This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Cleveland, the scope of which includes Cleveland and the Greater Cleveland Area. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.ClevelandWikipedia:WikiProject ClevelandTemplate:WikiProject ClevelandCleveland articles
While interesting, this does not meet the criteria of WP:RS. Dlabtot (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. I don't know what a "coatrack" is. What I put in here is a bibliography. If you want to add to it. go ahead. If you have some problem about how Fred Schrier is credited, change that, but don't delete the entire bibliography. I don't see the problem; Sheridan hardly did any work without Schrier, and where he worked with anyone else, I added that too. If you think the bibliography should be organized differently, say so. I see no reason for the work he did as half ofd the team of Sheridan & Schrier to not be listed as such any more than the work of Martin & Lewis or any other team.
2. The rules for reliable sources would apply if I was trying to back up some controversial fact, or any fact I guess. All I've done is include a link to an obituary of the subject of the article by his long-time partner. It is the ONLY obituary I have found, and the ONLY published comments by Schrier about his partner's passing. I have merely included it under "references", not used it as a citation or to back up a statement or anything else. If you think it belongs in a special section marked "obituaries", or under "external links", say so. But there is no reason to delete the obituary that I can see. It's just a link to a pdf with the text and artwork by Sheridan & Shrier.JuliusAaron (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the Way, Fred Schrier already has an article, as you could have noted by the blue link on his name in this article. Schrier has less credits as a cartoonist, but he's illustrated at least three children's books, and has been the animator for the Cleveland Indians' scoreboard.JuliusAaron (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am challenging this material as not being verifiable to a reliable source. I thought this was the source for the bibliography. OK, if not, what is the source of the bibliography? Is it really complete? The article would be better with no bibliography rather than an unsourced, incomplete one. It would be perfectly acceptable to link to Changeling Times in the external links section, imho. Dlabtot (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see. I've moved the Obit to a section of it's own, and added a few citations/references to support the comics Sheridan has worked on. One of them is a library list from Michigan State University, with some items not yet entered into the bibliography, but I'll have to look it over another time. Its a bit confusing, and I'm not sure what's a comic and what's a story IN a comic.
However, I don't agree about "no bibliography unless its guaranteed complete". Most bibliographies are incomplete, at least at first, and various editors add to them as they find unincluded items or as new works or collections come out. (And I don't see a lot of bibliographies with sources cited for them.) Please don't just take it down immediately because you don't think it's complete, and rob editors of the chance to improve it.JuliusAaron (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
