Talk:Warrior (comics)

Requested move

Propose that It be moved per the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics) guideline, to fall in line with all the others using (comics). Anyone have strong feelings and good reason why not? MURGH ^disc. 13:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Move (and enormous wikilink change operation) done. MURGH ^disc. 12:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems to have been moved (or the main entry has) and I can't seem to undo it. I'm looking into what I'm doing wrong and will try and fix it. (Emperor 21:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)_

Notable stories

It just isn't sustainable as it comes down partly to opinion. I've changed it to stories and listed most of them. Warrior didn't run for long enough to make the list unmanagable and it looks fine. (Emperor 14:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, as soon as the word "notable" starts getting bandied about there are all sorts of problems :) Good plan to change it and remove arguments over what definition to use for "notable". GDallimore (Talk) 14:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Bit late to add to this part of the discussion, but as the comic ran for a short amount of time the list as it stands (i.e. every story that was published) seems the way to go (though if we ever want to go for 'notable' again, I'd hope we'd agree that V for Vendetta is the most notable, closely followed by Marvelman/Miracleman, for different reasons. sheridan (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Warrior5.jpg

Image:Warrior5.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Planned revisions

Having done a lot of related research for the Miracleman revamp I'm having a look at overhauling this article.

1. A general reorganisation is needed, IMHO. I do love sections.
2. There's a lot of hyperbole that needs pruning; there's enough genuine acclaim out there for both the magazine and its' contents that we can probably get this to stand on its' own without it.
3. I don't see a problem with the list of stories being exhaustive considering we're talking about a relatively limited amount of material, with the longer ones being easy to give a quick line or so on with a link to the main articles (MM, V, Pressbutton).
4. Note to self: must try to make sure there's a right balance between MM's importance to the magazine and it becoming another MM article.
5. There's a lot of uncited stuff in the current article which I'd love to salvage; as yet I'm light on anything solid about the SOR distribution model and anything solid about sales beyond the general 'it was losing money constantly' thing. Any good reliable sources out there for this sort of thing? Or is it all circular reporting from crap like Sequart? I've not done too much deep-diving beyond the MM stuff I've already accrued but if anyone has a stack on Warrior links lying around that would be handy
6. Some of the uncited stuff (e.g. the sexism thing) probably isn't worth salvaging as it's POV, supposition etc.
7. "Many of the title's top creators were being offered work from U.S. publishing companies, causing problems in finding new talent." - I'm not necessarily arguing with this as I haven't done enough research to say either way but I'm honestly struggling to come up with someone who did so during Warrior's run - Alan Moore's relationship with Skinn already seems to have been on the skids when he got Swamp Thing, and one writer does not make many anyway; Davis and Dillon were still a couple of years from American work AFAIK - the former would go back to Marvel UK first; Bolland and Gibbons were already growing beyond the British scene when the title started. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Rewrite

Okay, given this a bit of a go over. Some bits from the previous version:

• Uncited comments
  • "Rivaling 2000 AD, Warrior won 17 Eagle Awards during its short run (including nine Eagles in 1983 alone)."
    • The included link only lists the first few, it's hard to argue how much individual awards "belong" to the magazine (e.g. Davis' win in 1985) and there's no way it's 17 even though I'm still looking for a full list of 1986 Eagles.
  • "Because of traditional distribution and its format, it was one of the comic books in the British market that didn't just rely upon distribution through then format-driven specialist shops and expensive subscriptions for its sales base. Despite a strong launch and critical acclaim, sales were not strong... Offered to newsagents on a "sale or return" basis, it suffered a high rate of returns. Using the same magazine format Skinn had employed for his earlier House of Hammer and Starburst to reach an older audience, Warrior was distributed nationally through newsagents and was launched to strong sales."
    • Sadly I can find very little from real sources about Warrior's distribution model, sales record, SOR status etc. It would be great stuff to have in if we can find some sort of source for it that isn't just circular reporting.
  • "The title had also managed to appeal to a female audience unlike 2000 AD thanks to the inclusion of strong women characters but as later issues became dominated by more sexist material that readership declined."
    • Neither part of this seems to be citable or even worth mentioning.

One question I am struggling with is the exact provenance of the Spanish strips, being able to name original publications would be a nice detail to have in. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

References