Talk:Albion (comics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	comics Portal This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
More information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related work groups (nations and regions): British comics work group Related task forces (publisher): DC Comics work group

The plot section needs a major rewrite but i'm unable to do it as i'm waiting for the collected edition (cheapskate that i am), right now the plot section is just cut and pasted from Previews and looks dreadful.Logan1138 15:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

agree. Hopefully when the whole series is out, it can be redone, with proper links to all the characters cited. --Emb021 15:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Publication date?

If the trade paperback was 2006, then I presume the series was published before this, but when? Telsa (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot summaries

Was it content, style or simple existence that put paid to the summaries..? :o) ntnon (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't care if they exist. As long as they conform to style and content policies. I don't think "The solicitation text for this issue reads..." is in keeping with any of those, especially and most importantly WP:CV. Hiding T 09:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, the issues with the plot summary section were diagnosed by two different editors two years ago in the first section of this page. Hiding T 09:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, as was, the summaries were rightly removed, but I thought I'd query it just to make sure that that was the (only) reason. ntnon (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It wasn't the only reason. There are many reasons. That's the one that counts though. Since we agree, I'm treading carefully because there is obviously some ulterior motive somewhere. I can;t work out if it is yours, or mine, or if you think I have one or if I think you have one, or even if I think you think I have one, or you think I think you have one. I sometimes think this is why WP:AGF was instigated, to counter second-guessing and to just get on with it. ;) Hiding T 09:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Well I was following along fine up until that (unless you think, I think, you think, nope lost me again). So to cut to the chase: I did think we'd try to improve a section, not just remove it (and it has a snappy ring to it to). I have expressed concerns about pure plot here, but while we have them I'd have thought the way forward would be to trim the plot right back and add an expand tag to the section (it does raise the issue of issue by issue plots - I wonder if we even need a spacial banner for it). However, given that Hiding and I seem to be on the same page (or at least one close) on plot, etc. perhaps we could use this article as a test and rework it so it now focuses on the development, reception, etc. as I discuss there. We have annotations and can look around for reviews and interviews - possibly start by building them up in the external links and then start from there. (Emperor (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC))
        • I've done a quick sweep and added interviews and reviews. There are a few more links over at Andrew Sumner and the Moore/Reppion page on Albion has links to other reviews. There does look to be plenty of material there and we can purge the unused links later once things have shaped up. I'll dig out the sales figures. (Emperor (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC))
        • In an ideal world a rewrite would be better. But given the problem has been sitting here two years, and there's enough plot in the article already, I figured removal may be better, especially given the other methods of cleanup available to editors. Hiding T 21:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)