Talk:Comics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comics was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: January 14, 2007

	comics Portal This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
More information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article was the project's Collaboration from (10/10/2005–25/10/2005).

This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. This article is a vital article. The following comments have been left for this page: Needs work on references to inline and unifying it all a bit, cover world comics more, but it's nearly there. Hiding Talk 20:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC) The article is in dire need of proper copyediting and a general purge of trivial or fan-focused content. I don't know what it's supposed to be near, but I would strongly recommend against inclusion on a CD version in its current state. Peter Isotalo 22:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC) (edit)

Archives

Archive 1

Please add new topics at the bottom of this page.

Contents 1 Sound effects 2 Wikimedia Commons template 3 Campbell deletions 4 eComics 5 "Low art?"

[edit] Sound effects

Perhaps something about sound effects? They say that in a lot of strips sound effects are an important part of the mood and story. Shinobu 18:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, at least as a portion of the medium's unique devices. IIRC, Scott McCloud writes some things that could be sourced, and Eisner? MURGH ^disc. 19:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what could be written, though, since sound effects are more visually part of the medium, than might be assumed. The art style of the sound effect is just as useful in conveying sensations, as the particular letters used... (That's one reason I don't like computer fonts being used for sound effects. It looks too mechanical. I'm more tolerant to computer lettering, except for Cerebus and a few other comics, it's rarely used as an artistical device.) 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 22:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Commons template

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the template to link to Comics instead of Cartoons? Or perhaps a second template (or link within the template?) should be added? B7T (talk) 06:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Hiding Talk 15:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campbell deletions

An observation: There is no way whatsoever to ascertain whether anonymous IP 58.174.37.27. who claimed to be writer-artist Eddie Campbell and removed the Campbell references from this and Graphic novel just now, is really Campbell. See Essjay controversy.

However, it is true that the both the direct link and the web-archive link to the cited Campbell comments are both dead links, and don't appear to be available independently, at least online, so that material would have to have been removed at some point anyway.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] eComics

I'd like to create an article entitled "eComics", under the category "Comics". But there is a large set of specific topics related to this subject, that don't fit the standard Comic article:

• Web comics and web strips (I think there are articles for them, too)
• The emerging culture of printed comic scanning
• Techniques and processes for enhancement of the scanned comics
• Standards for archiving of these images
• Softwares for reading and organizing these archives
• Emerging communities all over the world dedicated to exchange (usually via peer-to-peer) and translate these "eComics" to foreign languages.

The last item above might be the "hottest", because there is the debate on royalties and piracy versus "free initiative", "out-of-market" and other "arguments". But this can be debated later.

I thought about this initiative after the deletion of the article "ComicRack" which talks about a freeware software to organize and "read" eComics. Most arguments pro-deletion talked about "low visibilty", and, after a research, I found many eComic-related articles (most of them stubs) without this "main" article to mend them (perhaps even as a category).

Please, suggestions and opinions preferrably at my talk page. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayton.Aguiar (talk • contribs) 01:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Low art?"

The article states: "Comics are seen as a low art," as if it's a fact. Isn't that an opninion?PatrickWB (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is a referance to stating they are seen as a low art, it should be removed. However, I remember seeing them reffered to as a low art, but the articles have often stated that they were gaining in acceptance as an art in their own right. Corrupt one (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Do art critics or scholars actually refer to anything as "low art" these days?

Peter ^Isotalo 07:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Added references which show that comics are typically seen as being a low art. Also, it is a fact that that opinion is held, as shown in the works cited. The changing of that opinion is certainly something which can be discussed within the article, but I would suggest not within the lede itself which acts as a summary of the article and also as a standalone by itself. The distinctions between and the terms "high and low art" are still used and discussed by scholars and critics, certainly within the last three years, and I would suspect they will still find some usage within scholarly discussion within some context of framing debate for the next decade or two. The 2005 The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics contains an essay discussing the concept, so it still has some cultural value. 84.92.54.229 (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)