mNo edit summary |
→top: Put old ids in single comments section, as template output suggests parameter id is the source of all backwards copies. |
||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
| org = [[Bleeding Cool]] |
| org = [[Bleeding Cool]] |
||
| monthday = 30 April |
| monthday = 30 April |
||
| id1 = 838607908 <!--do not use parameter |id= as the template output implies a single version was the source of all backwards copies. --> |
|||
| id = 838607908 |
|||
| title2 = Diamond Cancels Halloween ComicFest For 2021 |
| title2 = Diamond Cancels Halloween ComicFest For 2021 |
||
| year2 = 2021 |
| year2 = 2021 |
||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
| monthday2 = 8 September |
| monthday2 = 8 September |
||
| id2 = 1038806359 |
| id2 = 1038806359 |
||
| |
| comments = The 2018 article copied from {{oldid2| 838607908|this version of the article}}. The 2021 article copied from {{oldid2|1038806359|this version of the article}} and duly acknowledged Wikipedia and linked to the article after being requested to do so. |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Free Comic Book Day/Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|index=yes|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}} |
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Free Comic Book Day/Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|index=yes|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}} |
Revision as of 14:45, 29 March 2022
Free Comic Book Day was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wording in the Halloween ComicFest passage
@Premeditated Chaos and Nightscream: I hope that we can discuss some of the recent changes to the Halloween ComicFest paragraph of the article. At some point – if the event itself stabilizes around COVID – I'd like to take it to GAN and any appearance of edit warring in the article history might disqualify it from consideration.
One of the changes was promoting titles with a "spooky" theme
→ promoting titles with a Halloween theme
. The edit summary cited WP:TONE. I understand the point, and I wouldn't mind a more formal word being used there if we can agree upon one. I object to using "Halloween theme" because neither of the two sources used for the paragraph state this, and Halloween is not a synonym for spooky (the term used by the source). To me, "a Halloween theme" suggests trick-or-treating, costume parties, jack-o'-lanterns, etc. The sources don't mention these elements in the comics. To me, spooky suggests 'frightening' but with a light-hearted tone (noting that the titles are family-friendly and not hard horror). Is there another way to convey this? "Eerie" comes close, but I'm not sure it's that much better than "spooky".
WP:TONE states Standards for formal tone vary a bit depending upon the subject matter but should usually match the style used in Featured- and Good-class articles in the same category.
I checked a few event FAs for informal language: The Chaser APEC pranks uses "gag" (informal), Disco Demolition Night uses "shock jock" (slang), Truthiness uses a number of neologisms and portmanteaus. So maybe one instance of "spooky" isn't too bad? If we can't agree to an alternative, I suggest changing it back to "spooky" which satisfies verification policy (while WP:TONE is neither a policy nor a guideline).
Some other changes to the paragraph were explained in an edit summary as "trim fluff, reword". I felt it was important to state it plainly that the comics were free as, unlike the other events, Halloween ComicsFest does not have "free" (or gratis) in its name. The party/costume contest was an attempt to briefly show that it was developing into an event like the article subject. I felt that that content was important enough to include, though I don't mind attempts to rephrase it.
Please let me know your thoughts when you have time; no rush on this. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- I really don't care that much about the word "spooky" in the article one way or another. I removed it because I thought it sounded a little too close to the source and I was coming in from a CCI. You put it in and I left it. I literally never would have looked at the article again had you not reverted me, and haven't looked at it since except that you've now pinged me to it again like two weeks later. Now that I am here, I will say that I stand by the rest of my removal. Having details about exactly how retailers can celebrate an event that isn't even the main topic of the article is an undue level of unencyclopedic trivia and should be left out. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if you feel resentful about being invited to discuss your edits. For the delay, reverts were being reverted instead of discussed and I felt that a cooling down period was warranted. Thanks for your diligence. (I placed the {{Connected contributor}} banner on this page, if that had anything to do with it.)
- WP:NOPAGE discusses subtopics included in a larger page about a broader topic; this makes more sense to me than creating a stub, and would avoid a lot of repeated material. Assuming it is agreeable to include Halloween ComicFest here, shouldn't we follow the basic practice of summarizing what reliable secondary sources have to say about it? (see below) – Reidgreg (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- My rationale is not predicated on the notion that "Halloween" and "spooky" are synonyms. It's predicated on the notion that informal modes of speech, such as slang or jargon, should be avoided whenever possible.
- Nor does it matter whether the source cited for that sentence specifically uses the phrase "Halloween theme". Part of relating what sources say is paraphrasing, which involves conveying the essential meaning, and not necessarily the exact words. The word spooky is defined as "sinister or ghostly in a way that causes fear and unease", which is indeed part of the imagery, motifs and themes related to Halloween, just as trick-or-treating, costume parties and jack o'lanterns.
- For the purpose of this editorial matter, saying that the books in question were Halloween-themed conveys the essential relevant point adequately and clearly.
- (And btw, there is only one source in question, not two, as we're talking about that one sentence, not the entire paragraph. That second source is cited to support the sentence that follows the one with the "Halloween theme" passage, and it's a dead link, one for which I could not find an archived version at the Internet Archive, so we don't even know what it said in the first place.) Nightscream (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I was hoping that either of you might find a source to support your edits. I've gone ahead and found a few more sources for Halloween ComicFest: Bleeding Cool, Hollywood Reporter, Freemont News-Messenger, Jackson Free Press, Bloody Disgusting, Entertainment Weekly, Hometown Station, Lima News, Flickering Myth, Tampa Bay Times, Houston Press, We Got This Covered, Cleveland Scene, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Nerdspan. Of these (plus USA Today), 3 use "spooky" theme, 1 uses "spooktacular", 1 uses "scary" and 5 use Halloween-themed or Halloween-inspired. So good, that's all I was asking for (assuming the sources themselves are OK). 15 note that the comics are free. 4 mention parties, 6 mention costume contests, and 4 mention mini-comics to give to trick-or-treaters. So about 1 in 3 sources mentions these things – not a majority, but significant coverage, I would think, to be more than trivia. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Back to the Halloween-theme, we've got enough sources to say it but now there's the problem of repetitive phrasing with Halloween being used three times in one sentence. I think it'll be fine if we move that part down a bit.
- Is this agreeable, if I expand and rework it a bit using some of the above sources? I'd also like to include the number of participating stores from one year. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I was hoping that either of you might find a source to support your edits.
It makes zero sense for you to expect me to have a source that supports the trimming of unencyclopedic content. It honestly amazes me that you're spending this much time and energy trying to keep this trivial content in an article that isn't even about Halloween ComicFest. This article should be focused on Free Comic Book Day, not some other event that's jumped onto its coattails. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)- I'm pretty certain that Halloween ComicFest is directly descended from FCBD and from its inception followed the FCBD format, with the same organizer and publishers – no jumping involved. Lots of articles on books or movies will have a paragraph on adaptations and sequels, which would seem to be the same case. Even if this is a coattail-jumping situation, so what? The FA Scouting has the section "Nonaligned and Scout-like organizations". – Reidgreg (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, and frankly it's a much better example of how to do such a section than the one in this article. You'll notice that it isn't burdened with details about the uniforms, camping activities, merit badges, or other ephemera of those other organizations. Stop acting like I've gutted the article of vital details. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- "I was hoping that either of you might find a source to support your edits."
- Sourcing is not the issue. Formality of speech is. I thought I made this clear above.
- "...but now there's the problem of repetitive phrasing with Halloween being used three times in one sentence."
- I honestly don't understand why you're making such a point of this. Repetition, much like many other problems of composition, can be addressed by simple rewriting. Here's one way it can be rephrased to avoid that dreaded third "Halloween":
- Halloween ComicFest is an annual promotion launched by Diamond Comics in 2012, held roughly six months from FCBD on the Saturday before Halloween and promoting titles thematically tied to that holiday.
- As a "problem", this is a case of "Move along, folks, nothing to see here." Nightscream (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- The strongly expressed viewpoint that the material is trivia continues to strike me as no more than opinion. The guideline explanation page Wikipedia:Handling trivia mostly deals with trivia sections and articles rather than in-text inclusion of a fact, but it does note
the "importance" of a fact is subjective. It is not reasonable to disallow all information that some editors feel is unimportant, because that information could be important to some readers.
andStand-alone trivia usually make excellent candidates for integration into the articles they appear in.
While the guideline does recommend to "be bold" in removing items from trivia sections, it also notes thatThere should be no specific timetable for the integration of trivia
. I still hold that this isn't trivia to the subtopic, and I briefly included the subtopic in the article per WP:NOPAGE. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)- There is no universe in which you are going to convince me that mentioning precise details of how a retailer can promote an event via costume parties and decorations is not unencyclopedic fluff, especially considering that the event in question isn't even the main topic of the article. Continuing to participate here is just going to be me repeating myself, so I think I'm done trying to get you to see sense. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, and frankly it's a much better example of how to do such a section than the one in this article. You'll notice that it isn't burdened with details about the uniforms, camping activities, merit badges, or other ephemera of those other organizations. Stop acting like I've gutted the article of vital details. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm pretty certain that Halloween ComicFest is directly descended from FCBD and from its inception followed the FCBD format, with the same organizer and publishers – no jumping involved. Lots of articles on books or movies will have a paragraph on adaptations and sequels, which would seem to be the same case. Even if this is a coattail-jumping situation, so what? The FA Scouting has the section "Nonaligned and Scout-like organizations". – Reidgreg (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I just noticed that the entire paragraph on Halloween ComicFest was plagiarized by (by, not from) Bleeding Cool (Johnston, Rich (8 September 2021). "Diamond Cancels Halloween ComicFest For 2021". Bleeding Cool.). Amusing. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- "The strongly expressed viewpoint that the material is trivia continues to strike me as no more than opinion."
- Get outta town!
- Really?
- You figured that out?
- Of COURSE it's an opinion! What did you think I was presenting it as? A fact brought down from Mt. Sinai from Moses himself?
- Much of the statements made during editorial disputes constitute opinion. That's a given. If they weren't, and were carved-in-stone facts, then typically, such discussions would tend to be more infrequent, be shorter in duration, or not happen at all.
- The issue is whether the opinion is well-reasoned, internally consistent, intellectually coherent, whether it has a foundation in fact (regardless of whether or not it is a fact itself), whether it reflects the editing practices of the community here, including the other editors with whom you are discussing the matter, etc.
- PMC's point is that the article is about Free Comic Book Day, which is true. He has made the point that the passage at issue here concerns an event similar to FCBD, in a section called "Related events". That section is near the bottom of the article, long after the portions of the article that deal with the salient information that goes to the article topic's notability, and which is only tangentially related to that article topic. For this reason, in my opinion (GASP!), it is of less importance than that more salient information, and will naturally be presented with a lower amount of detail, in proportion to its relevance. I agree that this is reasonable. Do I agree with PMC that it should be "left out"? No. But I don't see how it's possible to have a "source" for the position that material should be trimmed, or that your over-emphasis on whether a word appears three times in a sentence requires anything other than a simple rewording (which I did), rather than a protracted talk page discussion (which you began and have continued). Dismiss this as "opinion" if you wish. Toodles. Nightscream (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)