Talk:Radical Studios

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Comics: United States 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.
	This article is supported by United States comics work group.

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

First article

This is my first article I will be writing, so I did not have time to write everything. I did the research that WIKKI told me to do, compiled tons of sources just to write the first header. I still don't know how to do all the formatting so IT IS TAKING ME FOREVER! This company has been a substantial amount of secondary sources reporting on its progress and news. In addition, the company is international in scope and application and is doing business in Singapore, Japan, Beijing, England and France. The company was just featured on the front page of the business times in Singapore last week and the president is doing a comics to film seminar this week. I have been following this new publisher since I met them at Comic Con 2007 and wish I was not the one writing the article, but they should be represented. This article is going to be very substantial when I am done. Best, Taylor

I have built what I think is a pretty informative page. I know that most companies probably get trouble for being represented on Wiki, but if it is a company that is making a movement in the its sector, people should be able to learn and research.

As far as notability, I think that I have clarified the importance of this entities inclusion: international application, substantial secondary sources, minimal-to-none forwarding looking statements, and no hypotheses that are un-founded. If anyone has an recommendation on how I can strengthen this article, PLEASE advise. The friggen threats of all my hard work being speedily deleted are soooo frustrating. Sincerely, Taylor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaman2008 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images

I think that there are too many non-free images in the Titles section. That section is essentially a list, and I don't think that one or two images are necessary for every title. The relevant policy is here. Bláthnaid 20:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trimmed and semi-protected

I have trimmed the article back, since it mostly relies on press releases. Given the history of the article it seems clear that there is an attempt to make the article the subject of a disagreement which is not the purpose of a Wikipedia article. I have semi-protected the article on that basis. I would also suggest someone has a serious misunderstanding of the no legal threats policy judging by this summary. Adding to this, Wikipedia is not a directory, so we don;t list anything and everything. We most certainly are not a business directory, there is no expectation that this company should have an article, and our guidance on what we include does lean against using promotional material as a basis for articles, see notability guidance: Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. Hope that helps. Hiding T 09:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles deleted

Apparently all the recently created articles on Radical Comics titles have been deleted. As I was surprised at the lack of warning (and because I was planning to do some more work on them) I tracked down the reason: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Susanjane102. It is a new one on me, but it appears the article creator was paid to start these (and many other unconnected article using a series of sock puppets).

I am assembling sources with an eye to eventually starting some of those (probably starting with Hotwire as it got the most attention) but it may take some time. If anyone wants to start one (that doesn't have a conflict of interest) it might be wise to sandbox it first and we can give it a look over to make sure it is OK (drop a note in on WT:CMC), as it can be more difficult recreating articles that have been deleted (especially ones under such shady circumstances). (Emperor (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

And now they all mysteriously appear again, like the mine pie mystery of 1982. It should be possible to demonstrate notability for most of them and I'll be taking a few stabs at that over time. (Emperor (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Working on a re-write

I am working on a re-write of the article to try to cover all of Radical's titles and describe the Hollywood-Comics connection. Please have a look at the draft article at User:AkankshaG/sandbox, and let me know if you have any suggestions. Thanks. AkankshaG (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there have been big problems with this article - it was initially written so it sounded like a corporate press release and had to be stripped back. Then there were concerns about neutrality and balancing claims/counterclaims so this article had to be very carefully rewritten, with the exact wording being checked. Then an editor was revealed to have been a sockpuppet of someone taking contracts to add content to Wikipedia [1] leading to all the articles on Radical Comics' titles being deleted (although they have been restored).

Soooooo any editor on the page has to be very careful about what they add here or their edits could be reverted or the content stripped right back again. So on your edits there were some WP:MOS issues including using tables for non-tabular data (WP:WTUT) and too much bold (WP:BOLDFACE). More crucially you have completely changed the company history to more of a biography of Barry Levine and I have had to put that back to the version that we've put in place to avoid any further problems. It still has the whiff of an advert and will need more editing to give it a more neutral tone. So I'd recommend caution when editing this article and recommend you go slowly and carefully with your edits. (Emperor (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Also large parts of the text seem to be lifted from the Publishers Weekly article [2]. This is copyright violation and is treated seriously. (Emperor (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I appreciate that you have had disputes with prior editors, but hope that you understand that I decline to get involved in those disputes, or choose sides here. That's why I posted on the talk page that I was looking for editors to comment on the draft before I posted it. I want to avoid conflict and write a neutral and factual article that accurately summarizes what reliable sources have written about the publisher. I would be happy to discuss changes with editors here, as I requested 3 weeks ago, but politely ask everyone involved in those previous disputes to leave me out of it. AkankshaG (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing an article reading like an advert has nothing to do with "disputes" so I'm not sure how you read that into Emperor's comments about his edits - edits which I agree with. Your version read like a marketing brochure. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to get involved in the disputes mentioned above by editor Emperor -- that's what I'm referring to. I would appreciate it if we could just stick to the article. My goals remain as stated above. I'm looking for input, which I am happy to hear, and in fact solicited above on the 27th. AkankshaG (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its unavoidable as some of the same problems that arose have a bearing on your edits of the article:

The early controversies mean editors have to be very careful about what is added here as the wording has been carefully gone over to make sure it as neutral as possible - your edits completely overwrote that and gave a controversial and unbalanced view of the company history that read more like a biography of Barry Levine.
The article was stripped back once because it read like an advert, your additions made it sound like one again.

In addition to this I had to remove the bulk of material as it was just lifted from sources like the Publishers Weekly article and on any article copyright violations are a big problem and have to be acted upon immediately - part of the reason it read like a press release because you were directly inserting material from press releases (which goes back to the previous concerns). I'm also concerned about the opening paragraph in media adaptations it still has the whiff of corporate speak and is taken from a source that is not online for me to check (and given that a lot of the text you added was a copyright violation it doesn't bode well for the one major chunk of text sourced to something I can't check).

So yes previous problems do have a bearing on this as it is an article that has had its share of problems so the content has to be carefully worded, but even then the problems are ones that are broader issues that do need to be acted upon pretty quickly no matter the history of the article, so those concerns are relevant wherever they crop up (and this isn't the first that has to have been stripped right back [3]). Hope that helps not only put it in context but explain the direct problems with your edits. (Emperor (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Tables and Lists

I've looked at WP:WTUT, and don't see any prohibition against using a table format to list data. It seems to suggest just the opposite. Looking at the Hulk_(comics)#Collected_editions article, it looks as though tables are sometimes used in comics articles. I don't care about table vs. some other method, I'm just would like a recognizable way to display information about each comic. Suggestions? Thoughts? AkankshaG (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything stylistically wrong with the information being presented in a table, especially since you have several pieces of information you're trying to communicate about each element in the list/table. However, you should probably note that none of these other articles use non-free images in the way it appears you would like to. Our non-free content policies and guidelines are pretty clear that such uses are considered more decorative than identifying. If you strip out the covers, I think it looks fine. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't fight you on the image issue, I just don't understand it. It seems to me that the essence of a comics book company is what it publishes -- it doesn't really have any other purpose, so to try to describe those titles is important. Comics being a visual medium, the covers are probably as important as a summary of the principal themes. Also, I'm not trying to introduce individual panels here, but covers. From a fair use perspective, covers depicted in a 60px format don't reduce the commercial value of the original work -- I could understand that if I were trying to introduce full-size covers, which I'm not. Small cover samples are displayed frequently by writers in describing both publishers and the comics they produce -- if you check the citations in the article, you'll see that with few exceptions most of the press out there about comics and comic book companies use small cover art in their articles. I don't understand why similar fair-use rules wouldn't apply here. But what I'm really asking about here is the use of lists to display the data, which has been objected to. AkankshaG (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the Hulk example is an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there are specific templates available for trade paperback collections. That is a grey area because there is a clear case of tabular data there as it includes ISBNs, issues collected, etc. as can be seen on Essential Marvel. Also it is comparing apples to oranges, see for example: List of Oni Press publications and List of Image Comics publications. When a list of titles gets so lengthy it needs to be split off and the titles develop long and complex publication histories then it can work bringing it all into tables (although it needs to be thought about carefully). Here, where there is a short list, trying to fit it into a table is like hammering a square peg into a round hole - it actually took up more space and made it harder to read. As it stands there is just no need to try and force what is there into a table. (Emperor (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying -- I'm not wed to the table format if people find it objectionable. I'm looking for suggestions on how to present the data in a clear and readable format. If you can point me to a link that you like, I will use that formatting. Thanks. AkankshaG (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The list, as it stands, is perfectly acceptable to me - it is used extensively for such lists of titles (as in the examples above, but especially when such they are embed in the publishers article) and in authors bibliographies (see e.g. Alan Moore bibliography). As there are articles on most of those titles the information is there to help identify what we are talking about and then the bulk of the information about its publication history and the like can be put on the respective articles (all of which need expanding and more work). (Emperor (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

working on another rewrite

Hi I'm working on a rewrite of the page. Switching it from Radical Comics to Radical Studios, as the company has evolved in that manner. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Robyso1 (talk) 09:11, 02 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Radical Studios. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Radical Studios. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100302023611/http://www.publishersweekly.com:80/article/401095-Radical_Plans_for_Comics_Books_Films.php to http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/401095-Radical_Plans_for_Comics_Books_Films.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Radical Studios. 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.icv2.com/articles/home/11126.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct?

Sorry if I missed this on the page, but did Radical go belly up? Their website doesn't seem to have been updated in a while and still lists Hercules as "upcoming". Spartan198 (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]