Talk:Boom! Studios

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Damnation Crusade[edit]

I linked through to the entry just now but haven't created it (as it isn't out yet for one). Here are some details [1] [2] [3] and I have suggested here that a Warhammer 40,000 (comic book) is also started to cover this and previous publications. (Emperor 04:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

checkYThis looks to have been addressed, and the license passed on elsewhere since then.2pou (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Cosby Discussion[edit]

Recent Edits[edit]

There have been a number of recent attempts to remove information regarding Andrew Cosby, his status as Boom! Studios co-founder and contributions he has made to the company since its inception, despite numerous reputable sources citing the validity of this information, including Boom's own publications, where Mr. Cosby was listed as co-founder for years prior to his leaving the company in 2010, Andrew Cosby's wikipedia page [4] (which was originally established by Ross Richie (Boom's other co-founder and current CEO), various interviews with both co-founders, [5][6], and press from reliable sources both online and in print. [7][8][9] Even Bloomberg's Executive Report lists Andrew Cosby as Boom! Studios' co-founder. [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthsayer2012 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing so many references. I have reverted back to the revision including Mr. Cosby, and inserted a couple of these references.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 18:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. Truthsayer2012 (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More Inaccurate Edits[edit]

There have been repeated attempts to remove information regarding Andrew Cosby, his status as Boom! Studios co-founder and contributions he has made to the company since its inception. Andrew Cosby made clear his role as Boom! Studios co-founder in a recent interview with Wired, [11]in which he clearly states, "The company’s first book was Zombie Tales, which I created after a panicked phone call from Ross, who had agreed to do an anthology but was worried that it wouldn’t sell. So I came up with Zombie Tales right there on the spot, knowing that it would be creatively cool and financially less risky to do an anthology with a built-in audience. Plus, we had plenty of writer friends willing to do stories for us, so it was, if you’ll pardon the pun, a no-brainer. At the time, there wasn’t a glut of zombie stuff out there (believe it or not), so the book was a big success. But the company still needed real funding. Fortunately, my in-laws were running a brokerage firm at the time and were looking to invest in an interesting media venture. They wanted me to start a production company, but I convinced them to fund a comic book company instead. The rest, as they say, is history." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthsayer2012 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that editor Rossrichie, who identified himself in these two edits — edit 1 and edit 2 — as the Ross Ritchie connected with Boom!, was the one who first introduced Andrew Cosby into this article as Boom!'s co-founder in this edit. Since we cannot ever be sure that editors here are who they claim to be, this assertion cannot be used as a reliable source for the continued inclusion of Cosby in this article, but it is nonetheless suggestive of the best outcome of the current edit war (which must cease). @Truthsayer: Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes — ~~~~ — and please do not use ALL CAPITALS for headings (or pretty much anything else except the occasional acronym). — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that this is same Rossrichie who originally set up Andrew Cosby's wiki page, in which he listed Mr. Cosby as Boom's co-founder in this edit. It should be further noted that these continued edits by Njkaters have not only attempted to alter Mr. Cosby's co-founder status, but have actually removed any mention of him and his contributions to the company, all of which have been in place and properly sourced on this page for years. Truthsayer2012 (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Cosby[edit]

Here are some more sources citing Andrew Cosby's long-standing status as Boom! Studios co-founder: Comic Vine [12], Reuters [13], GeekWeek [14], Eureka wiki [15], Big Air Studios [16], Variety [17] and Comic Book Resources [18]. There are many others, and I am currently trying to find links to Boom's interior/indicia, which credited Mr. Cosby as co-founder for years. Truthsayer2012 (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Njkaters[edit]

Please stop making unnecessary edits to the Boom! Studios page. Your continued efforts to remove Andrew Cosby seem malicious and against Wikipedia standards and practices. If you have a problem with Mr. Cosby, please deal with it in another manner. Thank you. Truthsayer2012 (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected until March 8[edit]

I have protected this page until March 8 to allow parties to come to an agreement about this set of changes, which appears to be controversial seeing as this is the second edit war it has inspired. What you should do is discuss this change here on the talk page and try to develop a consensus about the change, perhaps with help from a request for comment, a couple of third opinions, or one of the options listed at WP:SEEKHELP. What not to do is wait until the protection expires and then continue to edit war over the issue, as that will only result in more trouble and possible blocks for one or more parties. For convenience I have created a section below for discussion to occur in, so please take advantage of it. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of changes[edit]

Please hold discussion about the set of changes mentioned in the section above in this section. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Cosby's status as Boom! Studios co-founder and his contributions to the company are well documented by a variety of reliable sources both online and in print, including Boom's own publications (where Mr. Cosby was listed as co-founder for years prior to his leaving the company), Andrew Cosby's wikipedia page [19] (which was originally established by Ross Richie, Boom's other co-founder and current CEO), various interviews with both co-founders, [20][21], and numerous trade publications. [22][23][24] Even Bloomberg's Executive Report lists Andrew Cosby as Boom! Studios' co-founder. [25] Truthsayer2012 (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more sources citing Andrew Cosby's long-standing status as Boom! Studios co-founder: Comic Vine [26], Reuters [27], GeekWeek [28], Eureka wiki [29], Big Air Studios [30], Variety [31] and Comic Book Resources [32]. There are many others, including Boom's interior/indicia, which credited Mr. Cosby as co-founder for years prior to his exiting the company. Truthsayer2012 (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Boom! Studios (aka Boom! Entertainment, Inc.) is a legal corporate entity, the personal opinions of Mr. Richie and Mr. Cosby with regard to how and when the company was founded are essentially irrelevant, as the the term "Founder" has legal definition and is granted to certain key shareholders when the company is first incorporated. In this particular case, I have been privy to Boom's legal documentation and can vouch that Andrew Cosby is indeed listed as a Founder in the Stock Purchase Agreement and the Investors Rights Agreement, two legally binding contracts, both of which were signed and agreed to by Mr. Cosby and Mr. Richie.Legallyblond1969 (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Njkaters: Edit summaries are not a substitute for talk page discussion in which you can explain why the edits you wish to make are proper under Wikipedia policy and provide reliable sources for your edits. Please discuss your changes here before making them so as to avoid an edit war. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on the changes - compared with the version before: [33] we've list some 75 references, the original titles have been removed, links to other Wikipedia articles have been removed and replaced with external links, there is now a focus on the digital comics, when the bulk of these were released in print (the digital releases should have been made a small section and most of the information should be on the relevant articles). I'm sorry to say that, while I appreciate the effort to make the text more prosey than listy, but it has degraded the overall quality of the article and would need some hefty hacking to get it back on track. (Emperor (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

checkYCreated subsections above for the history. Topic has been resolved in the article.2pou (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

Should this article title be changed to BOOM! Studios, since that's the way the company name is capitalized in the article? GoingBatty (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of BOOM! Studios publications?[edit]

Has this article gotten long enough to warrant the creation of a new article called List of BOOM! Studios publications (similar to List of Image Comics publications)? GoingBatty (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It needs it because the recent rewrite has pretty much done away with things like the original titles and replaced internal links (like the Warhammer comics, most of which have their own articles) with links to the digital comics (and focusing on the digital releases completely misrepresents how a lot of these comics were originally published). I'd suggest basing such a list on the lists before the rewrite where is here. (Emperor (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Changing external links to citations[edit]

Per WP:EL, "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article." I've noticed that this article contains many external links in the body. Are there any objections if I start converting these to citations using {{cite web}}? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KABOOM imprint[edit]

Is there any relation to KaBOOM! the non-profit org? I'm wondering how to distinguish between the two. Ranze (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Boom! Studios. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE Review[edit]

Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Award nominations[edit]

Though properly sourced, the Award nomination section is a bit lengthy. My question is - should it remain on the page? I would argue that list could be removed because they are only nominations, not actual awards won, thus not significantly notable. Plus there is an awards section right above it. Meatsgains (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boom! Studios. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boom! Studios. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Boom! Studios. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boom! Studios. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boom! Studios. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Boom! Studios. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from List of television series and films based on Boom! Studios publications[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no merge. Discussion was open for over a month, and no support was garnered. 2pou (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Trivialist has suggested the merge of List of television series and films based on Boom! Studios publications. That's not unreasonable but I'd rather have the list separate since Boom! Studios is already quite long. There are many equivalent standalone lists for other comics publishers such as List of television series and films based on Archie Comics publications, List of television series and films based on Harvey Comics publications and List of television series and films based on Dark Horse Comics publications (though this one is significantly longer) which indicates that this is a sensible way of organizing content. Pichpich (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Odd that any reasoning from the actual nominator isn't provided for review. I'd be interested in knowing the reasons for the nomination in the first place. Absent that info, though, I think I have to oppose a merger based on WP:NOTPAPER. Separate articles provide much cleaner navigation and presentation. I guess I might see the rationale looking at the list on its own since it's not too extensive, but looking at the main article here, a merged list would not give much weight to the the productions, and scrolling through the article as it stands now is already a pain. Adding more content is not going to help. If the main article was cleaned up, then I might support, but not until then. The current list is probably the cleanest and most valid WP:SPINOUT in the first place. -2pou (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Parent article is long enough. The article is 75kB where 60kB is enough to justify a WP:SPINOUT. DA1 (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reformatting Awards/Controversies Page[edit]

I'm working on editing the awards/nominations sections into a table

Also, in light of allegations of exploitative business[1] practices[2], particularly relating to the #PublishingPaidMe hashtag[3] and the Keanu Reeves Kickstarter[4], I think it would be helpful to add a controversies section.

References

  1. ^ Ukazu, Ngozi. "Tweet from Ngozi Ukazu".
  2. ^ Cooke, Stephanie. "Page Rates 2017". Creator Resource. Retrieved 4 September 2020.
  3. ^ Fleming, Liz. "Tweet from Liz Fleming, Giant Days inker".
  4. ^ Beaton, Kate. "Tweet from Kate Beaton". Twitter. Retrieved 4 September 2020.

HASBRO KAMEN RIDER BOOM STUDIO COMIC[edit]

masked rider dragon knight new rider shark Kamen Rider Golden Jaws Name Arthur Squadron Rangers Vs Kamen Rider Ventara Rider Ventara and A47 galaxy trust crossover 2400:AC40:610:AF27:B816:A5E6:9238:6084 (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are "#WeAreBoom!" and " "Push Comics Forward" campaigns still noteworthy?[edit]

The references to these two PR campaigns don't seem to me to add much to the article. Removing them would probably help move this article towards being able to remove the advertisement and puffery tags from the top. Does anyone object to their removal? Alternately, could someone rewrite them to make it more clear what their significance is? Klintron23 (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page rates controversy[edit]

Following the death of late Adventure Time artist Ian McGinty, many comics creators shared their stories of high-stress, low-pay comics gigs under the hashtag "#ComicsBrokeMe," which ended up trending. Some, notably Heidi MacDonald at The Beat and the Publishers Weekly podcast More to Come, noted that Boom! Studios was criticized for underpaying artists. ("The company that came in for the most naming and shaming was BOOM! Studios" she says at 15:25 in the podcast)

https://www.comicsbeat.com/cartoonists-death-inspires-comicsbrokeme-hashtag-and-a-call-for-better-working-conditions/ https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/podcasts/index.html?channel=2&podcast=1262

Previously, Boom! Studios was heavily criticized for paying low rates in page rate surveys published in 2015 and 2016 (https://fairpagerates.com/). The survey itself probably doesn't count as a reliable source, but MacDonald covered the 2016 numbers: https://www.comicsbeat.com/page-rates-whats-fair-is-fair-except-when-it-isnt/

I'm wondering whether this is noteworthy enough for inclusion in this article. It seems important, but while The Beat and MacDonald are generally considered reliable sources, I worry that her sourcing here is a little thin. Also, while there were a few other stories about the hashtag, others didn't highlight Boom! in particular. The fair page rate survey, which had a fairly small sample size, doesn't appear to have received a lot of coverage. David Harper also did a survey in 2015 (https://sktchd.com/longform/whats-the-life-of-a-comic-artist-like/), which MacDonald covered https://www.comicsbeat.com/being-a-cartoonist-by-the-numbers-and-the-numbers-are-ugly/

I'd feel more comfortable adding this if anyone else has any additional coverage from other reliable publications, as opposed to sourcing all of this to the coverage of one journalist, however highly respected she is. Klintron23 (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boom!_Studios&oldid=1206373744"