Talk:2000 AD (comics)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2000 AD?

This page should be about the magazine, as I can't find any other "<year> AD" articles. Magazine article currently at 2000AD, this page is blocking the move. PhilHibbs 13:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Resolved. PhilHibbs 11:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The vague standard is in fact to redirect year AD to year, but it is not implemented for very many years. To avoid confusion, how about making 2000 AD a redirect to 2000 AD (comic) (to conform with other comics) with a disambiguation note at the top, as it has now? +sj + 19:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

2000AD?

In a related issue to the one above should this really be 2000AD (comic)? The magazine's name is 2000AD after all. This naming convention trickles down to the naming of the categories and Vizjim has suggested renaming the creators category [1] I've had to object to this not because I don't think it shouldn't be 2000AD creators but because we have to largely go from the precent of the main article which I believe is wrongly named. I'd suggest we get this article moved to the right position (leaving behind a redirect - possibly getting a bot to do all the reeditting?) and then we can get all the three categories speedily renamed in one fell swoop. Thoughts? (Emperor 13:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC))

  • Perfect solution - how do we do it? Vizjim 16:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Riiiiight. Good point ;) The actual renaming (and then redirecting) isn't a big issue - we just need to get a consensus of the various folks working in the same area (so drop other people a line - I alerted Artw to it). Then we put up the three categories for speedy renaming which should be a formality given the name change. We would then need to request a bot. Again given the previous chages this would itself not be a controversial request (in fact it'd probably be a requirement of the previous changes) - we'd need 2: one to change links to the main 2000AD entry and another to do the updating of categories. I think that'd be the plan - it all cascades down from moving the entry to 2000AD and everything follows on from that as a natural consequence of that change so we need to make sure we are doing the right thing (I assume it was done somewhere in the reordering discussed above where the name was formatted in line with general date formatting here, e.g. 432 BC, which is itself not relevant as the name is the name of the mag so is set by them.) Interestingly now I check the site and the mag they write it as "2000 AD" so perhaps this is a moot point. Its not 100% consistent (like on this page which has it as one word on the navigation and two in the main text but this weeks Prog is pretty consistent with two words. With that in mind (and no matter how cunning the above plan may or may not be) I'd have to vote that things stay as they are: "2000 AD." Apologies that it was an awfully long winded route to that conclusion. (Emperor 23:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC))


I'm absolyutely in agreement, assuming the redirection of links is automatic. Otherwise redirecting the vast number of inbound links probably might not be worth it. Artw 02:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
OK - Inbound links are NOT automatically updated, but in the short term a redirect will take care of those. However there can be problems with double redirects, so we should hunt those down and fix them as soon as possible. Long term uit would be nice to have all the links go to the right place, but it's a bit of a chore and the redirect pretty much works so unless anyones really bothered about it we'll probably leave them pointing to the redirect. And as ever we should keep an eye on the 2000 ad disambig page and fix any comic related links that end up pointed there. Artw 15:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear (as I was typing as I was researching) but the commonly used usgae in the comic at the moment (checking the current issue) is "2000 AD" so I vote for things staying as they are until Tharg changes his mind. ;) (Emperor 19:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

Famous Creators

That list is getting a bit long, is there some way of reformating it into a double column? Or possibly reconsidering where we draw the line on "Famous"? --Artw 23:19, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I've removed 3 (Cook, who isn't famous; Gaiman, who wrote virually nothing for the comic; Pegg, who wrote 1 story). The rest are a good balance between "Famous in America" and "Famous in UK/Europe". Double column seems a good idea.--Vizjim 23:18, 10 July 2005 (GMT)
I suspect it is getting too long again. We possibly need a better definition of what "famous" means here. People who would be recognised within the comic world? Obviously the Brit Wave is there due to their US work. I do wonder about people like Greg Staples, Shaky Kane and possibly even Simon Spurrier (although for him it might just be a matter of time). (Emperor 15:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC))

I've done a tidy up and removed the following (fame is subjective I suppose but one thing is that you have an entry and that entry demonstrates your "fame". Just adding them to that list isn't proof enough of their fame and if their entry is skimpy it often isn't enough to show this):

I also added the following who had brief and/or controversial stays but it is worthy of note and they aren't always associated with the title (2000 AD was one of the first places that published Gaiman):

We might need a less subjective heading. Perhaps just "Creators" and a clearer explanation? "Many 2000 AD creators have either become well known for their work on the comic and/or from their work in other fields (both in the larger US comics sector and in the wider art arena or further afield in music and film)." Something like that. (Emperor 12:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

2000 AD to do

I have thrown in a few entries recently and keep running across more that are linked in that need doing (including a number on the main page) so I thought we could start a little list of entries that need doing (don't forget there are two important categories "2000AD characters" and "2000 AD titles" as well as more general ones like "British comics") or expanding. I will be working on some as I get the time but thought it worth throwing things out there as I find them (I'll try and redit this list as more suggestions come in) and add in the link through to the 2000AD page with extra info (I've also tried to this on entries I've been adding or updating). Note numerous judges need doing - I'll drop more in the list as I see a real need. (Emperor 18:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC))

Start

Titles/characters:

Creators:

Expand

Titles:

Creators:

Merges/splits

Merges have been suggested into (we value everyone's input on this to help us decide the right course of action):

NB: As things are slower here than in the American comics areas a month seems an appropriate length of time for consultation unless it is really obvious or the result of an oversight. (Emperor 19:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC))

Delete

Articles up for deletion (if know of any others drop a note in here):

Discussion

OK a section to discuss the to do list - what you think needs doing, things worth mentioning in entries, etc.

I want to get the Bec & Kawl up and running (esp. as a new series has just started). I also want to start Storming Heaven and From Grace so we can get the Frazer Irving entry more complete. (Emperor 03:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

Over on the Shaun of the Dead talk page [79] I suggested an entry for both SotD comic outtings - 2000AD and IDW. Thoughts? (Emperor 18:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

Photos

I'll be at the Bristol Comic Expo (as will a few others around here I suspect) so am hoping to grab some photos of 2000AD creators so was opening it up for people to throw in suggestions of who needs a piccie for their entry:

Garth Ennis

I have propsoed merging the new entry Garth Ennis work for 2000 A.D./Judge Dredd back into the Garth Ennis one but I'm seeking further input on the best way to proceed. (Emperor 21:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

That page flat out should not exist, post a vote for deletion on it and then transplant any useful info to the Ennis page. --Artw 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I've started the deletion process. --Artw 21:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Danny Cannon

I've put Danny Cannon in the "2000 AD Creators" category. Anyone have a problem with this? Vizjim 12:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

None. I think I have thrown in that category to some people who have only (or largely) worked on books and audio plays so that makes sense within that framwork. (Emperor 19:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC))

My ideas for 2000AD

  1. We should create a List of Perps (Judge Dredd) article linking a number of perps, mutants and gangs in
  2. Nikolai Dante: Romanov Dynasty (Nikolai Dante)|Vladimir the Conqueror|Weapons Crest|Jena Makharov|Katarina Dante
  3. The Red Seas: Ma'hars
  4. The Ten Seconders (will create article soon): Hero (The Ten Seconder), List of Characters (The Ten Seconders), London Falling Article and XTNCT
  5. Harry Kipling: Mad Gods (Harry Kipling)
  6. Savage (2000 AD): Volgans --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 20:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for dropping it in here - this way we can thrash things out and anything that seems a good idea can be moved up to the above lists to get done or worked on. Persoanlly I'd say yes to The Ten Seconders, London Falling and XTNCT. I am rather in favour of a Volgans entry as they are also the enemy at the start of ABC Warriors so a sepearte entry would seem wise to plot the general history linking the two. We have an Invasion! which can be used for the various Bill Savage stories (and there is Bill Savage which redirects to it too). The others just aren't needed - I know we need to keep notability in mind but we also need to keep an eye on the principle of normalisation - a lot of the proposed entries are only mentioned in one story so can easily be dealt with in a sub-section in the entry (e.g. all thsoe Nikolai Dante entries should be in a section entitled "Characters" within the Nikolai Dante entry, and they all need merging into the main entry - I'll get the ball rolling now. Equally the List of perps should be within the actual Judge Dredd entry). There is a big list of entries that need starting above so if you have the spare time you could get cracking on them. (Emperor 21:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

Annuals

When did they stop producing annuals?--Darrelljon 11:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Continuity

I've expanded the Continuity section. Although, in hindsight, I'm not sure it requires quite the attention I've afforded it. --HalfWhit 22:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, what the hell. I've just included first appearances and added Comic Rock to the list. --HalfWhit 09:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I like it. As I said on your talk page (but might as well repeat here) it'd be good to keep it fairly bare bones but link through from there to the relevant sections - in particular the Volgans and Hammerstein entries can cover a lot of the timeline from the near past to the far far future - see the talk pages on those for thoughts on ways to expand the entries (and some concerns about the Hammerstein one). (Emperor 13:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC))
I'd be inclined to agree. I'm not sure 2000 AD's shared universe warrants its own article unless it were to be used as an overarching link to the relevant stories. How about creating a timeline? The one on 2000adonline is rather out-of-date, iirc. --HalfWhit 15:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it works fine at the length it is (and wouldn't need a separate page yet) but you are right - it should be a timeline and I'd use the Medieval chronological timeline and the Timeline of Jewish history as a guide. So something like:
c 200 million BC
Flesh Book 2 (first appearance: Prog 86)
1990
Disaster 1990 (first appearance: Prog 119)
Work it that way and through in the various links to the bits that expand on that outline given. (Emperor 00:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC))
Sorted. --HalfWhit 22:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah that is looking much better (Emperor 14:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC))

Rogue Trooper

I don't have the relevant prog to hand but there's an episode of "The Hit" in which the Seekers are being briefed that gives a date. I have a feeling it's abbreviated ('373 or something) but, if not, it would date Rogue Trooper in the timeline. The concern is this might qualify as being original research. --HalfWhit 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not if you can reference the issue its in. I suspect there may be other dates lurking - I'm wondering if the start of things like Friday (comics) or Mercy Heights might throw a date in as part of its setting. (Emperor 23:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC))

Atomic Wars

2070: President Robert L. Booth starts the Atomic Wars.

I would suggest removing this entry. Although an important part of Dredd's history, the continuity section serves to put the shared universe stories into chronological order, not to specify particular events. It also turns the Inferno entry into a non-sequitur. Perhaps we should create two separate Wikipedia timelines? One for 2000 AD's shared universe stories, the other for Judge Dredd. HalfWhit 15:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I think a 2000 AD timeline should include specific events -in fact I'd rather it contained the actual events and then linked through o the entries (or at least mentioned the stories) where they crop up (the Atomic Wars crops up in different stories and looks to be pretty prominent in "Origins"). I don't think we can have a Judge Dredd timeline as it is part of 2000 AD Universe timeline (see my proposed 2000 AD Universe entry which has the timeline as part of a braoder discussion of events in the 2000 AD Universe) - it'd leave a big hole in the timeline and it can't be cleanly extracted as it interlinks with Hammerstein and Storntium Dog as well as intercompnay crossovers. (Emperor 23:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC))
That's pretty much what I was thinking. The purpose of the timeline on the 2000 AD (comic) page should be there to give a broad overview of how the shared universe stories link together. I'm suggesting we create another a page that goes into plot specifics, placing them in chronological order. The reason I suggested giving Dredd a separate page is that, of all the shared universe stories, his would contain the most detail. The shared universe timeline would mention the rise of the Judges, the Atomic Wars, etc. but the Dredd timeline would be where we summarize the major events that have happened that relate specifically to Dredd and his world. HalfWhit 8:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've removed the Atomic Wars entry from the continuity section on this page and created a 2000 AD Timeline article. Whitless 09:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
What I was refering to was this (which is one of two entries I proposed previously and have been working on in my sandox): User:Emperor/Sandbox/2000 AD Universe which sets the timeline within the 2000 AD fictional universe and works fine with the Judge Dredd stories in as they largely have their own entries and so it odesn't require a lot of detail in the timeline itself. Unless anyone has any objections I'll move that to 2000 AD Universe and redirect 2000 AD Timeline to it and bring over any extra elements (the naming is more in accord with the other companies fictional universe entries). PS: Have you changed accounts or is the Family Whit? ;) (Emperor 12:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC))
Heh. No, I've just been cloning myself so I'm up to the task of reading all 52 weeks of 'Origins'. In all honesty, however, I keep having difficulty logging in, hence me having to create new accounts every so often. As I've no doubt said before, I'm a bear of very little brain when it comes to computers, so it's probably something I'm not doing properly. Whitless 14:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

anthology?

Is 2000 AD an anthology? I thought it was, but I don't see the word "anthology" being used in 2000 AD (comic). I was going to suggest a change to another wikipedia page (using 2000 AD as an example), but I thought I'd ask here first. --EarthFurst 02:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed it is - its one of its more important characteristics (reflecting it's genesis amongst the other British comics which tended to also be anthologies). We might want tog et more input from others but I'd suggest working it into the top somewhere like "2000 AD is an anthology comic which serialises a number of separate..." (Emperor 02:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC))
Thank you. Maybe link to Comics anthology (one link) instead of anthology comic (two links)? --EarthFurst 02:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Excellent idea - I say stick it in and if someone feels there is a better spot for it (I think it has to be mentioned the question is where) then they can move it later - just as long as it is in. (Emperor 16:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC))
I've added a mention of it in the expanded opening paragraph where it seems the best fit. (Emperor 13:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC))

2000 AD expletives

We have a glossary but looking through the List of fictional expletives it is clear that 2000 AD has contributed more than its fair share of swearwords/euphemisms. I see there is a List of Firefly curse words and while I'm not sure of the best way to proceed I think 2000 AD needs a record of its contribution. So what to do? A section under the glossary? A separate entry using the Firefly precedent? A separate entry for the 2000 AD glossary? Thoughts? (Emperor 23:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC))

Great idea! But not sure where we would put it...J Smithy 22.57, 10 August 206 (UTC)
Well as I say we have numerous options:
  • Add it into the glossary section - seems like a reasonable solution then it could be split off into the following later:
  • An entry for the 2000 AD glossary (of the two separate entry options I prefer this one)
  • An entry for 2000 AD explitives
Or something else (Emperor 14:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC))
I vote the bottom one. But what does everyone else think about this I'm wondering?
Smithy 16:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I suspect the least controversial is the first one (its the least controversial) and then if its thought a good idea to do one of the others then the information is there. (Emperor 18:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC))

The Main Entry Red Link Jihad

I know there is a to do list above but that is fairy general and covers the whole 2000 AD Universe but links from the front page have clearly been deemed as important and if they are showing red then I suppose it doesn't really reflect well on the entry. I know it has been put up for featured article and one of the things that tends to hold back such nominations are red links. Not that the aim should be to get the article featured but the guidelines are an aid for improving an entry in general. I won't make a list here yet but if you are twiddling our thumbs wondering what to do next and the list above looks intimidating then scroll through the front page and pick a droid or series that is missing. I'm off to pick one now. (Emperor 18:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC))

I should say what I did:
  • Steve MacManus - and filled in the entries for the other 2000 AD editors and dropped in succession boxes for that role and the Megazine editors.
  • Really & Truly
Next I suspect will have to be Shakara and then possibly the other "Summer Offensive" titles (Maniac 5 and Slaughterbowl but I'll need to dig them out to re-read them first so don't hold your breath. (Emperor 00:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC))
The majority of red links start cropping up in the late eighties through to the mid-ninties. I'll get the Shakara one done tomorrow and address the missing Greg Staples one which seems a glaring ommission. (Emperor 01:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC))
OK Shakara started I'll look into starting the Greg Staples one as he is in the list of famous creators and it seems a bit rum for him not to have an entry (Emperor 15:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

2000 AD (comic book series)???

That's an incredible lame title. And not even accurate. Can we find something better or just move it back? Artw 21:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

My vote, if we don't just move it straight back, would be for "2000 AD (anthology comic)". Artw 21:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I have queried the move here - the user invovled seems to have been through and done hundreds of these moves I must assume it is reflecting some kind of naming convention decision I am unaware of (I did nose around and couldn't find anything) - presumably to differentiate between comics and comedians. It'd be worth checking around for other inappropriate name changes like this - I know Tornado has also been moved - in fact I updated the UK comic anthology and there are about 4 just from that - you'll probably find more at British comics. For simplicity unless there has been some big debate on this I'd suggest moving them back to the original name as it'll avoid the hundreds of redirects all the moving has generated. (Emperor 00:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC))
The guy who did it has checked and he made a mistake so he is requesting that the changes be undone - I said we'd sort it out but there might be problems with that so we'll see what happens. (Emperor 13:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC))
OK this page has been moved back but I'm told there are 5 that didn't work (I notice Action and Crisis) and someone with a bigger spanner is being summoned to sort them out. (Emperor 16:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

Stuff to Do

1) Nemesis the Warlock - Torquemada (Taken from the article)
2) Fiends of the Eastern Front - Update stories and add characters
3) The V.C.s - See its talk page
4) Nikolai Dante - Revamp it (I'll do that)
5) XTNCT - Add characters
6) Get a proper Volgan Isignia and picture of them (Will do when Book III is released).....Thoughts?--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 18:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

All seems a fine (although I'm not sure what you mean about revamping ND - can you be more specific?) but there is a to do list above - you can edit things into there. Its best to keep it all in one place after all ;) (Emperor 02:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC))
Hi, don't know if anyones checking up on this bit, but I've started expanding Nikolai Dante now that I've got "Tsar Wars Vol.2". Added a bit on characters already and I'm working on something about the Civil War. Victory Is Mine (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review and Featured Article

I would strongly suggest that this article be submitted for a Peer Review with a view to getting it imrpved enough for submission as a Featured Article. --Mal 21:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion - I might have to step up the Main Entry Red Link Jihad but the entry itself is pretty solid (I can say this as I haven't done an awful lot to it). There is no reason we can use thise section for people to throw in ideas.
I was wodnerign if we needed to get subheaders in the main decades - the seventies has them and there could easily be one to separate out the Summer Offensive but can we work it so we can fit more in and if we can should we? (Emperor 01:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC))

Too long?

I've getting awarning from the main entry about it being too long (53kb) - although this isn't too big an issue these days we should probably take it as a sign it could do with a bit of work. Above I suggested adding in the expletives to the glossary with a possible eye on expanding it and making it a new entry (see the examples given) and I'd suggest this could be done to a 2000 AD glossary. Equally I think a good move might be creating a 2000 AD Universe (like the DC Universe and Marvel Universe entries). We could move the continuity over into it and add in information about thow the various stories interact (as well as the crossovers with other universes: Batman, Aliens, etc.). Also the Smithyverse can get a mention. Thoughts and ideas? Also i notice this page is being flagged as too long. We could probably archive everything down to the To Do list and a few of the other queries. (Emperor 13:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC))

I thought this was an appropriate time to start up my sandbox and show you what I thought would work for these entries:
The 2000 AD Universe one in particular needs a lot of fact checking and expanding so feel free to add/edit what you like. (Emperor 15:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC))
Perhaps the timeline could go, since it's largely apocryphal? Artw 17:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean - it seems pretty solidy based on dates as stated in issues as well as the Judge Dredd timeline. I do think its important as it ties together a lot of the stories but i do wonder about its presence in the 2000 AD entry as it draws on events from the Megazine (and in theory books and possibly RPGs - the JD timeline certainly does) which is why I think it makes sense to have it in a different entry as part of the 2000 AD Universe. (Emperor 17:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC))
Both sandbox entries are now live: 2000 AD glossary and 2000 AD Universe. See the talk pages for discussion on expansion (Emperor 19:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC))

Auto peer review suggestions

2000 AD (comic)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[1]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[2]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.[3]
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • apparently
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[4]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[5]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [6]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 06:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Some comments:
  • I suspect the occurences of "The" in headers is OK in context although the subheadings in "The 1970s" could be de-the-ed.
  • Subpages - I have thrown out a couple of ideas above. This is an entry on the comic and some aspects of this page deal with things that really deal with things that crop up in the wider 2000 AD Universe (if that makes sense) as there is the Megazine, books, films, games, etc. (Emperor 13:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC))
  • Tightening up the copy - I'll print the entry off this week and go throuh it with a red pen (Emperor 13:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC))
  • Footnotes and references? I'm unsure there are many required but when I'm doing the above I'll check.
Anyway plenty of food for thought. Anyone got any feedback on that? (Emperor 13:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC))
Not a bad wee tool, is it? :) Remember what it says though - its a guide and not everything it says will be relevant to this particular article. If you're going to red-pen it on hard copy, I think I'll wait before I make any changes. Feel free to drop me a line.. I'm still considering starting a sub-project for the British comics and/or for 2000 AD. --Mal 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I won't be able to anything until the end of the week so feel free to make any changes you like. The other thing from that list is the introductory paragraph which could do with some expanding - I was thinking of something like "The comic has spun off a wealth of other comics, trade paperbacks, novels and games (including computer, RPG, board and card games). It has also proved very influential on the wider world of comics with creators of 2000 AD strips going on to revitalise the American comic book industry starting with the Brit Wave and continuing over the years. The comic has also inspired generations of writers and artists in the British small press comics scene, some of whom have themselves gone on to work in the comic." I want to make it clear that the entry is largely about the comic opening it up to link through to creators, other related comics, etc. and the happenings in the 2000 AD Universe. (Emperor 23:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC))

See also

I removed most of the entries in the See Also section because they are already covered in the Related Publications section, with links to their main articles, so it seemed unnecessary to list them again. I left in Action because it was the predecessaor to 2000 AD and did not have its own entry in Related Publications. I don't think we'll get FA status if we repeat ourselves. Richard75 22:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense those kinds of things often have too much replication. To be fair Action is mentioned at the start and I'm unsure it would qualify as a see also (possibly this should be used for similar publications that wouldn't get mentioned in the main article - say other unrelated sci-fi comic anthologies or some such. The comics anthology entry has some and I'd suggest Métal Hurlant, Heavy Metal and possibly Dark Horse Presents (Emperor 00:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC))

Desperately seeking help

Hi, I am busy working on The V.C.s article (I will be adding pics of the alien races sometime in the next week, hopefully), but there is a problem. The only race not to have a description is "The Polity" (I know nothing about them). In order to add my pics of the aliens (including the Polity) I need a brief description of them. Thanks in advance.--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 10:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think someone else may be working on that angle [80] unless they are you I suppose. I never did get the Polity - it sort of seemed rather unnecessary unless the VCs return and it is expanded on. (Emperor 00:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC))

1500 issues

The article says that this is one of a very few comics to reach 1500 issues. What others have done so? Might a category of comics that have reached over a thousand or 1500 issues be helpful? -Toptomcat 16:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The other such magazines will be long running weekly comics like the Beano. I don't think it'd be worth having a category for it but comics anthology needs expanding and information like that would be worth slotting in there. (Emperor 18:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC))

Classic covers gallery

There are handy gallery tags I was wondering what folks thought about a classic covers gallery? And if so any suggestions? (Emperor 19:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

Sinister Dexter

Can someone please help me with the characters section there please--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 14:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Black Atlantic and Helter Skelter

I started something in my Sandbox for Black Atlantic and Helter Skelter all feedback appreciated. I'll try and get a workable stub ofor the former up and running soon as the series has started. I just need to do some re-reading to get osme of the earlier storylines straight. (Emperor 01:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC))

Matt Smith

Some attention might be required for the Matt Smith (comics) page - there seems to be some confusion between Matt Snith the writer/editor and Matt Smith the artist - who I believe is a different person (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here!) Artw 23:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's this guy. Artw 23:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Just replied over there. I'll sort it out if we can agree the appropriate name for the new entry. (Emperor 00:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

2000 AD video games

It strikes me we might need an entry on 2000 AD video games as there have been quite a few over the years and expanding the section would rapidly require a split anyway. Obviously we have Judge Dredd: Dredd Vs. Death and Rogue Trooper computer and video games but there have a lot over the years. As a kid I remember playing the Strontium Dog game and there were more than I recall and 2000ADonline offer them all for download [81] and have entries on them [82] which should make things easier. I have dropped a note on the ZX Spectrum games [83] but thought an entry looking at the whole are is needed. It does raise a wider point that we might need to have a section focused on spin-offs and also consider another entry 2000 AD novels as there have been a lot published by a variety of companies. (Emperor 16:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

Site down

Anybody know why the official and review sites are both down? Vizjim 17:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

From the 2000adtek yahoo group:
> Re: Site down?
>
> Just to confirm, there is going to be a full server wipe tomorrow. It
> didn't happen today because they had to do some network maintenance.
> Julian Hall at Rebellion downloaded the 2000adonline and 2000adreview
> databases yesterday so hopefully there won't be too much missing when
> it gets sorted.
>
> Fingers crossed,
>
> Wake
Artw 17:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ta. Bloody good FS, by the way. Vizjim 18:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

An article discussing the different strips/titles to have appeared in 2000 AD

Myself and Emperor have been kicking about the idea of an article discussing the different strips/titles which have appeared in 2000 AD, but can't decide on an appropriate name. I've always referred to the stories as strips, which is how the article here refers to them, as do the BBC amongst others. However Emperor prefers titles, because sometimes the strips are collected and it would be consistent with the way US comic books are described. So we're sort of in a deadlock and would appreciate thoughts. Either 2000 AD strips or 2000 AD titles, or maybe your own suggestion. Cheers. Hiding Talk 15:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd tend to support "2000 AD titles" (as a name (possibly broken down into say A-M and N-Z as there are a lot) as that is the name of the category and the comic strip is fairly well-defined as a linear comic panel, a "strip", that appears in newspapers (which was also how I have understood it). Equally going with titles brings it in line with the borader Comic Project naming, although you are never going to get a perfect 1-to-1 correspondance between American comic books and British anthology comics but that seems like the most reasonable correspondance as, at least in my mind, the titles (or at least the shorter series) could be considered as mini-series (shown by their being collected into trades). I suspect "thrills" is probably the term most commonly used in the comic but I'm angling for a solution which could cover all the British comic anthologies (as concerns have been raised elsewhere [84]).
Worth noting this is part of a broader concern that some entries on 2000 AD series don't meet WP:FICT (and in aprticular the upgraded notability guidelines) and having an entry (or two) covering the various stories that have appeared allows us to have a neat solution to this - those that don't currently work as a standalone entry can be merged into the main one where things can be worked on until they seem like they'd be worthy candidates for splitting off. (Emperor 15:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC))
  1. ^ See footnote
  2. ^ See footnote
  3. ^ See footnote
  4. ^ See footnote
  5. ^ See footnote
  6. ^ See footnote
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000_AD_(comics)/Archive_1&oldid=1142394849"