Talk:Comics/Archive 1

message: This page was archived on 22:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: If Fumetti is the english term for comics based on photographics, and fotonovelas another word for the same think, shouldn't it be wise to have one single page (Fumetti) with redirects from fotnovellas to it ? Lvr 14:33, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fumetti vs Fotonovelas

message: Anyway, here's something else to chew on that I'd sort of noticed before but hadn't quite managed to articulate:
    "Comics (sometimes spelled comix) is an art form..."
Now, is the first thing that people should know about comics is that it's an "art form" or a "medium"?  Sure it can be BOTH, but which is primary?
That is, an "art form" alludes to the good stuff, the canon, (or canons), while a "medium" also refers to the other 99%.  The telephone is a medium, but few would call it an art form -- and yet conversation can be an art and some telephone conversations probably are too.
Of mediums and art forms, 'medium' is the more abstract term.  Whereas art forms are the quintessence of "ought to be".  Surely we comics buffs prefer the art form to the medium, or is there some sort of McCluhan style meta-esthetic going one here, where mediums are like musical instruments each with their own special moods...
Also I'm thinking parts of the present article should be moved to Wiktionary definitions.  British usages, for example.
(BTW: I wrote "going on 30" but meant "30+".  D'oh!)
AC -11/12/04
*OK, I've edited it to say both. Tverbeek 01:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Art form vs. medium

message: *AC commented: Reverted to 'stand-up'. Googling for "comics the performers" showed no other online usage.
*What does that prove, except that it's not a widely use phrase?  (Did you google for "comics the art form" or "comics the medium"?)  It's a meaningful way of distinguishing that kind of "comic" from the other kind of "comics" being discussed in this article.  (Tjough on further consideration, I think "entertainer" would be a better distinction.)  Stand-up comedy may be the most common variety, but not every comic does it.  This is why the phrase "stand-up comic" exists: to distinguish the variety of comic who gets up on stage and tells jokes, from the kind of comic who does improv, or slapstick, or talk shows, or sitcoms, or movies, etc. Tverbeek 01:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Other "comics"

message: I am at a loss at the claim that describing the traditional comic book format as a "pamphlet" is disparaging.  It seems to me like a value-neutral description of the format, and more accurate than "magazine."  Indeed, in the history of the US comic book industry, the distinction between coimic books and magazines is important (re: the applicabilty of the comics code, postal rates, and distribution networks).  I suggest that the decription be reverted to "pamphlet," unless somebody can find a still more precise term.  In any case, I'd appreciate it if the person who so quickly reverted that would explain why he or she thinks "pamphlet" is disparaging--maybe there's something I'm missing.--BTfromLA 04:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pamphlet or Magazine?

message: I reverted this edit because I think the information is not best placed on this page, and is covered better on Comic book collecting Hiding 20:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comic Collecting

message: There was recently some discussion about this article over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics, and I thought I'd post the suggestions I made there also here: Okay, just from the first couple of sections:
*Why is there a logo for comics?
*I personally prefer the explainaition from Comic over the first sentence of Comics, because comics don't necessesary need text.
*The paragraph about comics in different languages might be more fitting in the Etymology section.
*What's so signifacant about  Gary Groth renaming The Nostalgia Journal to The Comics Journal?
*In the Definition section, a little explaination of what Will Eisner's Comics and Sequential Art actually is would be nice, before saying that it doesn't define the term.
*The 20th Century sections seems pretty much focused on US comics.
*Several sections use Capitalisations that should be avoided (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Capitalisation)
*The article needs more images
As I said before, I didn't read the entire article yet, I'm sure there are some more things to improve. --Fritz S. 09:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How to improve the article

message: Is there a source for this claim? Originally used to illustrate caricatures and to entertain through the use of amusing and trivial stories, Topffer and Hogarth are usually regarded as one of the originators of comics, and I question the validity of the claim in the context of their work. Hiding  talk 11:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that "originally" here refers to the "American origin" of comics at the end of the 19th century, rather than Topffer and Hogarth... Maybe we should append it to the last sentence of the lead: "[...] originated in the United States in the late 19th century, where they were originally used to illustrate caricatures and to entertain through the use of amusing and trivial stories [...]", or something like that. --Fritz S. 14:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: From the lead

message: Um ... it's the 21st century now -- aside from the R. Crumb exhibit, is there nothing noteworthy fromt he last five years? I was about to split the 2005 entry off into a 21st century heading, but decided to wait, as Crumb's workis 20th century, even if the exhibit wasn't. Scix 05:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. There's a bit that could be said about the rise of the graphic novel as a format, with book publishers coming into the field, and also the recent runb of films based on comics, but again that all happened in the latter part of the 20th and this forming period of the 21st. Hiding  talk 13:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 21st Century

message: Have somebody read the Donald Duck stories by Giulio Chierchini that includes the character Little Gum? These stories often have very special colors. How is these colors made? By using computer or is it done by hand? It is a long time since I have read some of the stories, and I can't find any examples of them on the net. One of the very few examples on Giulio Chierchini was this image; http://www.fumetti.org/img/chierchi.jpg .
:I wouldn't be surprised if he first did a b/w outline with ink, (sketching out the rest of the page, like the tower and walls in the picture) and later painting the scenery with oil paint or acrylic paint or something. But that's just a qualified guess. 惑乱 分からん 19:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Giulio Chierchini

message: I am impressed by the quality of the article - inline references are a good thing. With some expantion and copyedit I think we could push this article towards GA/PR/FA. But for now, there is one gaping whole: almost nothing about comic culture, comic fandom and comic store. See this excellent book for more info.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we've got Comic book collecting and Direct Market, which kind of cover similar bases, but yeah, I can see articles on those topics.  Not sure about the POV of that book though.  There's a few other good articles and works kicking about as well. Hiding  talk 22:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have names/links to those other articles? I would be interested in reading them. Btw, do you know any good publications that can be used to expand the hobby shop and game club articles?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom Spurgeon has written on Team Comics a few times, one of his essays is up at the Comics Journal website, that's the best you'll get this time of night. There'll be more in the Journal, see also the comics research bibliography. Hope that helps. Hobby shop and game club I am clueless on. Hiding  talk 23:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tnx for the tips!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing: Comic book culture

message: Comments on new category appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Category talk:Comics]]

message: Can anyone rephrase the sentence "However, it is worth noting that both definitions are lacking, in that the first excludes any sequence of wordless images; and the second excludes single panel cartoons such as editorial cartoons"? As it is, it seems awkward. Most who use the words/picture definition are probably willing to admit that there are cases where words aren't necessary (Marvel's 'Nuff Said month, for instance). However, those who say comics are sequential often intend to exclude single panel cartoons. Thus, that statement comes off as something like saying the definition of a cat as a domesticated feline is lacking because that definition excludes dogs.
:I can't quite understand your point.  Why does it need rephrasing, if it is verifiable?  The cats and dogs analogy makes no sense, given neither definition has primacy and given proponents of both definitions have made the criticisms presented against the competing definition.  R.C. Harvey has clearly stated the flaws with both definitions.  I can't quite see what is awkward, and I can't see that we can ignore stated flaws on the basis that maybe those supporting the definition believe as you state.  On what do you base your view that whilst one side is rather fluid, the other is rather rigid in their respective definitions?  Hiding Talk 15:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phrasing regarding definition 

message: I was just wondering if Trajan's Column deserves a mention an a precedent for more modern comic form? The spiral reliefs certainly qualify as a sequential graphical story. Gaius Cornelius 16:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trajan's Column

message: I'm not an academic but I'm a long time comic reader and I took my share of art classes in college. I've read Understanding Comics, but I don't have any impressive citations; my opinions are mostly formed from my understanding of common usage and from what I've read in this and other articles on Wikipedia. What I'm about to comment on is in relation to a few different points brought up in different places, but wouldn't as a whole fit in response to any particular point.
It seems to me the entry for "Sequential art" should be revived and should be used as a collective term for all comic-like media. By "comic-like" I mean media that portray narratives through a succession of images. This excludes all single panel illustrations (e.g. many political cartoons, the Far Side) because they can only depict a scene- they're not really any more narrative than a traditional single-scene painting. 
This definition emphasizes the narrative aspect of "sequential art" which I think is important. I'd argue that sequential art is primarily a form of literature. It's somewhat unique in that it relies on pictures as much as, or more than it relies on words. But if you plotted literature on a graph, you'd have a continuum between literature with all words, and IMHO literature with all illustrations. At one end you'd have lengthy books with unillustrated covers, then you'd have books like Lord of the Rings with a few illustrations and maps, then more heavily illustrated books with many pictures, most comic books which rely more or less evenly on text and picture, children's books which tend to emphasize the illustrations over the text, and finally at the other end you'd have stories told entirely with images.
Obviously the attention to the detail of the visual art inherent in most sequential art makes it an important part of the work, but I'd argue that visual art is subsumed into the larger literary work in the same way theatrical productions incorporate props, backdrops and costumes. And like drama (a form of literature) becomes a performing art when it is acted out, sequential art becomes a performing art when it is animated.
So if we revive the entry for sequential art, what happens to the entry on "comics"? In the US "comic" and "comic book" are synonyms. I think the two entries should be merged (someone already suggested on the "comic book" discussion page). And the merged entry should be described as a medium because like newspapers and magazines, comic books are a kind of periodical. This would require changes to the "comics" entry. For one thing, the reference to comic strips, 15th century Europe and ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics need to be removed because they're not a kinds of comic books. I'll remove the reference to hieroglyphics myself, because (regardless whether you agree with me about reviving "sequential art") hieroglyphics are a kind of writing system, not a way of illustrating a story. If you're looking for a very early form of sequential art I suggest the Sumerian Standard of Ur or (as Gaius Cornelius mentioned) the later Trajan's Column.
--24.115.80.11 19:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: hieroglyphics etc.

message: It seems like the history section could be expanded a bit, particularly for the 20th century, since there doesn't seem to be a dedicated history article for comics. At least some of the major comic book publishers and when they really came into their own should be mentioned (when did comic books get really popular? at least one more sentence about the golden age would be nice), and editorial cartoons aren't mentioned in the history section. Just a drive-by comment... but nice work! -- phoebe 08:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: history

message: Hey, I dont know if you want this so I am adressing this on the talk page first, but at my webcomic site I have a step-by-step on how I make a comic and other Behind the Scenes stuff. It applys to how most comics are made so i thought this might be a good EL. Obviously, I cant add it myself, becuase it would be self-promotion... but take a look: http://justoutside.smackjeeves.com/buffer/ --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 23:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How-to

message: This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 14, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Failure Point 2: The article has average prose; although it is comprehensible, the text is not "compelling" as WP:GA? requires.
:2. Factually accurate?: No problem here: plenty of sources provided, and there appears to be no obvious errors in the article.
:3. Broad in coverage?: Again, this is not a point of failure for the article.
:4. Neutral point of view?: 
:5. Article stability? 
:6. Images?: Failure point 2: two images are nowhere near sufficient for an article of this length; in addition, the captions are quite short.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration.  Thanks for your work so far. 
--Anthonycfc [T • C] 20:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: If there is agreement that there are unnecessarily many Exlinks (in line with guideline ..should be kept to a minimum), and some can go, might we come to an agreement which those would be? Or do they all shine clear of WP:EL#Avoid and pass criteria:
*Is it accessible to the reader?
*Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?
*Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?or
*Contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article..
*Have other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
What say you? MURGH disc. 19:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The artical may have well failed because of its length. Its too long, in my opinion. I'm going to check some external links that could shortin the page's quality. Unforgotten 19:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Adventures of Tintin, a recent FA, was 10K longer when it was on the front page. There may be sections here that need shrinking or removal (just like others need expansion), but I don't get why this article doesn't get the GA label and something like Albrecht Rodenbach (an article with only one section!) does... Fram 21:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't have failed, realistically.  It was just one person's opinion that the prose was average, and that was something it could be failed on.  Length has nothing to do with it. That siad, the article could stand some work.  I'll try to get to it and see if it can't get featured sooner rather than later.  I think the body of the work is there, it's just dressing it that will be the problem. Hiding Talk 21:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's very close. That crit isn't too far off though, when pointing to the scarcity of imagery (in such a visual topic) and how it doesn't fully exploit its potential in that aspect to illustrate the subject matter. The main top bulk of text has an unfinished feel to it too, that will benefit from shape and text fine tuning. Maybe look into how the bottom half feels like it peters off into a glossary of many very short sections. Noone's giving up on FA I hope? —MURGH disc. 23:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links consensus

message: Research conducted by Charles Swanson shows that between 1939 and 1950, the comics were the most widely read part of the newspaper (excluding the World War II period).
This is an odd claim. World War II extended from 1939 to 1945, excluding about half of the stated interval. Is this meant to refer to the U.S. involvement in WWII, 1941-1945? That's still a significant chunk of time. Clconway 14:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is weird. No doubt an US exclusive, but "the World War II period" isn't a very precise way of putting it. The intent is to exclude December 1941-45? This Swanson research ought to be sourced. MURGH disc. 15:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  World War II period 

message: Substituted at 20:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment