Talk:Holyoke Publishing

Fair use rationale for Image:Cat-Man4.jpg

Image:Cat-Man4.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

First, let me go on record as saying I respect User:WhosWhoz as an editor, and have told him so in the past on User talk:Whoswhoz. I'm very concerned at this article's wholesale changes, however, since he remove a cited journalistic source (Tony DiPreta interview in Alter Ego) and replaced them with things like an amateur site called Old and Sold, and something called Bip Comics that Google Chrome can only access via cache. Also, I've seen that some of the citations are to something called The Digital Comic Museum Forum. Forum postings are never allowed as reference citations.

When reliable sources disagree with each other, these differences need to be worked out with other editors, not replaced wholesale. I'm sure much of what WhosWhoz added is necessary and correct, but much of the other material came from RS citations, so we need to work together in sorting out why different sources say different things. We all want the same thing: the most accurate, well-research and encyclopedic article. So let's collaborate on that. We're a team. With regards -- Tenebrae (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits: Reply

In response to User:Tenebrae, it seems like a good approach would be to go through the before and after versions of the articles and compare the sourcing.

The article in its past and now reverted form has six footnotes referencing four sources- Alter Ego #60, Don Markstein's Toonopedia, the Grand Comics Database (GCD), and Lambiek Comiclopedia. The Lambiek reference just notes Joe Kubert's contributions and is used in both versions. The citation of Markstein for Cat-Man and Kitten's creator, Irwin Hasen, is likewise uncontroversial. Also, the reference for Holyoke taking over Blue Beetle for Fox is fine, although there are far more detailed sources available than the passage cited.

The Alter Ego reference is used to justify claiming that Frank Z. Temerson founded Holyoke. Here are excerpts from the actual Toni DiPreta interview (Alter Ego #60, July 2006, TwoMorrowspage 53):

• Jim Amash: "In 1944, and '45, you worked for L. B. Cole at Holyoke Publishing Company."
• DiPreta: [says some stuff about Cole and the work he did, then] "The publisher was a kindly old man"..."I can't remember his name either."
• JA: "The publisher's name was Frank Temmerson[sic]. Does that ring a bell?"
• DiPreta: "No, it doesn't."

This barely even confirms Temerson's presence, and says absolutely nothing about who founded which company.

The nature of the relationship between Helnit and Holyoke is justified by citing an offhand passage in a character history on Toonopedia, and the Captain Fearless #1 index on The Grand Comics Database. Clicking the publisher link on that index produces a large article that agrees entirely with User:WhosWhoz 's version wherever they overlap in content at all.

Now let's look at the new article- 28 footnotes citing I think 18 different sources.

User:Tenebrae objects to referencing Bip Comics, apparently because they're having server troubles at the moment. The site, however, is well-known as a collectionn of publication data, and I don't think technical difficulties change that, unless it turns out to be down for good. I looked at it not that long ago, though. However, if it does not return, these citations could be replaced with the actual issue and page number citations, since everything referenced there is a scanned bit of publication data from original comics. Let me emphasize that- these citations are of primary sources.

The citation to the Digital Comics Museum, to which User:Tenebrae also objects, is not citing the forum discussion- it is (as is clear from the citation title) referencing the letter from Allen Ulmer which is scanned into that discussion. I am not aware of any other place where this source is available, except perhaps BIP Comics. It's an important source, as it is a direct statement from someone who was there at the time that Temerson's publishing company was bought by "Sherman Bowles (Holyoke Press)", establishing both the owners and that the Holyoke name came with Bowles rather than belonging to Temerson.

"Old and Sold" has useful information, but I can't figure out where they're getting it, either. I'm not sure why they're considered less professional than a number of other sources cited in both the old and new versions of the article, though.

The new version also backs up a lot of details of the Holyoke press with contemporary articles from Time magazine and Bowles' obituary.

I can quite understand some dismay at a drastic rewrite, but Holyoke/Temerson has been a very active area of comics publication research in recent years and the page needs to be brought up to date. Combine this with the main citation for identifying Temerson as the founder of Holyoke (the DiPreta interview) being incorrectly used, and the much broader reference base of the new version, and I do not understand why this new version was summarily dismissed.

-- Ixat Totep (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

All good points, and this is exactly the kind of thoughtful, point-by-point analysis I was hoping for and that this article needs. I'm grateful to see another comics historian here.

If I remember correctly, the DiPreta interview was Jim Amash, who has done dozens and dozens of comics creator interviews over the years and is well-known as a comics historian. Spelling aside, his mention of Temerson can't be discounted offhand.

As for BIP: I'm always dying to find more good sources on comics history. In seven years here, and in creating well over 100 comics-related articles, I have not run across BIP before. Until it comes back up, I'm not really sure how it could be cited. But I'm looking forward to seeing it.

The purported letter in the forum is unusable. Anyone can put anything in a forum, even a fake letter. If CBS News can get snookered by a fake letter, so can Wikipedia. I don't think there's an admin who would say that something's someone wrote in a forum is useable as a reliable source just because it's in the form of a scanned letter. Certainly, no serious historian or book author would trust that, and an encyclopedia should not have lower standards than that.

So let's roll up our sleeves and jump in! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! The interview is by Jim Amash, and Temerson was in fact there at the time. But neither Amash nor DiPreta ever say anything about him being the founder. The period they're talking about is either the late Et-Es-Go Magazines, Inc. period or its successor, Continental Magazines, Inc., both of which are Temerson after he's regained control from Holyoke (concurrently, Holyoke continued publishing Blue Beetle until Fox managed to get it back). The timing of this, quite apart from DiPreta's own timely, is easily established by the presence of L. B. Cole who arrived after Et-Es-Go was established, per an interview with Cole in Comic Book Marketplace #30 as noted in my essay on Temerson's publishing companies at the GCD (http://www.comics.org/publisher/129/).

Is that the only source that you believe the proposed article disagrees with? I'm quite certain that there is no disagreement with that source, and the others don't even contradict anything on the surface, except perhaps with casual usage of the name "Holyoke" which is the underlying point.

As far as BIP goes, all of the citations are of indicia and statements of ownership. They can all be changed to point to the primariy sources, but those are inaccessible to most people- BIP's archive can be linked to (when it's online anyway).

-- Ixat Totep (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Ixat (if I may be informal!). Well, we're certainly already putting some hard work in!

I copied over GCD's page for Holyoke, which states that Bowles took over Temerson's company, so it may just be a matter of semantics -- offhand it looks as if Temerson founded a predecessor company and Bowles founded the successor company.

Of much more concern to me are the four notes I've placed below under "Some notes." None of the citations for WhosWhoz claims appear to be checking out. This isn't to say he's statements are incorrect — just uncited and unverified. I'm sure we can find support for his statements; some of that may even be on the GCD Holyoke page. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

CC of post at User talk:WhosWhoz

Hi, Whoswhoz. I'm sorry you're choosing to WP:EDITWAR rather than to discuss your edits, which in some cases disagree with the cited sources you removed from the article Holyoke Publishing. The protocol after being reverted is to discuss your edits on the article's talk page — as, in fact, another, third-party editor is properly doing at the discussion I initiated at Talk:Holyoke Publishing#Today's edits.

Edit-warring inevitably leads to a lot of ugliness and wasted energy that could be better put to use collaborating and discussing how to assess conflicting sources. I'd asking you as a peer whom I have written to respectfully in the past to be mutually respectful and work together. What do you say? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to discuss any errors or mis use of wikipedia guidelines in a mutually respectful manner. Taking down all my work and putting back up a lot of erroneous data based on one mis-understood source, I don't think qualifies as mutually respectful. Put my stuff back up and then we can discuss it like gentlemen. (It might help if you actually read the sources). I don't know what happened to BIP. It was there yesterday when I sourced it. I can resources all those footnotes elsewhere if necessary.-- WhosWhoz (talk) 18:30, 27 may 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoswhoz (talk • contribs)

Hi, WhosWhoz, and I'm glad we're talking. I'm sure you didn't mean to sound demanding by saying, "Put my stuff back up and then we can discuss it," since that's not really the way Wikipedia works. For example, I did try to access the BIP page to read those sources and could not. Surely we can agree that we can't include the BIP footnotes until and if the site comes back up.

Also, we can't use a letter that someone scanned and added to a forum since forums are disallowed as reference sources: Anyone can say anything in a forum, true or not, and that goes for letters as well. If there is a way to confirm that letter — if it appears or is referenced in a reliably published source — then we can cite it. But otherwise we can't.

I think you can see, given such reference issues, why I reverted to the stable version that was here — and which was using reliable sources such as Alter Ego, the Grand Comics Database, the Lambiek Comiclopedia and Don Markstein's Toonopedia.

Let's forego editing the lead for now, since the lead is derived from the body content. Why don't we start with the section that per Project guidelines should be subheaded "Publication history." There are only two sentences there so far, so it should be easy for us to work on it togehter:

Here is what it currently says:

Holyoke was originally known as Helnit. The company acquired the rights to such Fox Feature Syndicate characters as the Blue Beetle in 1942, following publisher Victor A. Fox's bankruptcy in 1942.

Without removing the references here, but address them if there's a discrepancy, how would you write this first paragraph? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Some notes:

1) The cited source for saying Bowles had four newspapers doesn't seem to mention any of them other than The Republican. In any event, the pertinent point is that Bowles was a newspaper publisher; the actual number of newspapers is irrelevant. In any case, I'm sure we can find a standard journalistic citation to establish who Bowles was.

2) RE this cited phrase: "Tired of contracting out publishing of his color sections, including comics, to Eastern Color in Connecticut...." The linked page of the Connecticut Historical Society citation doesn't actually mention Bowles at all. Did you mean a different page of the CHS site?

3) RE: the cited phrase: "...he purchased his own color presses from Phelps Printing, former publisher of Good Housekeeping in Springfield Massachusetts." The Good Housekeeping cite to MagazineArt.org also makes no mention of Bowles, nor of Eastern Printing, etc. The only thing there is a picture of a Nov. 1905 magazine cover. I'm not sure how this is a relevant reference.

4) You have these two sentences cited to "Frank Motler - Grand Comics Database Mainlist May 19, 2010," but without giving any link to the pertinent page: "Since he now had excess capacity he went in search of new business to keep his presses busy. He published pulp magazines for A.A. Wyn, Trojan and Pines and then found comic books." The only GCD link page that shows up under "Frank Motler" (any credit) is this, and it says nothing whatsoever about the content in those two sentences.

You can see I'm making a good faith effort to investigate the cited sources, but not a single thing seems to be checking out. I'm sure you can understand my confusion and concern at this point.

--Tenebrae (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The relevance of 3) is that it establishes that Good Housekeeping was in fact published by the Phelps Publishing Co., Springfield, Mass. as stated at the bottom of the image to which the footnote links. I've got nothing for 1) or 2).

However, I don't see why you're saying that nothing checks out, since all of the stuff you quote from the GCD matches the proposed new article much more closely than the existing article. I also don't know why there's requirement that references not be removed. The reference to the Captain Fearless index doesn't even make sense here (speaking as the person who wrote all of the publisher essays for the Temerson and Holyoke publishers, among others, at the GCD, including the one you quoted).

--Ixat Totep (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no mention of any "Phelps" at the Whoswhoz version here, so I still don't know the relevance of the Good Housekeeping cite. Also, when I say, "not a single thing seems to be checking out," I thought it was obvious I was referring to the four things I had checked out and detailed, so I apologize if I were vague. To clarify: None of those four points checked out. See also my reply to WhosWhoz below regarding the Connecticut Historical Society page he linked to. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The version you linked to was not one of Whoswhoz's. In this version you may find the sentence [Bowles] purchased his own color presses from Phelps Printing, former publisher of Good Housekeeping in Springfield Massachusetts. [4]' where the [4] is the "Good Housekeeping" footnote in question.

Ulmer's letter also appears on the GCD's supplemental page on publishers. Let's just cite it there.

More replies tomorrow- my thought right now is that there are many portions of Whoswhoz's version that do check out with referenced sources, and we should be looking to include all of those rather than revert the whole thing. Barring other developments, tomorrow I'll go through and list what I think should be accepted and why in detail. Also, can we just cite the original comics for all fo the stuff cited at BIP? The only things cited at BIP are scans from the original comics anyway, so there's no reason to dismiss the underlying points of those citations even if BIP never comes back up. It's just the links that don't work.

--Ixat Totep (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Generally, Wikipedia disallows primary sources. GCD is regarded as a standard reliable source, so that probably should be our first choice.

I'm afraid the version I linked to did come from a Whoswhoz page, reached through the page history. It was his mistaken cite. That's OK — we've all accidentally mis-cited at one time or another. In any event, I'm working on the page today since it's Memorial and I have some time.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you're looking at. I click on your "here" link and it takes me to an old version of the skimpy article, that doesn't mention that citation at all. Specifically, it says "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tenebrae (talk | contribs) at 15:06, 27 May 2012". That's not one of Whoswhoz versions. I see that BIP is back up so I assume all of those citations are allowed now. Not being able to cite objective facts just because they're listed in a primary source boggles my mind, though. --Ixat Totep (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarifying my last point above, I can understand not accepting, for instance, the primary source a justification that Joe Kubert worked on a story, particularly if (as in this case) it is unsigned. But that's not what those citations are doing. In any event, a moot point since BIP's servers are back. --Ixat Totep (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I did accidentally give the wrong link; I meant to link to the previous version, which was Whoswhoz. However, there's still nothing in the cited page, a magazine cover mentioning Phelps, that supports this claim: "he purchased his own color presses from Phelps Printing." I'm sure you can understand why we need to have a cited source that actually says that before we can say it.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

GCD

NOTE: If it helps, here is what GCD says at http://www.comics.org/publisher/92/

"Holyoke was originally a printer, and was owned by Sherman Bowles. It became a publisher by taking over both titles published by Frank Z. Temerson's Helnit Publishing Co. Helnit's editorial staff (most notably principal artist Charles Quinlan) came with the titles and continued to produce both books. Slightly later, Holyoke also acquired Blue Beetle from the now-defunct Fox Publications and continued it with slightly different contents, some produced by the editorial staff inherited from Helnit.

"Holyoke lost the Helnit books after cover date January 1943. Temerson would resume publishing them himself several months later. They retained Blue Beetle until 1944, at which point Victor Fox regained control of Blue Beetle through court action. Holyoke essentially relaunched the series two months later as Sparkling Stars, consisting of Blue Beetle's backup features which had never been published by Fox.

"The so-called 'Holyoke One-Shots' are included here mostly by convention. They are really repackaging of early Temerson material (from Helnit, Tem and possibly other companies). They have absolutely no title, printing, publication or copyright information printed on them, and may well have been produced by someone other than either Temerson or Holyoke. However, Mike Tiefenbacher pinned the name on them several decades ago and it has stuck. The two "Veri Best" titles are also unconfirmed as Holyoke, but at least one of them seems to reprint Holyoke material.

"Site visitors may also want to look at the publisher entry for Temerson / Helnit / Continental, which goes into more detail about those companies and several others that were or were thought to be related to Temerson and Holyoke:

http://www.comics.org/publisher/129/

"This essay built on research by Frank Motler, Bob Hughes, Jim Vadeboncoeur, Jr., Hames Ware, Henry Andrews and other GCD and Digital Comic Museum contributors." --Tenebrae (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Too bad

Too bad that the new improved article on Holyoke was removed. It was certainly the best article on them that I've read in the 40+ years that I've been reading (and writing) articles on golden age comics. Certainly tons better than the grossly inaccurate thing that's back up. WhozWho is new, and it looks like some of this may be fresh research. if so, I suggest WW that you sell the article to AlterEgo rather than give away free for Wikipedia. Then someone can quote you to improve this article. grin. Great job, go get paid for it! Sangorshop 23:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangorshop (talk • contribs)

As a fellow comics historian, I appreciate your passion for the subject. I really would ask you to look at the four items under "Some notes" above. The "improved" article has some very questionable and problematic citations. I'm sure that must concern you; I'd be very surprised if you did not find these things troubling.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

confused

I have to admit that I find the etiquette here mindboggling. However,Tenebrae, it's impossible to correct an article sentence by sentence which is completely and utterly untrue from beginning to end. The letter from Allen Ulmer was originally for sale on EBAY. I can't imagine anybody forging a letter from Allen Ulmer to Jerry Defuccio. Defuccio worked for Mad Magazine and was a noted fan and comics scholar. That Sherman Bowles published four newspapers in Springfield that he inherited from his father is referenced in a few million places on the internet, books written on the family, etc. Finding the exact reference to use without changing the entire focus of the article could be difficult. The fact that the Springfield Republican printed color comics at Eastern color in the twenties is in that webpage. Look more closely. In any case, this nit picking is just that. Temerson did not own Holyoke. Bowles did. The fact that Tony Di Preta couldn't remember what year he worked for LBCole (which he did) and the name of the publisher (which was Temerson) is utterly irrelevant to this article. That goes into an article about Temerson's publishing history which would be very fascinating to read, but there's no point of putting it here, if the Wikipedia is devoted to the dissemmination of false, unsourced and out dated information. I note you found the GCD citations, which were included in my footnotes by the way, so there's no need to point them out to me. -- whoswhoz 19:44 27 May 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoswhoz (talk • contribs) 23:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand your frustation — I really do. Wikipedia can be very bureaucratic. But that's all because any encyclopedia has to be extremely careful with what goes in because people tend to take them as "the last word" on a subject.

But let's work on this. If a cite for that Bowles claim "is referenced in a few million places on the Internet," then just pick one and footnote it! Honestly, that's all that's needed for that.

People have been known to sell forgeries, both on eBay and off, so whether this letter was sold on eBay really isn't the point. No admin is going to allow a claim based on something posted in a user-content forum. If the information is valid, I'm sure it appears somewhere else. We just have to find it.

You say, "The fact that the Springfield Republican printed color comics at Eastern color in the twenties is in that webpage. Look more closely." But it's not. Here is the text that appears on that page. The Republican simply isn't mentioned:

Heroes, Heartthrobs and Horrors: Celebrating Connecticut’s Invention of the American Comic Book

Return with us to those thrilling days of yesteryear, specifically 1933, when Connecticut’s Eastern Color Printing created Funnies on Parade, the first American comic book. Here is the story of Connecticut’s ongoing role in one of our nation’s most fascinating pop culture phenomenons. It’s fun and educational for the entire family!

Look You’ll see dozens of rare comic books on display, as well as colorful comic book-related artifacts.

Learn You’ll discover how Connecticut companies and creators influenced the comic book industry, from its early Golden Age in the 1930s and 1940s right up through the present. We’ll even show you how comic books are made!

Play Have fun creating your own comic book story. Dress up as your favorite characters. Listen to vintage radio broadcasts, plus view TV and movie clips of your favorite comic book characters. It’s all here at Heroes, Heartthrobs, and Horrors!

Click here for more information on visiting our museum! Comics-related events for adults and children are scheduled throughout the exhibit’s run. Also check out the Connecticut Comics Tour for other sites across the state which showcase comics and comic book history.

For More Information

The Connecticut Historical Society initiated research into Connecticut’s role in the comic book industry in 2000, in preparation for the exhibition Heroes, Heartthrobs and Horrors. Here, you’ll find additional information that was not able to be included in the exhibit.

The Connecticut Connection

Learn about the history of the comic book medium, the ways in which Connecticut has influenced the comic book industry, the many artists and writers who have been involved in Connecticut’s comic book industry, and characters who have appeared in Connecticut-produced comic books.

Censorship

Read about efforts to censor comic books in Connecticut, plus a timeline of the history of comic book censorship.

Publishers

Find out more about Connecticut-based publishers such as Fawcett, Charlton, Quality, Fiction House and Eastern Color Printing, plus comic book engraver Chemical Color Plate and Connecticut’s school of cartooning, the Famous Artists School.

Further Research

Still want more? Here’s a bibliography and a list of websites to send you on the path to learning more.

I want to work with you and collaborate, but it's important that we be honest with each other.

Why don't we try this: I'm a professional journalist, and I'm good at researching. Why don't I take your version and try to hunt down good citations for what you wrote. You can do the same. In the meantime, I'll remove the Temerson mention. Does that sound alright? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

--- You can do whatever floats your boat. I would point out that Holyoke as in your current version never published the Green Hornet. All the stuff you want to know about Bowles is in the Time Magazine articles if you're looking for a citation to replace the first one. -- WhosWhoz 5:12 28 May 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.53.212 (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

-- Here's a more specific citation for the Eastern Color reference. You shouldn't be able to miss it this time. http://web.archive.org/web/20060314050437/http://www.chs.org/comics/eastern.htm Whoswhoz (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC) WhosWhoz

---

BIP is back up by the way. Don't know where they were yesterday. Whoswhoz (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC) WhosWhoz

RE "You can do whatever floats your boat" and "You shouldn't be able to miss it this time." Please don't be rude. It's unbecoming and not collegial. There is never any reason to be rude. And please note regarding the latter" I didn't miss anything — as you can see by the fact I copied-pasted every word of your cited page.

Regardless, thank you for the additional citations. Much appreciated. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Further edits

I corrected a statement about Temerson's companies. If an additional citation about Et-Es-Go being renamed Continental is required beyond the existing GCD links, I can provide one. Ixat totep (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Things are looking good and moving right along. I've gone over the reverted WhosWhoz version again, and I'm still seeing problematic things, such as too much detail about Bowles' non-Holyoke career, and reference citations going to a fan site (DC Comics Artists). But I think you and I are proceeding properly — slowly and carefully — and the article is looking much more encyclopedic. Good to be working with you. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I also feel that we're making good progress here. I do want to question you about the "fan site" comment, and about DC Comics Artists in particular.

• The link to the Temerson page at DCCA was not added by WhosWhoz. The last pre-WhosWhoz revision has it as the 4th (out of 4) entries in the references section. I don't think WhosWhoz changed anything about the reference to that site.
• What distinguishes a "fan site" from an acceptable site? In particular for comics? Many of the sites I see cited regularly in Wikipedia entries have a distinctly fannish quality to them. On the other hand, Bob Hughes, who produces the DCCA site, is a well known comics researcher, so dismissing his online reference section as a "fan site" seems odd to me, especially in comparison to others that seem to be allowed.

Aside from that, it does make sense to me that some of what was written was more suited to a Sherman Bowles page than to a Holyoke page. But the details of how Bowles lost his acquired titles but continued on, for instance how Blue Beetle relates to Sparkling Stars seem relevant. Or are they viewed as too much detail for a publisher overview page?

Ixat totep (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Good question. It's often a judgment call. The official Wikipedia policy at WP:SPS says, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." So technically, Hughes would have to have written for something like Alter Ego or a book or even a journalistic webzine. But — and this is only my opinion — if he and/or his site's work have been quoted in reliable-source publications such as newspapers and magazines, I would think that qualifies as "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I didn't know Hughes was known as a comics researcher; can you say more about that?

As you say, and I agree, I think how Blue Beetle relates to Sparkling Stars is relevant. I like that we're both trying to build this up "brick by brick" and getting to each pont chronologically in turn. I think we also, afterward, need to mention what magazines Holyoke published; we've found Open Road so far.

I'm enjoying our collaboration very much, and I hope WhosWhoz is watching our work and seeing the questions, the give-and-take, the slow and careful progression that marks the best of these things. I suspect you're another "old timer" like me, and the years have taught us patience! With best regards, Tenebrae (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The publication criterion seems as reasonable as any. I know Bob Hughes from the GCD where he is a long-time major contributor with editorial privileges, and very active on the project's mailing lists. I don't know whether he's ever published outside of the GCD and his own site or not. It would be useful to determine whether his site is acceptable given that I'd like to add a page on Temerson and his timeline is the most readily available collection of information about him. Anyway, I've cited his timelines for DC in articles for a forthcoming print encyclopedia and so far the editor hasn't complained.

As for me, I'm also enjoying our collaboration although at the same time I share many of the frustrations of WhosWhoz and Sangorshop, both of whom I know from elsewhere. But we make folks jump through a lot of hoops at the GCD, so I'm willing to jump through a few hoops myself now and then. What you perceive as slow and careful deliberation is a bit different from my point of view where all of this is old news and old research. But I'm happy with just getting things fixed- I do wonder how things would have gone if BIP had been up when the first edit was made and therefore most of the citations would have held up. But that's life on the internet. This is actually by far the most Wikipedia editing I've ever done, mostly just fixing the odd bit of vandalism and glaring but small error in the past. But my real name and (recently updated) comics-related experience are on my user page if you're curious. Ixat totep (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I've done a very small amount of editing at GCD myself, and may I offer my enormous compliments to you and your fellow GCD contributors. The obvious care and carefulness of that cite, and its enormous library of cover art, makes it, in my mind, the single most important reference source in this field. You're doing excellent work there, certainly as far as I can see, and I have great respect for the site.

I might be leaning too far in a liberal direction (in the non-political sense), but if Hughes is being cited for a print encyclopedia, and if this print encyclopedia isn't being self-published but is going through the standard editorial process, I, at least, would have no issue with citing Hughes here. Other editors may feel differently and I can only speak for myself, but given your GCD background I would trust your judgment on this. In other words, go for it! --Tenebrae (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words on the GCD! The print encyclopedia in question is from ABC-CLIO / Greenwood with a broad range of contributors, and they're definitely checking the references (one of my articles came back because I'd parenthetically cited something and forgotten to include the long form in the list at the end :-) It's a forthcoming project, so it will be next year before I can say for certain what made it through to print, but my contributions for the first two volumes are complete. If there are any problems with the citations, I can come back here and follow up. I would also definitely not cite a person's self-published web site if I did not know their contributions well from elsewhere in the online comics research community, even though that's hard to convey in a footnote. I've been on various mailing lists long enough to get a feel for who does research and who just likes to post some pretty pictures (nothing wrong with that, just not citation material). Ixat totep (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Related page updates

I'm going to update the pages List of comics publishing companies and List of Golden Age of Comics publishers based on the cited confusions here. Any disputes of the additional confused companies I recently added should probably follow to those pages as well. -- Ixat totep (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)