Talk:Thrud the Barbarian

Being cited as a source

Nothing in particular to add to this, except to note how strange it is to be cited as a source for something on Wikipedia... RobC (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Legacy?

I don't really understand the "Legacy" section. I've checked out the references given but they cast no extra light on the matter. (Emperor 19:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC))

The references are reviews of the comics in question which comment on Critchlow's developing artistic style which, as mentioned previously in the article, he first experimented with in Thrud. See the review of Out of the Undercity in particular since that was his first post-Thrud story. There is more to come to explain this, but I can't devote the time this week. Feel free to add something yourself now you know the intention. GDallimore (Talk) 09:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dates

Just a quick comment on reading the article - dates should not be wikilinked unless they are given in full (ie day+month+year) - this is not so much about making the date clickable (though it does that of course) but more about allowing WP to display them in the preference format set by users. I'd go through and remove the links, but I don't have time right now, so I'll check back at some point & if it's not been taken care of I'll do it then. Enjoyed this article as a White Dwarf reader from the 80s - good work ;) EyeSerene^TALK 18:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but what? All the dates agree with the MoS as far as I can tell. Years and decades are linked on their own and no month on its own without a day is linked. I can't see where the problem is. GDallimore (Talk) 07:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, do you mean that in a couple of places I've used [[year-month-day]] format rather than [[month-day]] [[year]]. I thought that was correct until recently and will go through correcting that. GDallimore (Talk) 07:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion - I was in a bit of a rush and wasn't specific enough with my comments. I was referring to:

• Date formatting - this explains how to write dates that have a day, month and year so that they display correctly according to the reader's preferences; it looks like you've already got this sorted. The YYYY-MM-DD notation (I think) is generally used in templates eg for footnotes or references - but this is Wikipedia, so nothing's consistent ;)
• Partial dates - this by no means universal, but many editors think that linking years alone (without an accompanying day and month) adds nothing to the text and detracts from the readability of an article. As per WP:CONTEXT, if the linked date is not directly relevant to the article itself (eg providing more information about the subject or related subjects), I would not link such dates at all. As a copyeditor I tend to remove these from articles I work on... but like I said, it's a preference not a rule ;)

Hope this clarifies things! EyeSerene^TALK 09:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the old "context" rules. It's always a tricky call. I agree that I probably have overdone it. From the perspective that only the first example of a word should be wikilinked, the article needs work and I'll do that. However, I guess I'd take the position that a year where something important happened in the history of Thrud is a year that should be linked, and that's most of them. I'll get rid of years like the 2001 for the infobox picture since that's not a notable date, really. GDallimore (Talk) 09:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I'd argue that, turning the link on its head, from the historical perspective of say 1981 the creation of Thrud is not a notable event and wouldn't deserve a mention in that year's listing. However it's entirely your call of course - I'm not on a crusade, it just jumped out at me when I read the article. Thanks for the feedback, and all the best with the article. EyeSerene^TALK 09:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should get involved in the relevant wikiproject, since I'm finding this scarily interesting. :) Sadly this is not the best place for such a discussion. However, I would say that "context" is about the context of the article that is doing the linking, not the context of the year as a whole so it would be inappropriate to turn the question on its head as you suggest. Of course, linking from 1981 to here would be wrong for the reasons you give! As an analogy, it is right and proper to link from this article to "comics" but probably not appropriate to link from comics to here since it is not a hugely important comic in the scheme of things. GDallimore (Talk) 09:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point, and back-linking is not always a good rule of thumb: wikilinking the names of countries would fall under the same criteria, and I don't really see a problem with this. It just seems to me that linking to a year is only contextually relevant in the most tenuous sense unless that article is about a significant event that would normally be associated with that year. For that matter, personally I wouldn't link full dates either if it were not for the display preferences requirement ;) My main objection is that, when a reader clicks on a linked year, they are taken to a page that is basically just a list of (fairly) random events, births, deaths etc... and this (whilst being great for wikisurfing) is not likely to improve their understanding of the original article. EyeSerene^TALK 10:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My last comment, and then I'll shut up. I think that linking to a random collection of events that happened in a given year can be useful for the very reason that it provides context. What else was happening in the world at the time and what things might have influenced this particular event/book/film/whatever? We normally can't put such things directly into an article without it being OR but we can give the reader the option to read up on it themselves and make their own synthesis should they wish. Now, this is probably more likely to be useful for history and politics related articles, but that shouldn't exclude less serious articles from presenting such an opportunity. Other than that, I agree that wikilinking "day-months" would normally be overkill if it weren't for date formatting. GDallimore (Talk) 11:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Righto - thanks again for the feedback, and again good luck with the article. EyeSerene^TALK 11:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The only problem I see in this article is that the lead could be expanded, but that's not really a big issue. This article looks ready for FAC, you people did a nice job! Anyway, it passes all Good Article criteria.^Mitch32^contribs 21:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Note concerning sources

copied from FAC so it doesn't get lost as it took me forever to go back over the sources.

Concerning sources. Many of them are non-mainstream and minor, but that is because they are part of a network of British small, independent press titles. Nevertheless, care has been taken to select only the best sources or to select sources which clearly accurately verify the information in the article. Taking them source by source

TRS2 - online version of a long running small publication review magazine (TRS, The Review Sheet) and part of the bugpowder network, formerly a comics distributor (see British_small_press_comics#The_1990s). Although in blog format, it has a long term editor in the form of Jez Higgins who commissions reviews. Indeed, the particularly review being linked was written by Jez Higgins. This editorial oversight makes it a reliable source particularly in the context that the source is being used for personal opinions about the Thrud comics.

Bulletproof Comics - website has had a significant overhaul, but at the time was a comic book resource under the auspices of editor Matt Yeo who commissioned reviews. This editorial oversight makes it a reliable source particularly in the context that the source is being used for personal opinions about the Thrud comics.

The Ninth Art - website has had a significant overhaul, but at the time was a comic art resource with regular contributors and editorial oversight. This editorial oversight makes it a reliable source particularly in the context that the source is being used for personal opinions about the Thrud comics.

2000AD Review - website is now shut down but for many years posted reviews of every 2000AD issue commissioned by editor Gavin Hanly. Although independent of 2000AD is appears it was supported by Rebellion Developments, the publishers of 2000AD. This official support combined with the editorial oversight makes it a reliable source particularly in the context that the source is being used for personal opinions about the Thrud comics.

3dtotal - the source is an interview with Carl Critchlow and is being used to confirm facts about Carl Critchlow's inspiration, so must be a reliable source in that context.

Grand Comics Database - this site was only being used to provide online confirmation of the contents of published issues of White Dwarf. The references have been rephrased to make White Dwarf the source with the GCD being merely a url as part of the reference.

GameHobby.net - site was being used to provide online confirmation of the contents of published issues of Warrior. The references have been rephrased to make Warrior the source with the site being merely a url as part of the reference.

Forbidden Planet - These were being used merely to provide images of the front cover of the Thrud comics. The references have been rephrased to make the comics the source and to link to FP only as an online image.

Strike to Stun - another defunct website, but at the time provided reviews written by regular commentators under the auspices of editor Natascha Chrobok. This editorial oversight makes it a reliable source particularly in the context that the source is being used for personal opinions about the Thrud comics.

Collecting Citadel Miniatures wiki - the link is to a collection of photos of Thrud miniatures, and is therefore easily confirmed as providing reliable information. In particular, the wiki is only being used to provide a date of production of an early thrud miniature and the source gives its source for that piece of information: it is written on the bottom of the miniature itself.

Heresy Miniatures - the source is being used for information about their own production line and must be a reliable source in that context.

GDallimore (Talk) 12:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Limara and Lymara

Limara was a body spray advertised on TV with a fantasy themed cartoon which you can view here. At the time Thrud was being published, everyone knew full well Lymara was named after Limara. Try to find anybody born before the 1980s named Limara or Lymara or look up the meaning on one of those baby name websites or books. It won't be there. Although Limara Garhi is a place in Pakistan it was not a personal name with an I or a Y before the perfume and the Thrud character, for whom Critchlow slightly changed the spelling, presumably for real or imagined trademark reasons. Paul S (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's just a coincidence and therefore WP:CHALLENGE applies, so you need to prove it. Do you think anyone would challenge that To-Me Ku-Pa is deliberately a reference to Tommy Cooper? No! You'll also note that all of the other deliberate references in the comic are far more subtle than simply changing one letter.

Having said all that, I'm going to go over my white Dwarf back catalogue to see if I can find support for this claim. GDallimore (Talk) 12:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Thrud the Barbarian/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

== Good article review == Is it reasonably well written? A. Prose quality: B. MoS compliance: Is it factually accurate and verifiable? A. References to sources: B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: C. No original research: Is it broad in its coverage? A. Major aspects: B. Focused: Is it neutral? Fair representation without bias: Is it stable? No edit wars, etc: Does it contain images to illustrate the topic? A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Overall: Pass or Fail: The only problem I see in this article is that the lead could be expanded, but that's not really a big issue. This article looks ready for FAC, you people did a nice job! Anyway, it passes all Good Article criteria.Mitch32contribs 21:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. The lead has now been extended to summarise the legacy section in the article. GDallimore (Talk) 16:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 08:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Thrud the Barbarian. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thrudthebarbarian.com/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403041344/http://www.2000adreview.co.uk/reviews/extra/2004/trades/batmandredd/batmandredd.shtml to http://www.2000adreview.co.uk/reviews/extra/2004/trades/batmandredd/batmandredd.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061012222653/http://www.2000adreview.co.uk/reviews/2002/1313review.shtml to http://www.2000adreview.co.uk/reviews/2002/1313review.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061012222658/http://www.2000adreview.co.uk/reviews/2002/1315review.shtml to http://www.2000adreview.co.uk/reviews/2002/1315review.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061012222751/http://www.2000adreview.co.uk/reviews/2003/1342review.shtml to http://www.2000adreview.co.uk/reviews/2003/1342review.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061012223418/http://www.2000adreview.co.uk/reviews/2003/1349review.shtml to http://www.2000adreview.co.uk/reviews/2003/1349review.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061012221817/http://www.2000adreview.co.uk/reviews/2004/2000ad_1411_review.shtml to http://www.2000adreview.co.uk/reviews/2004/2000ad_1411_review.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061012221247/http://www.2000adreview.co.uk/reviews/2006/2000ad_1482_review.shtml to http://www.2000adreview.co.uk/reviews/2006/2000ad_1482_review.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 05:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Thrud the Barbarian. 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/20070927051449/http://www.gamehobby.net/white_dwarf_magazine/white_dwarf_045.html to http://www.gamehobby.net/white_dwarf_magazine/white_dwarf_045.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061120135540/http://www.bugpowder.com/trs2/004377.html to http://www.bugpowder.com/trs2/004377.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070429124344/http://www.solegends.com/citle/citle1990/numbered/le104ThruddScratch.htm to http://www.solegends.com/citle/citle1990/numbered/le104ThruddScratch.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928004100/http://heresyminiatures.com/forumofdoom/index.php?topic=5211.100 to http://heresyminiatures.com/forumofdoom/index.php?topic=5211.100
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.heresyminiatures.com/images/pages/resinthrud1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522195745/http://www.comicsbulletin.com/real/106214875580993.htm to http://www.comicsbulletin.com/real/106214875580993.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 04:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)