, a cartoonist whose only education is a two year cartooning course at a vocational school in New York City. Wikipedia does not publish fringe theories. Bissette is not a scholar, although he presents himself as one. Tenebrae cites him to some weird sort of promotional blurb that offers a movie of Bissette "lecturing" on horror comics. There's some sort of fee involved. What ever this business is, it is not a reliable, scholarly source. And the sad fact is this entire article could be sourced to reliable, scholarly sources from academic presses rather than these unscholarly, "fanboy" type things that are out of print and difficult to locate. I hope some others will get on this case about this. DoverWheels ( talk) 14:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we should talk about merging Horror comics in the United States, 1947–1954 into this article again. I think things have progressed to the point that we can merger the two and clean up the differences.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 19:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I think I have pulled everything from the Horror comics in the United States, 1947–1954 article into here. Double check and if you think we are done we can got to the next stage of eliminating the Horror comics in the United States, 1947–1954 article.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 03:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
There's a problem with these two adjoining paragraphs:
"By the mid-1970s, the horror comics boomlet had faded and only a few titles persevered. DC, Warren, and Charlton canceled the last of their horror anthologies by the mid-1980s, and other than DC's Swamp Thing and FantaCo's Gore Shriek, the genre lay dormant for the rest of the decade."
This is contradicted by the examples given of 1980s horror comics (Taboo, Twisted Tales etc.) in the very next paragraph, "Modern horror comics", and should be revised to reflect that while the genre may have been dormant in the late 1970s, it was not so in the 1980s. Greg Fasolino ( talk) 18:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Horror comics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=4673When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Horror comics was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Anyone got any thoughts on what could work in the infobox? Or should we not have one in favour of a few key images scattered through the article? ( Emperor ( talk) 21:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC))
As with such articles I've tried to hit the key examples and we can't possibly include every example of a horror comic. If anyone is interested we could always start a list of horror comics which would be somewhere we can produce a more comprehensive set of comics. ( Emperor ( talk) 21:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC))
I have several texts at my disposal, including Comics by Reitberger/Fuchs, Ron Goulart's Great History of Comic Books and Comic Book Encyclopedia, David Hajdu's The Ten-Cent Plague, a book on Dick Briefer, several Atlas horror Marvel Masterworks with introductions by Michael J. Vassullo and more, as well as a couple hundred issues of Alter Ego, Comic Book Artist, Back Issue, Amazing Heroes, The Comics Journal, Comics Scene and others. With these in addition to online sources, I'm sure I can help improve the article, which Presto below essentially says is not possible. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The article Horror comics was broken up unilaterally, with no discussion whatsoever, by an editor on 5 February 2009. Just as Romance comics in the United States (1946–1975) was unilaterally broken out and later restored to Romance comics (See as Talk:Romance comics#Requested move), so, too this should not have occurred without discussion. It would be far more intuitive and convenient to have horror-comics material all in one article, as a general-public non-comics fan would have no reason to search for a "1946-1954" breakout — which seems arbitrary: There were effectively no horror comics before 1946, so having that low-end date serve no purpose, and horror comics have continued to this day, Code or no Code. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose. "Horror Comics in the United States, 1946-1954" is a well-written, well-sourced GA article. Once we start merging such GA articles into inferior articles all hell will break loose. Additionally, merging bunches of articles will create something unwieldy. "Horror Comics" is a poorly written and poorly sourced article that needs much, much work before I would even consider merging a well-written article into it. I suggest a world-wide summary of horror comics with break away articles (such as "Horror Comics in the United States, 1946-1954") that deal with certain aspects of the genre in more depth. I prefer to maintain the status quo with some clean up and serious work started on the article "Horror Comics". -- PrestoPrestoPresto ( talk) 04:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Merge: An article with the broad overview title "Horror comics" should not have the key years and major events missing. It's important in such a history to read chronologically with smooth transitional sentences, and one also needs to see all references and links in a single location. Further, the significance of an eight-year period means little to someone unfamiliar with this subject. Pepso2 ( talk) 18:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I wouldn't merge it now. It's Lassie Time and their various socks have a long history copyright violations and the article should be checked and scrubbed before merging to another page and creating a new problem. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 22:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment. Truthkeeper is absolutely correct. ItsLassieTime (a "corporation" of many users I understand at a teen magnet school for excellence) and their dozens upon dozens of socks have a great number of GA articles that need to be reviewed one at a time for copyright violations, too close paraphrasing, and hoaxes. GA and FA articles created by socks cannot be deleted or sent to AfD, and should not be merged without gathering all the cited sources and closely reviewing the article for infractions. This takes an enormous amount of time and reviewing all of ItsLassieTime's GA articles will probably take a number of years. Additionally, articles are being found attributed to ILT all the time, thus swelling the already sizeable list. Interestingly, ILT created GA articles and actually passed an article to FA without being detected. They are a thorn in Wikipedia's side. Why is Wikipedia so concerned about a user who is writing GA articles for this project? Why is Wikipedia playing the exhausting role of avenging angel over a trivial incident that happened at least two years ago? Apparently ITL had a backstage spat with an editor and has been permanently banned. IMHO Wikipedia is cutting off its nose to spite its face. Oh well, we all make poor choices. PrestoPrestoPresto ( talk) 00:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment As the author who provided the Gilberson Publication, Dell, and Gold Key bypass the code section here I have to agree that if the Horror comics in the United States, 1947–1954 article has potential copyright violation problems that merging with this article should be the last thing we do but some of the work there should be saved if only for reference. There is going to have to be a major overhaul if these articles are merged even if there are no copyright violation issues.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Correction and Comment. ItsLassieTime was NOT banned for plagiarism. She was banned for socking. Three years ago, ITL was first blocked, then blocked indefinitly, then banned permanently for socking. ITL is now a ban evader writing GA articles for Wikipedia. In November 2010, she had an article passed at FA as "Susanne" something or other. She then submitted another article for FA review and it was discovered then that she was a sock. She was banned again as a sock/ban evader -- not as a plagiarist. Tenebrae is now rewriting one of her early articles "Horror comics in the United State, 1946-1954. First, Tenebrae should gather the sources ITL used to build the article and methodically go through the article revising passages that are too closely paraphrased from the original source. Essentially, the job is to put some distance between the article passage and the cited source. This is a very simple process. He is not doing this. Instead, he is writing a new article using his own sources. Secondly, he needs to record the changes he makes at this artiicle at the appropriate listing at CCI to prevent other editors from picking up the article for revision and to alert those who are managing this list that work is being done on this article. Thirdly, he is using very questionalbe sources. The business about the Japanese scrolls is cited to two Japanese museums. Neither of these museums posit any connection between the ghost scrolls and the western horror comic book. None whatsoever. One could just as easily say comic books are descendants of Greek vase paintings depicting gorgons and sphinxes. The passage in the article is actually a "fringe theory" of Stephen Bissette, a cartoonist whose only education is a two year cartooning course at a vocational school in New York City. Wikipedia does not publish fringe theories. Bissette is not a scholar, although he presents himself as one. Tenebrae cites him to some weird sort of promotional blurb that offers a movie of Bissette "lecturing" on horror comics. There's some sort of fee involved. What ever this business is, it is not a reliable, scholarly source. And the sad fact is this entire article could be sourced to reliable, scholarly sources from academic presses rather than these unscholarly, "fanboy" type things that are out of print and difficult to locate. I hope some others will get on this case about this. DoverWheels ( talk) 14:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we should talk about merging Horror comics in the United States, 1947–1954 into this article again. I think things have progressed to the point that we can merger the two and clean up the differences.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 19:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I think I have pulled everything from the Horror comics in the United States, 1947–1954 article into here. Double check and if you think we are done we can got to the next stage of eliminating the Horror comics in the United States, 1947–1954 article.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 03:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
There's a problem with these two adjoining paragraphs:
"By the mid-1970s, the horror comics boomlet had faded and only a few titles persevered. DC, Warren, and Charlton canceled the last of their horror anthologies by the mid-1980s, and other than DC's Swamp Thing and FantaCo's Gore Shriek, the genre lay dormant for the rest of the decade."
This is contradicted by the examples given of 1980s horror comics (Taboo, Twisted Tales etc.) in the very next paragraph, "Modern horror comics", and should be revised to reflect that while the genre may have been dormant in the late 1970s, it was not so in the 1980s. Greg Fasolino ( talk) 18:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Horror comics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=4673When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)