Talk:Hungarian comics

DYK

Thanks for putting this article into the DYK section! I hope some people found the page interesting. Zoli79 (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Imports/translations

Do I understand it correctly that comics were imported from Europe and sold on the black market? Did they get any kind of translation? Could the audience really understand what was written? (For readers who are not aware of this, I'd need to mention that Hungarian is quite distinct from most major European languages.) 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Vaillant (later Pif Gadget) was sold legally on newsstands, since it was (is?) part of a communist newspaper/periodical group. Many kids studied French in schools, but not as much as who bought these magazines. Later, in the Eighties many of the Vaillant/Pif series were translated into Hungarian in magazines like Kockás, Hahota, Pajtés.

Danish and Finnish (maybe even Swedish - sources differ) companies printed their American superhero comics in Hungary. Some copies "escaped" from the factory and were traded or sold on the black market. Of course no one understood them. Finnish is related to Hungarian, but you have to be a scholar on the topic to discover the similarities. And compulsory Russian classes didn't help either... But these comics were still popular, since no superhero comics were allowed at the time. A friend of mine loved Spindelmannen, but in 1989 when he first read an issue in Hungarian never read another one, because it was so much different from what he had imagined into the Scandinavian versions. The magic has disappeared. :)

Should any of this topic be cleared up in the article?Zoli79 (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think so. It'd be interesting. Seems the magic of the comics manifested from something that was different/exotic and forbidden. Spindelmannen is Swedish, btw, the Finnish name is Hämähäkkämies. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In Hungarian it's Pókember, that's how similar these languages are... :) Zoli79 (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Pókem - spider, ber - man? In Finnish, it's "Hämähäkkä - spider, mies - man", although my Finnish consists of just a few scattered words and phrases. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Pók-spider, ember-man (both male and female). Zoli79 (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Aah. Now that you mention it, I remember reading in my Swedish 80's comic books that they were printed in Hungary. Of course, the Swedish publisher could well be owned by another company. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK I assessed it. It is looking really solid on the coverage/writing front and has plenty images as illustration. Where it needs more work is on the referencing. It is thin but acceptable in the early years but from "The last decade of communist Hungary" there is only one inline reference and that is a big swath of time to have unreferenced. I think from a practical/aesthetic front that footnote should also be removed from the history section. I'd suggest putting those into a general reference section and perhaps refer to them in footnotes. I'm confident that the sourcing should be addressable and if sort that out and perhaps "thicken" up the referencing throughout the actual content of the article is solid enough that you can push on to an A easily and then start the process of polishing it up to get the higher grades. Once this round of B-class assessments is over I'd be happy to flag the points that I think really need referencing but all those sections on the modern history need sourcing so there are things that can be done in general and I'll come back and see how things are working out (give me a nudge though if I don't show up). (Emperor (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

Thanks, your comment is very useful! I admit I was a bit lazy about precise referencing in those chapters. I gave one big reference, where every info can be found, I know its not an elegant solution... Zoli79 (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that isn't going to tick the box for "all major points are appropriately cited" because the answer might be in the broad reference works quoted but people would have to then go through them looking for the fact. That said the tricky bit is done as it looks to be good solid coverage of the topic. If you work through and source the major points then it is going to be set up well for pushing on to higher classes (and I can't see why it can't go all the way to the top). As I say I will will swing back and give more detailed feedback and input once the B-class assessment period is over but it sounds like you already have a good idea of what needs doing and there is no rush. (Emperor (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

OK. I've packed a bunch of exact references in the article (and expanded, corrected it a bit). With the nineties I had some problems, because there are not too many written sources to refer to, but I tried my best with this period. Please let me know, what are the fields to work some more on. Thanks! Zoli79 (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Great work it has really come on. The main stumbling block is that such big topics as this needs an awful lot of referencing. It is definitely getting there but there are statements that still need sourcing. Things like "In 1996 Marvel went bankrupt and drastically raised the royalties collected upon translations" are claims that can't be made without a good source. If you'd like, when I have more time I'll go through and flag the things I see which need sourcing. Really just keep throwing in more references - it is well on uts way. (Emperor (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC))

Thanks! I found a source for the Marvel royalty issue, and fixed that one. But, as you said, there must be some other ones needing references. If you would tag these, that would be a lot of help. Zoli79 (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge I'll go through and flag things now.

Some general thoughts - it is looking good. It is clearly a big subject and so it is always a long haul and it is shaping up nicely. Some broad concerns:

• The lists of notable creators and titles are unsourced and it is unclear if this is original research/opinion. It is a problem I have seen at articles like Bronze Age of Comic Books and, unless you can get a source and criteria (like they have on Silver Age of Comic Books), it is wide open to people throwing their own favourites in (doesn't seem to be a problem but that kind of thing is just a sign there is an underlying problem with the lists). Without a source, the best approach is to make sure that the important people/titles are mentioned in the relevant sections with sources, it also has the upside of making the text less listy.
• From the 2000s onwards, referencing is a little thin so anything anyone could do there would be worthwhile (as it is more recent you'd hope there would be more sources available).
• I see at least one wiki is being used as a reference [1]. While there is no blanket ban on that you'd have to make sure it is a closed wiki, hopefully with registered and authorised editors working on it.
• The section on the vicious circle of modern comics could do with a reference but it'd be handy to have a sentence or two before the list starts to lead into it.
• On WT:CMC I mentioned, in passing, the idea that we might need a "country comics" infobox - would this be useful here? If so have you any thoughts on what might be needed? If this seems a good idea then I'll start a separate discussion on the topic.

So just general thoughts. I'll run through the article now. (Emperor (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

That infobox is now here: {{Infobox comics nationality}} (Emperor (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

OK done. I did a little copy editing and tweaked some sentences so they worked better (they should be double-checked that to make sure I got the gist of things right) but there were some where I was unsure of the meaning so I thought I'd note them here:

• "Although it did not meet the Pioneer Association's concept and ordered the editorial to drastically reduce the number of comic pages in the magazine." I am not 100% sure but perhaps "and they ordered" but "concept" probably needs changing, perhaps to "ideas" or "plans"?
• "while another major accusation was that comics in general brake reading habits" - perhaps... "disrupt reading habits" or "restrict reading habits"?
• "Magazine print numbers dropped by 1 or 2 decimal points." - orders of magnitude? i.e. did they go from 10,000 to 1,000 or even 100?

Also the long paragraph on Kepregeny.net seems excessive unless there are third party sources attesting to its significance. The sections on the recent developments could probably be thinned down as there seems to be a lack of sources to support so much coverage and I suspect, from some of the footnotes, there might not be information on some aspects (hopefully, something that will be addressed soon - there is mention of a book).

Content-wise it is really good - from not knowing anything about the topic I definitely feel I have come away with a good general idea of how things developed and how the tides of history have impacted developments. Scatter some more references through there and you should be looking good (Emperor (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

Thanks a lot! You gave many bones to chew on for a few weeks/months (including answering some of the thoughts you wrote above). :) As for the cited sentences: you got the gist of them. (Oh, "orders of magnitude"! I did not know the correct English expression for that one. Thanks again!) Zoli79 (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK cool. I should say I am not 100% sure if "disrupt"/"restrict" is the right term (perhaps "retard" or "inhibit" might be it) - I'm still mulling that one over. (Emperor (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

OK, I went through the unreferenced statements and found sources for them. I would be happy to hear some thoughts about them. (Oh, the wiki pages given as sources are from a project dedicated to Hungarian comics bibliographies. The pages can only be edited by registered users, known personally by the admins. At the moment it is the most accurate source on comics published in periodicals. Maybe I should write some general sentences about the sources given?) Lists: I think they stand on solid ground in its present form - at least in the history chapter. But I have a big problem regarding the publication lists in chapters 3. Recent Hungarian creations and 4. Current scene: first of all, they need some updating, since I wrote those down a year+ ago, but second of all, it might not be worth it, since these are admittedly (my) own research. There's no source that could state, what are today's important publications, and what are not. I could find sources for a few publications, but not for all. On one side, I thought a list would be helpful for those not familiar with the topic, but on the other side, it can't be sourced properly. So, if they're going to be deleted, I'm not going to bother updating them. :) Any ideas? Zoli79 (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

OK I bumped it up to a B - nice work there it is a solid and informative article. A couple of quick thoughts:

• There is now a new template for articles on comics in countires which you can drop in: {{Infobox comics nationality}} (I added one to British comics if you need an example of it in use)
• I agree with your assessments of the problematic bits, in particular "List of Hungarian comics distributed in bookstores" and "List of Hungarian comics with alternative distribution" could probably be removed. If youa re going to do a list of Hungarian comics thne it'd be better to do a separate one as such lists can be based on someone's opinion and that can result in someone dropping by saying "yes but what about X?" (which is why "selected bibliographies" tend not to work onc reator's pages as there is no clear criteria for inclusion).
• It might be worth getting a couple of editors to read it through just to give the text a bit of a polish (I gave one sentence a quick tweak but I suspect there are others that might benefit from a quick copy edit). Not a deal breaker though.
• There may be a thin area in the coverage but nothing stands out and if someone spots anything that is missing, well they can add it in.

So nothing major and it is in pretty good shape - as with other articles where it doesn't quite make the B because of some areas, it is really solid in others1. It shouldn't be a vast amount of work to get it up to a standard where you could aim for a GA nomination. I'd get some extra sets of eyes to check it out and give it a polish and then consider having it peer reviewed to see if there is anything that needs doing to bring it up to a GA standard.

Anyway great work, a well-deserved B there. (Emperor (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Thanks a lot!

• I know about the template, and I'm planing to use it. (It's going to be hard to chose the right picture, artists, publications, etc. that represent the topic.)
• Yes, I guess removing those lists in the second half of the article would work better. The scene got much wider since 1989, lists complete important lists are impossible to make. What are important, will somehow find their place in the text anyhow...
• I agree on copy editing. Unfortunately I don't speak and write in English as frequently as I used to, so I'm sure faults are made inevitably.
• If you or someone else points out areas of thin coverage, I would expand those parts, but I can't count on someone filling in the gaps since basically I've been the only one writing this article since it has been born - apart from copy editing.

Thanks again for your special attention! Zoli79 (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Current scene (Kultiplex)

Section contains the sentence "They are usually held in kArton galéria or on the terrace of Kultiplex."

Kultiplex (the original 9th district location) closed down as of February 28 2008, has another place opened up with the same name? If not, reference should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.214.112 (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

True. Thanks for reminding me! The place closed down since I wrote that sentence. The club's summer gatherings moved over to Szimpla kert (kArton still functions as the "headquarter", giving place to the club in the winter or in the case of more exquisite guests/topics). Zoli79 (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hungarian comics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320124606/http://forum.kepregeny.net/topic/437-mai-magyar-rajzolok/page__st__525__p__297955&#entry297955 to http://forum.kepregeny.net/topic/437-mai-magyar-rajzolok/page__st__525__p__297955&#entry297955
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120801145642/http://forum.kepregeny.net/forum/52-2005/ to http://forum.kepregeny.net/forum/52-2005/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320124537/http://forum.kepregeny.net/forum/59-2006/ to http://forum.kepregeny.net/forum/59-2006/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)