Talk:Understanding Comics

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 June 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Comics: DC Comics Mid‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by DC Comics work group.

Origin

Adapted from an writeup for Everything2.com

Homenode: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=tlogmer

Too lengthy

This page looks less like a description of the book and its conclusions than an attempt to rewrite the whole damn thing!!! Lee M 19:48, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. Additionaly, most of this page is written in the first person and is highly POV. The first section is fairly okay, if a little over-praising (makes it POV).

The remaining sections are just way too long, quote too much and are in the first person. It looks like an over-extended book report. If this material isn't deleted (which I vote for), it should at the very least be moved to something like Hyper-analysis of Understanding Comics or Summary of Understanding Comics, both of which I don't think are encyclopedic.

Anyone else? —Frecklefoot 17:31, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Fair Use

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)

Okay, Understandable

I'm new to this site, and maybe it isn't the best medium for this. But I'm putting back the smileys (again) because, as I said when I originally put them back, if you remove them at least rework the part of the text that references them as an example.

—Tlogmer

Tlogmer, nothing in the text refers to the smileys. Why are they there? They are contrary to the Wiki style guides—that's why they were removed in the first place.

Also, you might want to think about trimming your analysis of the book. Look at the comments above—most everyone thinks it is too long. If you don't do it, someone else will most likely mercilessly butcher it down to a reasonable size. I've heard its a great book, but your analysis is way too lengthy.—Frecklefoot 14:45, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The smilies cleverly represent McCloud's main image in the book. This article is a quality summary, but it doesn't seem appropriate to Wikipedia. It covers several of McCloud's concepts and thus needs his approval for publication online. McCloud's a pretty open-source guy; go to his website, http://scottmccloud.com, and find the forum link. Then post a link to your article and ask him to approve it for publication elsewhere. I'll add you to my blog team where you can post it. My blog is at http://decafsilicon.blogspot.com.

—Popageorgio

summary

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)

Reason for revert

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)

Smileys et cetera

Sorry for disappearing; finals etc. I'll post to the McCloud message board in a few minutes. Here's the smiley text:

You performed closure when you saw the lines at the top of this writup as two anime smilies; more to the point of the chapter, you performed closure when you saw the two smileys as a single winking smiley. "See that space between the panels? That's what comics aficionados have named "the gutter!" And despite its unceremonious title, the gutter plays host to much of the magic and mystery that are at the very heart of comics...If visual iconography is the vocabulary of comics, closure is its grammar."

—Tlogmer, 27 Dec 2003

The summary page is now at Wikibooks.

Graphic novel?

Can U.C. really be called a graphic novel? Novels are fiction aren't they? Nitpicky, I know! ike9898 16:53, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

Calling this book a graphic novel is definitely incorrect. Graphic novel is a questionable term anyway, being in most cases simply a more "respectable" euphemism for comic book, but in this case it's inappropriate and misapplied. I've changed it. MrBook 19:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this book is correctly termed a "graphic novel"; while the term is obviously derived from "novel", it ha its own history which has traditionally included non-fiction material, among other variations. (Were we to disqualify graphic novels from the term on the basis of them not being novels, then we would have to disqualify most comic books from that term on the basis of them being magazines rather than books.) The graphic novel is the long form of comics, much as there are terms to distinguish novels, novellas, and short stories in the prose field. NatGertler 20:07, 27 November 2006 (PST)

Transwiki-ing

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A blog by Apple Macintosh co-creator Andy Hertzfeld is a reliable source for a quote by Apple Macintosh co-creator Andy Hertzfeld

We all clear now? When I said, read it again, I meant it. Anarchangel (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]