Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Cleanup/Archive/WikiProject Cleanup

In the Beginning

Several times, Psyphics (talk · contribs) and I teamed up to make articles suitable for merging. The articles were immense, but working together, we cut right through them, copy editing, condensing, and finding sources. Not only did something that had been overwhelming become much easier, the collaborative effort proved to be fun.

In the first few months of editing with the WikiProject Comics, I was amazed by the deication of not just some of the users who had been around longer, but also some of the comparatively newer editors like me. I grew to prefer editing articles within the WikiProject Comics purview because of the sense of community, support, and comeraderie I felt. I didn't just have good faith in my fellow editors; I really believed in them and the work they were doing. In the past month or so, some of the editors I really respect have decreased their participation, often because of stress and an increasing feeling of futility about mainting article quality. I'm one of them.

I'm hoping this project will give editors a boost and make editing more engaging and fun again. We're in this together.

Each week (up for discussion) we'll pick one or more (up for discussion) articles to work on as a group. We each have our strengths: I like to condense plot summaries. Steve block (talk · contribs) has said he likes finding sources. I know Tenebrae (talk · contribs) and others have created articles about comics professionals, something I don't believe I have done. I am of course open to any ideas other editors may have about goals, procedures, and membership.

Among my goals for this project is a page for resource material for citations with information on in it ranging from comics magazines like The Comics Journal, Comicology, Back Issue, and Wizard to online news sites like Newsarama, Comic Book Resources, Ninth Art, and Sequential Tart. Of special note are columns "Comic Book Urban Legends Revealed" and "Lying in the Gutters", both at CBR.

I am excited to focus once more on working with each of you. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for setting this up Chris. I look forward to contributing and hope it helps to alleviate my cynicism and feelings of futility toward WP:CMC and fiction-related articles in general. --Newt _ΨΦ 19:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I tend to edit and clean up "all over", I tend to focus on lists, categories, grammar, and WP:OR. (I like to organise: )
Please feel free to drop off organizational requests on my requests talk page. - jc37 18:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions (comics)

Proposal for a clearer standard. Current discussion at User talk:Jc37/Proposals/WP:Naming conventions (comics) - jc37 17:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what do we tackle first?

Suggest some articles for group editing. I know Newt and I talked recently about working on Wolverine (comics), and I like the idea for this because it is a large article about a popular character. RobJ1981 (talk · contribs) has worked diligently at the Amalgam Comics articles, particularly their merging, and I know he could use some help with that. Any other areas we should look at? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 01:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like your focus is more Marvel? I just split the Batman villains article (into an article and list). It could still use quite a bit of work. - jc37 02:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personall,y I'll work on anything. I was disappointed yesterday to note the lack of an article on Clan Apis, but hopefully I can pull something together for it. Oh, and we could also just work our way through some of the task template or the more links therein. I'll take a look at the article you mentioned now. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at Batman villains; did you discuss the split first? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't/don't think it was necessary. I was being bold (concerns on the talk page months old about page length, and this was an obvious split point) and beginning the clean-up editing. (Similar to you on July 5th, obviously). I also did the merge (polka-dot man), since it's also been almost 2 months of no discussion.

Atm, the article still needs tense fixing (as per tag), and the List just needs general editing throughout. (For example, the "chronological order" of the first section is missing issue references for several villains, and the text could definitely use some work.) - jc37 02:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. I think it was a good idea; I was just wondering if you were going to see a backlash. And then I remembered that the guy I would expect to be annoyed about something like that just got blocked indefinitely. Certainly no complaints from me. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]