Talk:IDW Publishing/Archives/2013

Notability?

I'm hardly an expert on Wikipedia's Company criteria, but needless to say anyone in the business (I stand from a retailer POV) considers IDW Publishing a well-respected and important part of American comics industry. A google news search finds several articles reporting about IDW, particularly about their Hasbro deal as well as their Paramount deal. Does that constitute notability? I really don't know of any serious independent scholarly source that writes about American comicbook publishing houses, but the lack of such a resource does not conflict with my (admittedly POV) intuitive definition of notability. With a 30 Days of Night movie[1] already in production, with undoubtedly millions of future viewers and fans ahead for the franchise, it seems absurd to write off the company which publishes it as un-notable. Perhaps Wikipedia notability criteria need to be revised. --Telecart 01:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it comes down to the fact that we might know something but for it to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia like this you have to prove it - verifiability is an important core principle and while you and I know it is a company we still have to demonstrate it. A number of comic publishers were tagged up and I have to say it rather stumped me so I raised it on the Comics Project [2] and you can see the improvements made to Top Shelf Productions which led to the tag being removed which should help as a guide to what is required to prove it is a real entity. Hope that helps ;) (Emperor 02:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

Clean up

There was some weird use of formatting to simulate markup (especially with regard to the references) and I have added the correct markup in and got the references working a actual footnotes.

I have flagged this up for its marketspeak as there are elements that sound just like a press release (violating WP:NPOV). It is being heavily edited and expanded at the moment and to avoid too many edit conflicts and to let it settle down I'll leave any further heavy proof-reading and copy editing for now. (Emperor 18:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC))

I should add this is largely in the "History" section. If those issues can be addressed and a few other statements referenced then I'd suggest the notability header could be removed. (Emperor 18:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC))

I see no way in which this listing is more "advertorial" than Devil's Due, Top Shelf or others you pointed out as fine examples of good wiki-dom. Nor do I see how there can be any question to our verifiability. Please either aid me in your quest for some sort of wiki-perfection, or quit subjecting this page to your seemingly overly-critical supervision. -- Lee Wheaton

Thanks for the input. I don't think my "supervision" is overly-critical and I will set about editing the page. I'm afriad I had to run out of the door and you were still editing so I couldn't do much to the entry at the time but it needed to be flagged. If you have an issue with anything I have done feel free to raise it over on the Comics Project and someone will offer a second opinion. I should also say thanks for adding in exactly the kidn of content that will help us remove the notability banner - all it needs is a polish (I'm afraid wiki-perfection is just somehting we can strive for even if we never reach it). (Emperor 02:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

I've added a reference for the awards "Popbot" won. However, the reference isn't great (third-party report in list form), and the awards themselves don't appear to be terribly notable (can find no other reference on Internet to them), so we might have to cut that whole bit later. The paragraph on "30 Days of Night" in particular looks like advert-speak. I think it might be best to cut that paragraph down to something along the lines of "IDW Publishing first came to a wider prominence when the horror series "30 Days of Night" was released (cite reviews, shouldn't be hard to find. possibly sales figures too)" and put the rest of the information in the "30 Days..." article if it isn't there already. H. Carver 22:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above, I did some digging on the Diamond awards mentioned in the article and found these Diamond press releases (at the bottom of the page). I haven't cited them in the article myself, as I'm not sure how to - Diamond appear to split the award by market share (effectively they pick one 'big' publisher and one 'small' publisher). H. Carver 22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work. On how to use the footnote system see: WP:FN. Basically put the link between tags like this: <ref>LINK</ref>. You can find more here: WP:REF and WP:CITET but if you just use the ref tags that will set the ball rolling. Other editors can tidy it up later if need be. If you think something needs trimming down then go for it. (Emperor 23:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

Any chance that since these additions/changes have been made we can loose the "notability" and "advertisement" warnings? -- IDW Staff

There are 9 unreferenced statements in the entry, which is quite a few. If you can help provide sources for them (or the bulk of them) then it'd get my thumbs up for removing the tags.

On a sidenote I have proposed a number of categories [3] including: Category:IDW Publishing/Category:IDW Publishing titles when it looks like the tidy up is done I'll drop those two in too. (Emperor 00:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC))

They have now been started feel free to populate the titles one. (Emperor 02:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC))

Added citations to all elements that were marked. Can we please have the warnings removed? -- IDW Staff

All done. Thanks for that I can't see the notability issues arising again but if someone does have a problem I'd rather they raised it on the talk page or, if there is a broader problem, on the Comics Project talk page.

Just a note links are [http://URL NAME] separating the URL and NAME with a slash was breaking the links. I think I have fixed them all now. (Emperor 02:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC))

Is there not someway the IDW staff editing here might bring their book list into line ? Perhaps a seperate page with a list of IDW titles ? As is at this time, it looks messy, and stinks of self-promotion. (AL)

Recently Purchased?

Wasn't this company recently purchased by IDT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.58.217 (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)