Talk:Eagle (British comics)/Archive 2

title

"comic book" is a curious and inapposite description. Is it a US usage? "comic" would be more appropriate. Deipnosophista (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree. Nobody in Britain uses the phrase 'comic book'. Parrot of Doom 16:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. The title used to be "Eagle (comic)", but someone (an American unaware of British usage?) changed it. JH (talk page) 18:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Comic book is just plain wrong! Eagle was and is a comic.Brilliant,unforgettable and part of my youth.How i longed for it to drop through the letterbox each week but i wouldn't have thanked you for an American comic book.Diamondsbill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondsbill (talk • contribs) 11:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Red

Johnny Red came from Battle not Tiger, as previously stated ChrisTheDude 19:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

New version

I'm working on a new version of this article, here. Its a long way from being in any state to copy across, but I'd appreciate any comments. If nobody objects, once its finished I'll copy it here, replacing the current article. Parrot of Doom 19:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This is almost good enough for article space now. If nobody objects I'll copy it across in the next day or so. Parrot of Doom 19:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm also going to move this article back to Eagle (comic), since nobody calls them comic books in the UK. If nobody minds, that is. Parrot of Doom 19:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Replaced, and moved. Parrot of Doom 14:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been moved - "(comic)" isn't an acceptable disambiguation. That said I don't think "(comic book)" was right but have struggled for a proper disambiguation term. Best idea might be splitting this article for the original and the 80s version, at Eagle (Hulton Press) and Eagle (Fleetway) (there is precedent for this, see for example House of Mystery (DC Comics) and House of Mystery (Vertigo) and other Vertigo versions of DC titles). See also Crisis (comic). (Emperor (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

Stories removed from the old version of the article

These should have been split off to List of Eagle stories, see for example list of 2000 AD stories. (Emperor (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

Now moved to List of Eagle comic strips. I snipped the list from the talk page, makes no sense clogging people's browsers up. Parrot of Doom 19:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Riders of the Range

Most of the major comic strips in Eagle have their own Wikipedia articles. However a notable exception is Riders of the Range, written by Charles Chilton. From Chilton's article, it seems to have begun life as a successful serial on BBC rsdio, before switching media to Eagle. (Was there an overlap?) JH (talk page) 20:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I shall check, however a better candidate might be P.C. 49, which most certainly was a BBC Radio serial before being licensed in Eagle. Parrot of Doom 21:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Is "Genre: Science fiction comics" in the infobox really accurate? Dan Dare was SF, of course, but though it was the lead strip it was only one item among many. How about replacing it with something like "Boys' comic"? JH (talk page) 17:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at Template:Infobox comic book title and changed it accordingly. It seems to place the comic within a number of categories. Parrot of Doom 18:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism.

Please stop vandalsing the page, Mr Parrot. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I am a collector of the early Eagle Comic Magazine. I have calculated that there are 987 issues from 14 April 1950 to 26 April 1969. I have checked this against my (incomplete) Eagle Comic collection. If anyone feels this is not so I would like to discuss how I arrived at my number and what they used to come to another number. Cutaway-researcher (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately what matters is WP:RS, so regardless of the truth of the matter that's what we should stick to. Parrot of Doom 20:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The Eagle glider

I was once told that there was a connection between The Eagle comic and the Slingsby Eagle glider, with the glider being named after (and sponsored by) the comic and the comic carrying a number of articles about the design, building and flying of glider. However there is no mention of this connection in the article about the glider. Does anybody here know anything about it? It would be really nice if we could could get hold of copies of those articles from the comic. They would be a mine of information for the Slingsby Eagle article, and a Slingsby Sailplanes connection would be an interesting thing to write about in this article, too. If I'm right, the articles would probably have appeared in 1953 or 1954. Thank you. GrahamN (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you searched the archives of Flight? Parrot of Doom 07:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The Eagle glider

I was once told that there was a connection between The Eagle comic and the Slingsby Eagle glider, with the glider being named after (and sponsored by) the comic and the comic carrying a number of articles about the design, building and flying of glider. However there is no mention of this connection in the article about the glider. Does anybody here know anything about it? It would be really nice if we could could get hold of copies of those articles from the comic. They would be a mine of information for the Slingsby Eagle article, and a Slingsby Sailplanes connection would be an interesting thing to write about in this article, too. If I'm right, the articles would probably have appeared in the period 1951-1954. Thank you. GrahamN (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you searched the archives of Flight? Parrot of Doom 07:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No. I have no idea how to do that, and it's those Eagle articles we need, not Flight Magazine articles, anyway. Thanks for responding, though. (Is there some way of switching off that over-zealous archiving bot?) GrahamN (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

See here. Parrot of Doom 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Congratulatrions

Congratulations to those who have brought this article to FA status! JH (talk page) 09:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Quote subject.

Nice article and congratulations to those involved, but could you help me with the 1974 Frank Hampson quote box. Which feamale character is he discussing. Could that be included in the quote box. Thanks. FruitMonkey (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Peabody. I think someone deleted a section break which made that obvious, I've restored it and also clarified the quote. Parrot of Doom 14:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Cutaways

Mention might be made of The Eagle Annual of Cutaways 2008 ed by Daniel Tatarsky. The genre was quite important in children's literature from the Edwardian era to about the 1980s. The Odhams Press featured cutaways in a number of their books aboiut science and technology. Artists in the feild included Lesley Ashwell Wood, and R Barnard Way. Apwoolrich (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Another quote subject

It would be good to say to what the Sunday Dispatch quote refers. Presumably it's not The Eagle but one of the existing comics that Moris didn't like.Hybrid2712 (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Problems in opening sentence

1. "was" is not the way we normally use tenses for things that still exist but are no longer current, like old films and books. We normally use "is" if they still exist.
2. "seminal" is a breach of WP:PEACOCK, given that the word does not recur in the article and there seems to be unsourced POV. --Dweller (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Your first point I have no opinion on, but are you really suggesting that this comic wasn't influential? Parrot of Doom 14:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that claims made in Wikipedia FAs need to be verified and avoid all taint of POV/PEACOCK. --Dweller (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing about the word seminal that expresses a point of view and there's nothing that suggests it's a peacock phrase. Eagle was a highly influential comic, the article clearly explains that. Here's another word for you - synonym. Parrot of Doom 19:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Using the word "seminal" expresses an opinion. Wikipedia does not have opinions. We can't call it "highly influential", "brilliant", "amazing" or "gobsmacking" either, unless we're expressing the opinion of a third party. --Dweller (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That's just your opinion. My opinion is different, as are the opinions of the sources used in this article. I suggest that rather than list words which aren't used in this article, you buy yourself a dictionary. Parrot of Doom 21:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Eh? What are you saying is my opinion? I've not offered any opinions. --Dweller (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

None worthy of note, in any case. Parrot of Doom 22:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Parrot, can you point to source, used in the article currently, that use the word "seminal" to describe the comic? As Dweller notes, Wikipedia text should not advance any opinion of its own, but it can attribute noteworthy opinions to highly reliable and respectable sources. So what do the sources say? --Jayron32 04:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

So there's a Wikipedia rule that only words which appear in sources may be used in articles? You know what, I can't be arsed. I'm not going on a trawl of sources for an article I wrote ages ago just to satisfy a couple of pedants who can't read plain English. Do what you want with it, I'm sick of this fucking place. Parrot of Doom 09:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to be unpleasant. Until that post, no-one has been offensive in this thread, except your comment last night that I chose to ignore. Are you really going to get upset and angry because two other Wikipedians are questioning a word in an article you wrote? --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

"Seminal" is just an adjective. We don't need a source using exactly the same adjective: this article is not a collection of quotations. According to definition A.4 in the OED, "seminal" means "containing the possibility of future development ... freq. used of books, work, etc., which are highly original and influential; more loosely: important, central to the development or understanding of a subject".[1] Another definition is "strongly influencing later developments". So we need sources supporting the assertion that Eagle was highly original and influential, and/or had a significant influence on later comics. It is not too difficult to find such sources, as that is plainly what Eagle did and indeed what it was intended to do (as were its brother and sister magazines. Girl, Robin and Swift).

But if you insist on sources for a statement that should be obvious when you read about its impact and legacy later in the article, Barker (1989) discusses Eagle (and other comics founded by Rev Marcus Morris) being "taken as a model for other publishers to follow", and Eagle and Girl ending the popularity of earlier horror comics;[2] and Sabin (1993) says that "Eagle put adventure firmly on the map, and inspired a plethora of imitators".[3] Sounds like a strong influence to me.

On the "was" or "is" point, would you say that Household Words "was" or "is" a weekly magazine? Clearly copies still exist, and no doubt there are reprints, but it has not been published weekly since 1859: it was (not is) a periodical. How about Today? Again, paper copies exist, but it is not published as a daily newspaper any more. Today was a newspaper; now it is a defunct newspaper. Compare The Riddle of the Sands, which is still a novel. On that basis, a discontinued comic like Eagle was a comic. -- Ferma (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Your comments on tense make sense, and I agree. I don't know if the issue is enshrined in MOS anywhere (bet it is!) but it seems sensible that periodicals should be treated in the way you suggest, lest it be misleading.

On the adjective, I'm thinking about your cogent arguments. I'll get back to you here. --Dweller (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think, on reflection, that the article includes solid sourced material on the legacy of Eagle's influence and the word is fine. Thanks for the reasoned response. --Dweller (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Broken citations

Some of the citations are broken—for instance:

• there are a number of "Moore 1977" cites, but the publication isn't listed.
• ditto for Moore & Hallwood 1998
• cites [22] Obituary: Mr Frank Hampson and [39] Crompton, Alastair have parameter errors

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I have a feeling that Moore 1977 are typos and should be Morris, but I'm mad busy at work right now so I'll check later this week if that's ok? Parrot of Doom 20:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)