Talk:Larry Hama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
WikiProject Comics
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.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Deleted hype

I deleted a section of self-aggrandizing and evidently self-written hype filled with such sentences as

==Legacy==
The significance of Larry Hama's work has yet to be fully recognized by his generation ... for the role it played in the molding of the generations to follow.

See: Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Additionally, please see Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:No original research - Tenebrae 14:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the whole "legacy" section was an inappropriate strokefest, and the rest of the article frequently ventured off into "fannish celebrity profile" territory. I've given it a once-over, and while it could still use some work, I think it's a reasonably encyclopedic article now. Tverbeek 19:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted the following sentence except for the factual material about how long the series ran:
Because it was a promotional tie-in for Hasbro's line of children's toys, the comic book series was not expected to last long, but ran for 12 years and 155 issues, from February 1982 to October 1994.
Without going into (more) detail (than this!), it's an unwarranted assumption to say a toy-based comic is not expected to last long. Aside from such successes as Rom: Space Knight, Transformers, Micronauts, etc., no toy company or publisher goes into such an expensive, time-consuming venture without as much expectation for success as any other comic. A sentence that with such built-in assumptions -- particularly in what was "an inappropriate strokefest" (in your true and hilarious words, which I'd have never thought of using) -- would really need some kind of support statement from an authority in a position to know. While this obviously wouldn't be the kind of thing an authority might admit if it were true, there's no evidence presented why it would be true except because the writer says. The weight of the evidence falls in the opposite direction, that for bottom-line reasons, both corporate entities woulod want the comic to succeed. Marvel may or may not have been expecting a net profit (some low-selling titles are carried for reasons of prestige, licensing opportunities, etc.), and we don't know whether Hasbro was subsidizing the series for promotional reasons, either by direct subsidy or indirectly by buying advertising space, but to say Marvel and Hasbro went in expecting to fail ("series not expected to last long") is too great a leap. - Tenebrae 14:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. Owen× ☎ 17:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "References" vs. "External links"

Hi, all. The reason I've changed "External links" to "References" comes from these sections of Wikipedia:Cite_sources, quoted verbatim below. (Please note in Item 2 below that the italics are theirs, and not inserted by me.) Thanks!

1)

Complete citations in a "References" section
Complete citations, also called "references," are collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading. Under this heading, list the comprehensive reference information as a bulleted (*) list, one bullet per reference work.

2)

External links/Further reading
The ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed after the references section, and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article. Where there is a references section, editors may prefer to call the external links section "further reading," because the references section may also contain external links, and the further reading section may contain items that are not online.

So sources used to write an article go under "References", and other helpful citations go under "External links" if they're linkable and "Further reading" if they're not online. — Tenebrae 14:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for deleting wikidate overlinkage

It's per Wikipedia style guidelines. This from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Avoid_overlinking_dates

Avoid overlinking dates
If the date does not contain a day and a month, date preferences will not work, and square brackets will not respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so. Make only links relevant to the context for the reasons that it's usually undesirable to insert low-value chronological links.
Usage of links for date preferences
  • year only. So 1974 → 1974. Generally, do not link unless they will clearly help the reader to understand the topic.
  • month only. So April → April. Generally, do not link
  • century. So 20th century → 20th century. Generally, do not link
  • decade. So 1970s → 1970s. Generally, do not link (Including an apostrophe [1970's] is incorrect)
  • year and month. So April 1974 → April 1974 Generally, do not link
  • new year and month. So April 2000 → April 2000 Generally, do not link unless they will clearly help the reader to understand the topic. Presently, articles only exist for combinations from the year 2000 to current
  • day of the week (with or without other date elements). So Tuesday → Tuesday. Generally, do not link.--Tenebrae 22:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Silent01.jpg

Image:Silent01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unconfirmed edit

Re: Hama ostensibly joining the G.I. Joe movie. First off, the citation incorrectly quotes the original source, which does NOT say he's a creative consultant, just that he's involved "in some capacity." Second, the original source doesn't say where it got that information. It doesn't cite a studio source, a production-company source, Hama, or anyone else. The original source is not a authoritative, established trade magazine such as Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, and given the unjournalistic vagueness of its "report," this is far below the threshold of a reliable source. Without some specific attribution, confirmation, this appears to be some website reporting a rumor. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)