Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Article Classification

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Article Classification 2 Importance 3 Top importance 4 A and GA rating 5 Additional "Classes" 6 Example 'A'

[edit] Article Classification

Thanks to Steve for creating this! I was wondering why the comics project hadn't started with the assesments yet! - Mike | Trick or Treat 23:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought to get you started by adding a few articles (done now), but I notice that that was hardly necessary as there are already about 500 articles for the letter A alone waiting for assessment... Good luck! I may join this later, but I have a few other tasks still waiting. But it's a good initiative!Fram 21:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

While the class can be assessed reasonably objective, importance is of course a highly subjective topic. What I feel is rather important is how many articles, approximately, do we think can (or should) be labeled "top" and "high". Can we have only 10 top articles, 50, or 500?

I see this importance assessment as resulting in a triangle shape, with a narrow top and a potentially very large bottom (but many of those low importance aricles will not have been created yet and may never be). Most of the existing articles should either be mid importance or low. Some agreement on this principle, and on very rough numbers for the two top categories, may be useful for people wanting to assess articles.

Take e.g. Peyo. I have now assessed this as high importance, since he is quite important for having created the Smurfs, but then again not one of the few sublime, hugely infuential artists. Of course, if we would have a very broad "top" class of 500 articles, I would change this immediately to "top", since he is after all one of the most popular artists. On the other hand, if we would have only 10 "top" articles and 50 "high" articles worldwide, then Peyo may be a good candidate to be dropped to mid importance. Similarly: Calvin and Hobbes are extremely popular and important as a series, and Watterson as an artist as well. But are the individual characters Calvin and Hobbes truly of high importance? It's debatable, but I don't want to demote them without a prior discussion of what we want and what the consensus of the (for the moment) few contributors is.

Some suggestions:

• Top articles: not more than 50, including a few general articles (comics and so on), a few editors (Marvel, DC), artists (Hergé, Schulz, Eisner, Crumb), and series (Superman, Tintin, Peanuts). Debatable (well, everything, but especially): do we prefer articles on Artists (Hergé, Schulz) or series (Tintin, Snoopy)?

• High importance: not more than 500, including all other general articles (comics by country, speech balloon, adult comics), major editors (Dupuis, Casterman, Fatagraphics, ...), magazines (Spirou, Tintin, Pilote, Raw, ...) artists, series, characters, conventions (Comic-con, Angoulême) and awards (PRix Saint-Michel, Eisner Awards, ...).

• Middle importance: everything else that is better known than with experts alone: artists with multiple (more than 5?) comics by major publishers, long running series (more than 5 years/ 5 albums / 20 issues?), major characters from very important comics, winners of awards (authors and series), ... This also includes individual comics from truly major series (Tintin, Asterix) if they have received enough criticial attention, major graphic novels, and other remarkable things not included in the high importance.

• Low importance: individual comics from a series (e.g. the articles for every individual Yoko Tsuno comic), minor artists (only a few publications, many publications but in minor magazines, e.g. Bird Studio), short-lived series from minor publishers, articles about most characters (Snoopy's siblings), settings (São Rico), and other aspects of individual comics and series), ...

My intention would of course not be to stick rigorously to those numbers of 50 and 500, but when you notice that we have 80 or 100 top articles, start a discussion to see if we can demote half to high importance, or must accept that the arbitrary number of 50 was too low.

Discussion please! Fram 15:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I very much echo your thoughts on this, and it's what I've had in mind whilst rating. I tend to rate as Top what I would expect to see covered in Encyclopedia Brittanica, I rate as high what I would expect comics scholars to work on, I rate as mid what I would expect independent comics encyclopedia to cover and I rate as low what only fan or company sourced material would cover. Steve block Talk 20:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Top importance should definitely be used very sparingly. I took it upon myself to increase the rating on Batman because he's just as iconic as Superman and Spider-Man, completely recognizable to people who know nothing of comics and essential to the medium's developement. However, looking at the category again today I saw stuff like the Avengers and the Hulk listed, which while very important to comics, probably don't belong in that rarified strata that Comics, Marvel Comics, Superman, and Peanuts (comics) belong to, as well as mean little to the layperson. I think the "would this be an article in your standard print encyclopedia?" guideline is a good rule of thumb. WesleyDodds

[edit] Top importance

Just so that people are aware... we're now up to 46 'Top importance' articles, many of which I don't think deserve that classification. These include 52 (comic book), Asgard (comics), Brotherhood of Mutants etc. Might need a review/cull before this gets out of hand, and to see how many editors are rating these as top? --Mrph 11:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a good chunk (18) were rated in the last 24 hours. And it looks like the editor(s) involved may only be looking at importance to a particular company instead of the project as a whole. The same seems to be holding true for "High" as well.

I'm going to take a look and possibly knock a few down. — J Greb 13:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A and GA rating

i have been seeing that A articles (such as Iron Man and the X-men) have lost or never had there Good Article status. I was just wondering shouldn't we change it around so it goes A the GA the FA, or should we request that all the A articles we have go up for GA status.Phoenix741 15:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that too. I think we'd need to keep the current rating system - my understanding is that it's common to a number of different Wikipedia projects, not just WP:CMC. Might be worth putting them for GA, though, if the numbers aren't excessive? If they pass, hurrah. If not, we've got a solid justification for knocking them down to B (and hopefully some guidelines for improving them, too). How many articles would we be looking at, though? --Mrph 16:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

All of them(18), i think i counted 3 as being former canidates but the rest have no mention of being a good article.Phoenix741 16:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not really workable, then - there's already a backlog at WP:GAN and some of these don't look like they're suitable as Good Articles anyway (Thunderbolts (comics), for example, is being rewritten due to the change of cast/creators/direction in this week's issue - really not stable enough to qualify under the criteria...). I'd suggest we provisionally regrade anything that isn't clearly GA or former GA to a B article. We can review from there, if need be. A bit harsh, but perhaps not unfair...? --Mrph 16:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well i will do that now, but the ones that were former GA, were just candidates and failed the criteria, so we might as well just bump them all down to B, which i will do now.Phoenix741 16:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment amended in light of replies below - as noted, I still don't think the majority of these are really 'A', but the A-class criteria should be the guide here, not GA status or lack thereof. --Mrph 17:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A-class does not depend on GA. That's a common error. Wiki-newbie 17:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

well then it should be switched around on the chart, on the main page.Phoenix741 17:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that - sorry, and thanks for the reminder. Having said that, I really don't think most of those articles are GA- or A- class. I've commented on Thunderbolts above (and there are other issues with that one, too, which aren't related to GA requirements) - some of the bio articles are also rated as B for that project, but A for WP:CMC. While I suppose that's possible, it doesn't seem right/useful. --Mrph 17:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite having not been nominated for GA, A-class is a general rating that certainly puts an article higher than B. It's all or nothing. Wiki-newbie 17:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

then would anyone mind if i fixed up the chart so it goes from B to A the GA then to FA? to prevent confusion.Phoenix741 17:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's another issue then: A is a double edged sword for the cream of the GA crop, and then articles better than B. Go to the larger spectrum of Wikipedia then: where I do not know. Wiki-newbie 17:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, if I remember right, GA was introduced after the FA A B Start Stub had been decided and implemented. I only use GA on articles which have GA status, and I don't base my B or A rating on the lack of GA but on the article itself. This is discussed in depth at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#A_or_GA, where the order of the chart is ultimately decided. I would reckon that as we rate and re-rate we will get the hang of what should be rated at which level. Steve block Talk 17:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional "Classes"

Something I noticed on the Film Project, 3 additional classes that may be worthwhile to include with this project:

• Category (class=Cat)
• Template (class=Template)
• List (class=List)

Thanks for listening...— J Greb 01:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll have a look and a fiddle next week. Ta. Now Superman has finlsihed its FARC I should be able to get back here. Steve block Talk 18:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Might be a few issues I've missed, but the extra classes are hopefully explained on the front page. Steve block Talk 23:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Example 'A'

Our example 'A' article, comics, has since been regraded to B. Any suggestions for the best choice to replace it? I'm tempted to suggest Iron Man or possibly Galactus, as they seem to be the least volatile options at the moment. --Mrph 00:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)