Talk:Understanding Comics

message: I still think the analysis of this book is too lengthy. I've heard it's a great book, but, really, do we need this much of an analysis? Also, if you're going to reproduce charts, don't use ASCII art, it looks terrible.
But I digress. IANAL, but I'm fairly certain we can reproduce a portion of the book (like a line of panels) under fair use. However, this subject has come up several times in the Village Pump with no clear consensus. I think it'd be particularly useful for this article to show how McCloud presents his thoughts. —Frecklefoot 15:35, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair Use

message: This article contained an extensive summary. Wikipedia is not the place for such text, but such text is obviously important. So I've moved the summary text to Understanding Comics/summary until we find the right place for it. My guess would be Wikibooks. Kingturtle 23:25, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  summary 

message: From 142.177.93.33's restoration of previous overly long version:
:revert vandalism - this is an EXTREMELY important book in perspective and graphic arts theory; It deserves a great deal of space, full review, and diagrams of the theory. NPOV isn't emasculation
I agree it is a very important book, but the analysis is overly long and looks like an attempt to rewrite the book! Even an in-depth review of the book would be shorter. I was releived to see Kingturtle's change to shorten the article. Finally someone had the guts to do what I'd wanted to do from the beginning but was afraid to do fearing backlash.
I had several problems with the overly long version:
#The presence of the smileys at the top of the article. They were removed and you (I assume you are Tlogmer) restored them without an explanation as to why you thought they are necesary. They are totally contrary to wiki-convention and add absolutely nothing of value to the article.
#The drawn-out analysis of the book. The book is important, but the analysis is hard to follow and just too darn long. If one wanted that much information on the book, one should purchase it and just read it!
#The ASCII art is ugly and hard to make out. If such "graphics" are necessary, use real graphics and insert them into the text of the article.
If you really want to keep the summary, revise it in it's new location (Understanding Comics/summary). When it's massaged into a form we can agree on (meaning everyone interested, not just me and Tlogmer), then we can put it back in the article. No, this is not standard Wiki practice, but this is an unusual circumstance. —Frecklefoot 15:48, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for revert

message: I understand the desire behind the move to Wikibooks, but I feel that if Critique of Pure Reason and Das Kapital are entitled to good meaty articles summarizing a book's key contributions to the field, then so is UC. An outline of McCloud's findings would not be inappropriate. -leigh (φθόγγος) 01:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know much about wikibooks, but anyway the page is now disappeared 23 Aug 2010.  --93.32.50.5 (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm? Nothing has changed in the last few weeks. What do you mean has disappeared? Also, note that you're replying to a 4 year old comment. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Transwiki-ing

message: We all clear now? When I said, read it again, I meant it. Anarchangel (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a joke.  Read WP:RS and WP:DUE.  This "source" is unacceptable.  And in the lead?  What you are doing is embarrassing. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A blog by Apple Macintosh co-creator Andy Hertzfeld is a reliable source for a quote by Apple Macintosh co-creator Andy Hertzfeld