Talk:2000 AD (comics)

Ask the Hive Mind

I'll drop this in at the top as it of general use. There is a thread on the 2000 AD forums for general questions as there is a deep pool of knowledge there that can be tapped. Use the resource wisely ;) (Emperor 23:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC))

New thread [1] God knows where the last one went. (Emperor (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

New thread again. Richard75 (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

British comics workgroup

A workgroup has been proposed to focus on the specific needs of British comics - sign up if you are interested in seeing it happen: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#British Comics (Emperor 23:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

Non-free images

Do all the images here correspond to the policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/copyright#2000_AD ? Vizjim 11:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not the individual images - it's that 17 non-free images is way more than is necessary per WP:NFCC#3a. Some of these need to be removed so that we have the minimum necessary. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 12:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Bottom-line is sort of. I think the statement itself may be a misunderstanding/miscommunication (I doubt Jonathon Oliver was in a position to say everything from Rebellion is free to use as he was in charge of graphic novels but we have what look like internal panel scans and the like - I'd probably need to get the thumbs up from Tharg to fully support that statement). However, I checked this recently and technically getting the go ahead from creators doesn't count for a lot: most of the images can be largely justified under fair use and even if we had carte blanche to do what we want with Rebellion's images we'd still need to justify them following WP:FURG (because the images haven't been released into the public domain and copyright remains with Rebellion their use has to be justified). I spotted the tagging yesterday and have asked the comic project to look over it and given some input (there is a vat amount of tagging going on and it id difficult to keep up at the moment. I looked through the images used on this page and there are a variety of problems with FURs: Some don't exist, some of the images are too big (they need to be a maximum of 300 px), some can't really be justified as illustrating a specific point (the one in "Famous creators" being the obvious examples) and there are just too many on the page (the reason for the tag - the question is how many are too many? Most do illustrate a point). What I might do is list the images and what they illustrate and any image licensing issues that also need addressing. (Emperor 12:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

While 17 may be too many removing nearly all of them is over the top. Most of them do illustrate important phases in the comics' history. We just need to work out what can be kept and what can go. (Emperor 15:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

The conversation seemed to be going nowhere, so I decided to be WP:BOLD. If any more images are selected to be used, keep in mind that each one must meet the criteria, especially WP:NFCC#8 - necessary to readers' understanding of the topic. The article already has a lead image for identification (in the infobox) so no more should be needed for that purpose. Any that are included should include sourced critical commentary on the comic cover itself. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There aren't a lot of editors working on British comics so it can take a while to reach a consensus on the best way forward. I have left the tags up so this can be considered ongoing.

Can you direct me to where it says we have to include "sourced critical commentary on the comic cover itself"? (Emperor 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Examples of acceptable use - the "cover art" listing in the "images" paragraph. Critical commentary has to be sourced in accordance with WP:NOR (this has come up at WP:FUR several times). Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but I don't believe that the guidelines there say you "should include sourced critical commentary on the comic cover itself" - it means the cover has to be part of a critical commentary of the item, of which the image is the cover. This would mean you can't simply throw in an image gallery of covers. The covers used are those of issues at key points in the comics history (like the Big Dave one for the start of the Summer Offensive) and it is those key points that are being discussed in the text. Using a simpler example, the covers in Excalibur (comics) are there alongside the discussion of the specific phases in the comics history (the first run, the middle run and he current one). What we need to do here is identify those that are working with the discussion and those that are extraneous - for example I would argue that Image:2000adsummerspecial77.jpg isn't serving any purpose there and seems to have been added as decoration rather than to illustrate a point being made in the text. (Emperor 04:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

As this seems to be going nowhere, I've opened a request for additional input at WP:FUR here. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You are hardly giving this any time - as this is still an active discussion I don't see why you feel it is necessary to force the pace. As I've said there aren't that many of us working on the entry and I'm afraid people can get busy elsewhere. I have also asked for more general input on how the issues raised but again this might take a bit of time. (Emperor 03:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

I'm sorry if you feel that way - the issue has been open since 12 August, after all, with no inputs besides yours. Anyway, the folks at WP:FUR are expert in this type of issue and will be able to give some insight to make sure this article is within the non-free content policy. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It may have been open since the 12th of August but I, for example, have had little free time in the last week (and Vizjim is away for a while). I agree that the images need to be thinned down here but it isn't a question of simply getting rid of them all and, as I say, I want to work up a list and go through their justification for inclusion. However, this will take time. (Emperor 04:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

As the history and timeline of a major and influential comic series, I find it hard to justify the removal of any of these images. Each issue is strongly commented on in the accompanying text, and shows a major introduction of storyline, character, artist or change in direction.

To imply that 17 covers, of an estimated complete "whole body" of over 1,400 is ridiculous. Most issues are extremely low resolution as well.

I would suggest that the article is possibly too stingy with imagery, and should include The Ballad of Halo Jones cover and probably others as well. --Knulclunk 04:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input - while I don't think they all should go I do feel that some aren't properly linked into the text (or can be) like the example I give above: Image:2000adsummerspecial77.jpg You do make a valid point about important characters like Halo Jones - it was something that was niggling at me when this came up the other week. While most of the covers cover specific turning points in the comics' history as a whole there are quintessential stories like Halo Jones which don't feature. That might be an argument for reducing the covers slightly as too many images will tend to disrupt the flow. However, that is definitely a point to return to (it can just be tricky picking the key highlights with a long running anthology comic). (Emperor 04:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

For a good explanation of fair use policy application to situations like this, see User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation, which explains the situation in light of Wikimedia Foundation policy. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Durin's page and examples don't really apply much at all. Most refer to galleries or decorative images, neither is the case here. --Knulclunk 05:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a close read of Durin's page convinces me that this does apply here, and that the number of copyrighted images on this article is excessive, as Videmus Omnia has suggested. Rather than bandying points around and wikilawyering, which will result in bad feeling and yet probably still result in the images being deleted, I suggest that the Emperor contact Jason Kingsley and ask him to release these images or others under the [[2]]. I'd do it myself but I don't often get an answer from Rebellion, whereas the Emp has an inside line (via Molcher or directly). The agreement should be specific about the content that's being released and the fact that it is being released under GFDL. Vizjim 08:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NFCC 3a and 8 do apply here but it doesn't say you have to remove the lot just make sure we work through the images and make sure they are working with the text and whether they are really need.

I have emailed Matt Smith before (and various other Rebellion people like Jonathon Oliver, Wake, etc.) and got a rapid response but I am unsure Rebellion would be up for releasing their content under such a broad license and it might be better to trim down the images used before asking (as it'd less of a big ask). It also seems that it'd be a big solution to a fairly minor problem. All the non-free content use guidelines say we can use the images provided we can justify their use on the page. Even if we could use all the images we wanted we'd need to make sure they work with the entry (especially if we want to push on to taking this entry up to GA status) and aren't just used for making it look pretty. ;)

So whatever we do we'd still need to wrangle the image use under control and make sure everything is used correctly - not just from a fair use point of view but from a usability one and it could be the "pressure" to conform to the fair use guidelines might help keep image use on the article under control. (Emperor 12:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

So the result of the Fair Use review is one person says add more, one person says delete the lot. We suggest a Third Way and then half a dozen seem t have been randomly deleted, removing ones that should stay and leaving some that I think should go. Sparkling. And people wonder why this fair use fervour ends up just getting on people's nerves making unnecessary work for everyone. As I said (a few times above) I'll list the images and we can take it from there. (Emperor 17:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

Images

Current (note all FURs could do with a slight tightening to make them specific for each image):

• Image:2000AD First Edition.png - first issue cover. Needed and fully justified with a FUR. Might need the height reducing from 364px to 300px in line with maximum image guidelines but suitably low resolution to tick that box.

• Image:2000AD logo.png - the logo. I'm not 100% sure this is needed and it is a much more recent logo and probably shouldn't be at the start, in the pre-publication section. It lacks a proper FUR.

• Image:2000ad13.jpg - cover of prog 13. FUR is fine but I am unsure what the image is explaining. I'd prfer this to be something more... meaningful.

• Image:2000ad141.jpg - cover of prog 141. FUR seems fine but again I wonder what point it is illustrating.

• Image:2000ad161.jpg - cover of prog 161. Again FUR seems fine but it doesn't seem to tie so well into the article

• Image:2000ad500.jpg - cover of prog 500. FUR needs updating but it is an important milestone for the comic and mentioned in the text so is a keeper.

• Image:2000ad549.jpg - cover of 549. The best of the early Zenith covers. A keeper

• Image:2000ad1450.jpg - cover of 1450. I'd have to check but wasn't there something landmark about the issue? The 2000s section probably needs expanding and this could be tied in.

• Image:2000 ad showcase 25.jpg - cover of 2000 AD showcase #25. I do think we need something like this here - is there a reason it is #25 though? Wouldn't one be better? It has a FUR but the image needs reducing in size.

• Image:Drandquinch.jpg - DR and Quinch cover. FUR is OK an it makes sense being there

So a few of definite keepers but I am not sure if quite a few of them are relevant and hook properly inot the text.. Obviously I might be missing something but if I'm not we might want to remove them and add some others which work better.

Removed:

• Prog 665 - Chopper cover. Probably should have been kept

• Prog 780 - It does mark the start of a number of series but I am unsure the cover was doing much to help explain things

• Prog 869 - the start of the Summer Offensive and an essential cover. It'd also be the one I'd pick to illustrate the Big Dave entry (as the previous image was poor)

• Prog 2000 - a real landmark and should have been kepy

• 2000 AD Summer Special - needed to go as it didn't have much to do with the section it was in.

So a couple that should have gone but others that will have to be added back in.

Better ones:

It strikes me a lot of the current ones should be changed for more relevant ones which can be tied into the text better. These could include:

• Prog 10 start of the first Dredd Epic.

• Prog 86, merge with Starlord

• Prog 127, the first issue after the merge with Tornado. Probably go for the Starlord one

• Prog 156, Start of the Judge Child epic. I think this would make a better replacement for 161

• prog 167, First Nemesis which gets mentioned in the text

• Prog 376, First Halo Jones. Mentioned by someone in the FUR

• Prog 723, First all colour issue, mentioned in the text

• Prog 1500, If 1450 isn't a landmark then 1500 was an important one with the start of a number of series

Obviously not all of them but I'd consider them to fit better with the entry than the existing ones. So I'd suggest: keeping 549, 500 (although they are a little too close in time and I think we should pick one - I'd lean toward Zenith but then again we link to his entry with its own image and this is about the comic as a whole so...), replacing 869 and prog 2000 and adding in 10, 86, 156, 376, 723 and 1500. All of which could be justified under FUR. I'd imagine we can hammer it down to under 10 images that mesh with the text and compliment the article. Thoughts? (Emperor 18:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

Change of name at Millenium

Hi all, brilliant article, really brought back some good memories!

I was just wondering if anyone remembers reading some editorials on the run up to the Millenium asking readers if they thought the name should be changed (as it was going to be 2000AD!). I can't remember if I'm just imagining it, or if it was real!? Lol! LookingYourBest 09:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I do remember that. There was talk of changing it to 3000 AD and the like. I'm pretty sure it may have made the newspapers (as part of those "Impacts of the Millennium" pieces. Tharg may even have used it for some cheap press too - I note David Bishop (Tharg at the time) did a 3000AD issue in prog 1034 [3] and Paul Gravett mentions it here. I suspect both their books (especially Thrill Power Overload) would provide solid sources for this. (Emperor 12:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

I'm pretty sure I kept all my old 2000ADs from around that period, if I found the discussions in the comics could I, and how would I cite them as sources? LookingYourBest 12:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are fine (although an entry as a whole can't rely purely on them) and you can use the footnote system to drop the references in (just wrap them in ref tags - there should be a button at the bottom of the editing window if your browser supports it). I have all my old progs so can quickly double-check the references. (Emperor 13:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

Image removal

This is a crying shame.--Knulclunk 00:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed (although if you look around you'll find 60-70%, or more, of images in comics have been deleted in the recent fair use clampdown). Looks like we'll have to start from scratch. See above for discussion of what images seem a good fit for the entry. We'll need to slowly work on this making sure the FURs are rock solid but it'll eventually be possible to get some images back. (Emperor 01:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

Tharg's Future Shocks

I'm thinking of moving Future Shocks to Tharg's Future Shocks - any opinions on that? Artw 16:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Go for it - it'll make linking simpler and should really have been called that in the first place (although I wasn't bothered enough to fix it ;) ). (Emperor 16:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

Actually I've just now got this weeks prog and, while I haven't read it yet (congrats on getting another story in there by the way - with Vince Locke too!!), I do notice it is called "Future Shocks." This needn't be a reason not to do it just a thought really (I consider "Tharg's Future Shocks" the classic name and can't tell you how long it has been "Future Shocks") just thought it worth flagging. Either is fine. (Emperor 16:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

Top thrills and Trill suckers

Would it be possible / necessary to add the top ten and bottom ten stories ever printed in the comic. If not here then maybe in the story own page (e.g. Judge Dredd = The Apocalypse War was voted the best story ever with 9.01 thrill power) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.129.16 (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Updates

OK a few things that might be useful:

• We now have an infobox that can cope wth stories published in an anthology: {{Infobox comics meta series}} - I've already updated some articles and added it to others where no infobox would fit (e.g. The Red Seas).

• I've also started the following:
  • List of 2000 AD stories - to hold everything together with a fairly comprehensive list of stories
  • List of minor 2000 AD stories - articles that look like they are failing WP:FICT can be merged here and you can start an article here or just add in pertinent details of a specific series. If it looks like it is possible to prove notability on a specific title then we can discuss splitting it off to a new article. There are a number of sources we can draw on (TPO, interviews and reviews) so it should be possible to produce quite a reasonable and informative summary (try and keep it out of universe too). NB: Remember to categorise the redirects as it'll help keep things joined up.

Eventually these should mean we get decent coverage of the stories (in an encyclopaedic tone, of course) and we have the tools to make the actual articles solid too. I'll obviously, be noodling away on the articles, as I find them but feel free to pitch in. (Emperor (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC))

Something worth mentioning

Is it me, or is this article very...exciting? Lines such as "2000 AD bounced back" feel out of place in a proffesional encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olifromsolly (talk • contribs) 16:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sci-Fi shorts in 2000AD

I seem to recall that early editions of 2000AD often featured a sci-fi short story, for some reason I seem to associate Arthur C Clarke's Sentinel with the first edition. Am I hallucinating, and if not, could and should the article list the shorts that appeared in various editions? --DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 21:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're half hallucinating. 2000AD ran a single strip parody of 2001: A Space Odyssey, in which the buried Monolith was actually the prize in a Galactic Easter Egg hunt. a_man_alone (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well something I was reading in the early to mid 1970's was featuring sci-fi shorts alongside comic strips, and I pretty vividly remember reading the sentinel in such a publication.DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Just created a page for Dandridge

I might need some help with improving it further--SGCommand 15:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Worth bearing in mind we now have List of minor 2000 AD stories and articles of uncertain notability can be started in there and we can then look into splitting them off later if we can nail the notability. As it stands there are probably half a dozen story articles that have few if any third party sources that could be open to getting AfDed and this would allow us to work on them. (Emperor (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC))

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=140001
  • In 2000 AD (comics) on 2011-05-25 06:57:38, 404 Not Found
  • In 2000 AD (comics) on 2011-06-10 04:58:15, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=146854
  • In 2000 AD (comics) on 2011-05-25 06:57:38, 404 Not Found
  • In 2000 AD (comics) on 2011-06-10 04:58:24, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.bleedingcool.com/2009/08/23/garth-ennis-when-2000ad-was-the-future/
  • In 2000 AD (comics) on 2011-05-25 06:57:38, 404 Not Found
  • In 2000 AD (comics) on 2011-06-10 04:58:38, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Book

I thought it worth collecting the 2000AD-related pages into a book: Book:2000 AD.

It needs a cover and might be a little too big (I've not checked how many pages that'd print off too - it might be we can do a separate Dredd one, but there are quite a few Dredd AFDs on the go...) but it is a start. (Emperor (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC))

"An historic" vs "a historic"

Another editor has reverted my changes based on the usage of "an historic" against "a historic"

I maintain that the correct usage is "a historic", given that the "H" is a hard pronunciation and not a vowel, thus is correctly and phonetically pronounced "aye historical" or "ah historical"

Other editor believes differently that although the "H" is hard not soft this still requires the term "an" not "a" for correct usage. As an example he provides a link to an Economist article using the term "an historic"

Here, in return, are links to Economist articles using the term "a historic" or similar: [4],[5], and [6]

And just for laughs, here's another one of them using "an historic" - [7]

All this shows is that the Economist is a bad example, and doesn't know what it's doing with regard to the English language.

A dictionary, on the other hand show the usage clearly as "a historical":

• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]

Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• The only manual of style guidance I can find directs "a historic" at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Style guide, and those pages would see the most common usage of the phrase. For the sake of consistency I'd adopt "a historic". Hiding T 18:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay, so you've proved that the Economist uses both and that American dictionaries use "a". Do the BBC not "know what they're doing with regard [sic] to the English language"? The British government? Even the Septics are getting in on the act! To say "a historic" (assuming you're pronouncing the "a" with a schwa, like a Briton does, rather than saying "ay") requires an ugly glottal stop, whereas "an historical" rolls off the tongue. Per WP:RETAIN, it's fine as it is. — Jon C.^ॐ 19:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I had not noticed that I was using the American English dictionaries, so, changed it to UK English, which brought back this page. Whilst it does admit the usage of both "a" and "an" it clearly promotes the usage of "a" over "an": "Today the h is pronounced, and so it is logical to use a rather than an." Moreover there is another editor commenting above (using MOS as an example - where it specifically states Also note that "historic" takes "a historic", not "an historic".) as an effective 3rd party, thus I'll be changing it back to "a historical". Please note that you're at 3RR, so think very carefully before making any more changes.

WP:Retain refers to disagreements about UK English versus American English. This is not about that. "An historical" is incorrect in both uses of the language.

The BBC? Apparently not - they also do not know what they're doing with regards to the English language: [13],[14]

Septics? I think you might mean Sceptics, unless you're being subliminally Freudian. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

(Septic tank = Yank in Cockney rhyming slang.) If either a or an is acceptable usage, then my preference is for a. Richard75 (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

No, you won't, not til you have consensus here. You are completely wrong in your assertions that "an historic" is incorrect is British English, both variations are acceptable and so there's no reason for it to be changed. The MoS you are quoting is for places on the US's National Register of Historic Places, and I don't think 2000AD is, although I could be wrong. — Jon C.^ॐ 20:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Consensus appears to be developing, and it appears to be supporting change. You are against it, I - and two other editors - seem to support the use of "a", not "an". Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any more arguments to preserve the usage of "an historic"? You quite clearly will not accept "a historic", just as equally I will not accept "an historic", but two other editors have commented, each supporting the change to "a historic". Please comment on why the change should not be made, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Because it's completely unnecessary as both are correct and used interchangeably. Will that do? — Jon C.^ॐ 12:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, because change has been suggested and agreed upon by different editors - yourself excepted. If you accept that both are correct, and that you are also in a minority for the use of "an", then I see no reason why the change should not be made. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's open a RFC, then – make this whole thing even more stupid than it already is, get some outside opinions. This change is completely unnecessary and this discussion is complete waste of time that could be better spent doing something productive. — Jon C.^ॐ 12:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it inappropriate to point out that it should be "Let's open aN RFC, then"? Perhaps not, as it shows exactly how usage of the terms "a" and "an" are used poorly in many instances. I do not think it is an unnecessary change. If you wish, you may go and do things you consider more productive - you could help me and another editor out on the Marsha Mehran article which has some weird COI issues at the moment. You are still not in a majority of consensus, nor have you provided any other reason apart from the fact that you don't like change, even though you state that both terms can be used interchangeably - so why not "an"? Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that should have said "an RFC" (just as your last "an" should be an "a"!). You, equally, haven't provided any reasons for changing it other than that you prefer "a". Both are fine, so why push for a change? If it ain't broke... — Jon C.^ॐ 16:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Touche. However, I have provided reasons for change - dictionaries favour the use of "a", right at the top. Other editors support change. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

How about Google Books? 776 for "an historical" in British books and 769 for "a historical". It's 50/50, baby. — Jon C.^ॐ 17:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, but here on Wikipedia, it's still 3:1 for the change, which is 66/33, and not even close to 50/50. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC it is. Will do it when I get home from work. — Jon C.^ॐ 17:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm happy to support retaining whatever was used initially. After digging, it would appear "an historic" is utilised as much as "a historic" in the UK, see [15], and the MOS is emphatic that Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason. Hiding T 17:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently it seems that is not correct. The Ngram viewer shows, very clearly, that "a historic" is many times more used than "an historic".

In reality it would only be used when talking, and then only down south, and even then mostly only by cockneys - they have a social-malformation which prevents them from pronouncing "h" at the start of a word. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Requesting help with a D.R. & Quinch reference

I'm pretty sure that the two characters first appeared as a cameo in another story. I think it was a Future Shocks story, in which a rock band make a record that is like a ring system around a planet. DR & Quinch are fans at a concert. Can anyone help me out with this reference on the D.R. & Quinch talk page? — PhilHibbs | talk 14:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2000 AD (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111128232417/http://www.watchthestars.sevenpennynightmare.co.uk/history/history.htm to http://www.watchthestars.sevenpennynightmare.co.uk/history/history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040415063321/http://www.2000adreview.co.uk:80/ to http://www.2000adreview.co.uk

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Famous Creators

I wonder if this section is starting to become a bit crufty?

Firstly, I'm not sure that it has the correct heading of "Creators" - several entries in there would be better called "contributors" not creators, and the list seems to be in danger of falling victim to "Oh, XXXX wrote a bunch of Future Shocks, so they're applicable."

What criteria is agreed to be necessary before inclusion is warranted? For example, Pat Mills, Kev O'Neill, Alan Moore & Bellardinelli did work in creating the comic itself and major characters - but what about Kelvin Gosnell who pitched the idea itself? Is he not a "Famous" or "well known" creator?

Henry Flint, Gordon Rennie & Pete Milligan are equally applicable for the later run, but are Bryan Talbot, John Ridgeway and Tom Frame valid entries? I'm aware that all the entries have work outside of 2000AD, but then again - so does almost every contributor in the comics history. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Nobody has seen fit to comment either way, so I'm being bold and changing the article heading to "Contributors" which is more accurate. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Guardian article

If anyone has the time: [16] Argento Surfer (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Now I feel snutting old. Having read the article a bit more deeply, I'm not sure how much value it would actually add - most of it is already covered in the wiki article, although it may be helpful to have a reference that covers many things at once. I do like the last paragraph though, about the expected longevity of the comic, and wonder if that may be utilised somewhere:

Indeed, back when IPC execs were tossing around ideas for the title of the new comic, Pat Mills vividly remembers the then publisher John Sanders coming up with the futuristic name. “I said to John: ‘What happens when we reach the year 2000? What will we call it then?’” Mills laughs. “He said to me, ‘Don’t worry, Pat. If it lasts three or four years we’ll count ourselves lucky.’”

Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll have to go back and verify the exact timeframe, but the name choice was covered in Comic Book History of Comics, and it mentioned the average lifespan of new comics at the time as being X number of years. That'll help put the creators' attitude in context. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It might also be worth inlcuding some reference to a competition that 2000ad themselves ran, asking readers to envisage what the comic would be like in the year 2000. I remember the comp was run in around prog 500-510 with winners to be announced in 520. There was "Infinity ad" and "4000ad" amongst others. I also recall that one entry featured "The Kook Squad" which was an obvious lift from the then current Bad Company, and another starred Judge Brisco. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Vector 13

The stories index now lists the Vector 13 stories individually. Richard75 (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Overview section

The "Overview" section was nothing about the comic, but just a summary of who Tharg is, so I moved it into the "Editors" section. Richard75 (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2000 AD (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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.watchthestars.sevenpennynightmare.co.uk/history/history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100815074745/http://www.clickwheel.net/ to http://www.clickwheel.net/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.watchthestars.sevenpennynightmare.co.uk/history/history.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.2000adreview.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2000 AD (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208175811/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=146854 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=146854

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Current logo

On 9th Feb I moved the current logo in this edit from the "Pre-publication" section to the 2010 section with the edit summary of "relocate current logo to the more logical place of the 2010 section"

On 24th Feb Richard moved it back to the here with an edit summary of "Making current logo more prominent"

I don't think this is a good move - it's now back in the "1970's/Pre-publication" section where it's anachronistic. It should be in the correct era - 2010's. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It’s not in that section, it’s in the lead. Richard75 (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Only technically. Even though it's been inserted into the lede section it appears immediately after the infobox, which pushes it down into the next section - which is "1970's/Pre-publication" Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh ok, it didn’t display that way on my iPhone. Move it if you like. Richard75 (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for agreeing. It occurs to me though - should we collate all the logos used for the comic and have them in a montage, or in each relevant section? Rebellion have indicated that they're cool with images being used, so there's no issue with non-free imagery. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea of having one in each section to give it a sense of history passing but both ideas work. Richard75 (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Number of special issues

In December the count was 62. Since then we've had the Villains Takeover Special and the Sci-Fi Special, so we're at 64. Richard75 (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The full list:
Summer Supercomic, 1977
Dan Dare Poster Comic, 1977
Sci-Fi Specials, 1978-1996, 2014-2016, 2018-2019 = 24
Winter Specials, 1988-1990, 1992-1995, 2005 and 2014 = 9
Dredd Mega-Specials, 1988-1996 = 9
2000AD Action Special, 1992
5 Judge Dredd Poster Progs
4 other poster progs (Rogue Trooper, Slaine, Nemesis, Strontium Dogs)
Rogue Trooper Special, 1996
FCBD 2012-2018 = 7 _{(there was one in 2011 but it was all reprint only)}
40th Anniversary Special, 2017
Villains Takeover Special, 2019
Total = 64

Richard75 (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Added the subscriber-only 2000 AD Poster Prog, December 2019. Richard75 (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Added the 2020 SF Special = 66. Richard75 (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Forgot to add the 2020 FCBD issue; done now. Richard75 (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Two specials this year. Richard75 (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

One was the Sci-Fi special. What was the other one? --Meteor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.195.254 (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Free Comic Book Day issue. Richard75 (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to be that guy who asks dumb questions but why are stuff like the Dredd Mega Specials, the Rogue Trooper Special, the Dan Dare poster comic etc counted? I get why all the 2000AD issues, the 2000AD annuals, 2000AD specials and 2000AD FCBD are counted. Or rather why are the numerous 2000AD related things that are put out not counted but those few things are. Is it because it's non-reprint material?--Meteor

Yes. Specials about characters from 2000AD are counted too, as long as they contain some original material. So Best of 2000AD monthly which was all reprint isn't counted, for example. Richard75 (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Added 2022 Free Comic Book Day issue. Richard75 (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't there a Prog 1 reprint as well? I don't recall when exactly, but I think there may have been a few pages from the prototype Prog zero as well? Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

There was a free gift for subscribers recently, which was a reprint of "prog 0", the dummy issue originally prepared in 1976 so the editors / management could get an impression of what the proposed new comic would look like. I hadn't thought to list it here, so thanks for bringing it up. I'm not sure if it really qualifies as a comic or not, since it contains no text (except the title "AD 2000" on the cover). Richard75 (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Added 2022 SF Special. Richard75 (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Added 2023 FCBD. Richard75 (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Added 2023 special Mega-City Max. Richard75 (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Added 2024 Sci-Fi Special. Richard75 (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Ellie De Ville in contributors?

Worked in the comic for nearly 30 years and for the last 20 did at least two fifths of the lettering in each issue, was the primary letter of some major series, Sinister Dexter, Button Man, Slaine, Savage & Durham Red. If the enough sources can tracked down could she be given more of a mention. From the news of her death she seems to have been seen as the female Tom Frame. 86.187.232.80 (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Is 2000AD.org a reliable source?

It seems to be used to cite an awful lot of things, and yet I cannot find any information on who runs it, whether anyone in a position of authority at the magazine has sanctioned it, or where the information it provides comes from. --47.20.18.111 (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

36 annuals? Math question

The infobox in the article says there are 36 annuals for 2000AD. Is that number accurate? I know there are 14 annuals from 1978 to 1991. If I count the issues from 2000-2015 that's 16 more so 30. What else qualifies as an annual? Are the Judge Dredd annuals also being counted? Because I think that would make the number 41 I think. Or are the Dan Dare/Starlord/Rogue Trooper/Tornado annuals being counted?

--Meteor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.195.254 (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

14 2000 AD annuals from 1978 to 1991, like you said.

Two Dan Dare annuals, 1979 and 1980.

11 Judge Dredd annuals, 1981 to 1991.

One Rogue Trooper annual in 1991.

Four 2000 AD "yearbooks" and four Judge Dredd yearbooks, 1992 to 1995 -- these were just annuals with a different name. Richard75 (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

What about the 2000AD Annuals from 2000-2015? Are they all reprint? -Metoer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.24.13 (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh wait those must be the irregular numbers issues. --Meteor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.24.13 (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Correct. Richard75 (talk)|

Ok sorry to keep being the annoying newbie with questions. But why are the 2000-2015 irregular numbered issues not counted as annuals? They came out annually. They're extra sized. --Meteor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.24.13 (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a fair question, don't worry! Annuals contain whole, complete stories. The New Year issues have the first episodes of the stories which continue in the January issues. The 2000 issue in December 1999 also contained the last issue of a ten episode story, where episode 9 had appeared in the previous issue. So they're just issues of the comic, except that they are numbered differently and have more pages. (These issues still happen at the end of every year, except that now they just follow the normal numbering.) Richard75 (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah ok. That info would have been hard me to piece together on my own. lol. Thanks. --Meteor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.24.13 (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)