Talk:2005 in comics

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2005 in comics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Comics Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

What's the point? edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm really wondering what is the point of these "20xx in comics" articles? Is it discussed somewhere where I could read the pros and cons and could see what others think?

Right now, and without further information, these pages look to me like poor versions of the promotional marketing pages that one can find on the web. They have less information, fewer illustrations, and they come a little later. They are heavily biased (I don't blame the authors of the page, perhaps they don't realize they just copy down marketing material from DC and Marvel) and cannot deserve the name "20xx in comics", not even "20xx in US comics".

--PhS 19:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I suppose the problem is not with the concept - there are for example 2005 in literature, 2005 in film, etc. which are very useful. The problem is lack of editors. Each editor brings their own area of interest to the show but if only a few editors are working on the page it will look biased. I suppose the solution is to get the comics project hooked into this so there are more editors working on it and it will naturally become more varied. I also try and link year references into the relevant "Year in" entry which increases traffic to it and you would hope editors. (Emperor 17:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC))Reply

November 28 Entry edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've been cleaning up references to "Epic" and came across the November 28th entry. Do you know what the sentence about the NYT is supposed to mean? I can't figure out what to change the link to without understanding! John (Jwy) 02:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Looking at it, I would guess that it refers to 'epic' in the general sense (as given here) than in any of the specific meanings on the disambiguation page. —Mike 03:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

In that case, I've just "de-linked" it for now. Thanks. John (Jwy) 04:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply