Talk:Annual publication

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Annual publication article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Comics Low‑importance

	Comics portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article needs a bit more work, both phrasing and content. It came from a (legitimate) cut and paste move from Annual.

I don't know where the list of collectible annuals came from. I suspect it might be more than a little biased towards British boys' weeklies, and incomplete even then... if Eagle and Rupert are collectible, then I'd guess so are Lion, Tiger, and even Robin and June. Andrewa 10:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not sure how to work this in...

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

...but the British section rather gives the impression to the casual reader that annuals are no longer very popular. This Daily Telegraph story goes against that, saying: "In 1998 around 1.1 million annuals were sold at Christmas. Last year the figure was 2.2 million." Loganberry (Talk) 16:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've tried to work it in - what do you think? ChrisTheDude 16:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

They are two different genres: comic annuals and literary annuals (also called gift books). --LA2 (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Image copyright problem with Image:Rotr-annual.JPG

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The image Image:Rotr-annual.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wounded national pride?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The second paragraph on British annuals has a sentence (which looks inserted) about how German publications were already doing this. The grammar doesn't really scan (before the previous sentence and following a comma would be much better), there are no examples given and I'm not sure this sentence fits under the heading "British annuals" unless someone is trying to make a point.

I would suggest a separate section on German annuals listing some of the relevant publications and dates, though I don't know these so am unable to create this section myself without using weasel words like "are believed to have been".