Talk:The Cartoon History of the Universe

message: Sigh... I hate to admit it, but I think this page's a little too biased. One can all too easily tell by reading it that the authors like it. There are plenty of POV words like "exuberant," "hilarious" and "enthusiastic." From my experience, those who dislike Gonick would not consider the info accurate. Brutannica 06:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected the neutrality issues; please note. Also note that the word "exuberant," as now used, describes behavior neutrally (child-like "exuberance," as opposed to adult-like sobriety. Good call noticing my bias. Certainly wasn't intended when I wrote it.
Matt Genné 12:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would probably describe this in much the same fashion as you did, but I've encountered enough negative evaluation of The Cartoon History of the Universe to see the other point of view (somewhat). Brutannica 01:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As a final question, where did you find the information about the latest book in the series? Brutannica 02:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the release info for the new Cartoon History at Amazon.com.
Matt Genné 11:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, someone's posted the neutrality sticker again. Any ideas on removing the bias even further? (It still lingers...) Brutannica 05:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: see below  Matt Genné 16:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias issues 

message: To provide a rationale for the subheading "Unorthodox citations" in an earlier edit:
I first of all feel that readers may encounter a problem if they read the TOC and see the subhead "Citations"; they will think that this is the article's bibliography. "Unorthodox citations" labels this section more accurately. The whole upshot of this section is that Gonick's bibligraphy in each Cartoon History is indeed unorthodox. Details are provided therein. Also, "unorthodox" is a neutral word. It simply reports and acknowledges an observable fact. 
I haven't reverted it, though, because I'd like to know if this Talk page agrees.
Matt Genné 20:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. O.K., I guess that makes sense. Brutannica 02:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I'll change it for now; perhaps a different word will present itself later... Matt Genné 10:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations section 

message: "Critics may try...", "They might suggest...", and the most recent edits "...many readers".  Can we get some citations here instead of the editors' opinions & original research?--Son of Somebody 21:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I read some of these criticisms on amazon.com reviews -- do those count? Brutannica 22:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Possible'' criticism? 

message: Do we really need this section? I mean, you can just go on over to Larry Gonick and read the list there. Brutannica 22:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Books by Larry Gonick"

message: What's with the NPOV label? This article goes to great pains to remain neutral. The NPOV poster indicated that the article seems like an advertisement. Give me a break! Just because the article is thoughtfully written, and the subject matter is compelling, does not make it an advertisement. By the NPOV poster's standard, any Wiki-notable subject that happens to be in print or on the market could be considered an advertisement. Matt Genné 16:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV label

message: Amazon has "Publisher: Collins (December 26, 2006)", but the book itself says ©2007. Which one to pick? - Afasmit 08:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazon is a secondary source. The book itself is the primary source. I'd go with the book. - Matt Genné 15:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest volume 2006 or 2007

message: I refined the syntax of this section and renamed it 1) to avoid confusion with the title of the article and 2) to more accurately represent what this brief (though important) section covers. Matt Genné 15:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Illustration style

message: :Image:Cartoon History of the Universe Vol. 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Cartoon History of the Universe Vol. 1.jpg

message: 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) 17:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

message: As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T  14:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: C-Class rated for Comics Project

message: just wondering it says in each book about 5 volumes each. Is this how they were always published or were they also published as separate volumes? If so maybe we should include these photos of these volumes  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.2.238 (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention there should be mention somewhere of the "Cartoon History of the Universe Volume 1" CD-ROM adaptation that was released for Windows 3.x computers a long long time ago. AFAIK no other volumes were ever turned into multimedia.  WildKard (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

text: The problem arose when the original underground comic books were republished together as a unit, they were labelled as "Volumes 1-7", rather than ISSUES 1-7. As far as I know, none of the later ones were ever published separately. It really should be chapters of the collected volumes 1, 2, 3 (for 19 total), but LG (or his publishers) continue to do it that way, continuing the confusion. CFLeon (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  volumes 

message: Substituted at 08:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment