Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 27 May 2005 and 17 June 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive03. Thank you. Hiding 15:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

American/European/UK/other comics

I think we have a serious faultline in this WikiProject here.

We've got several active members who are thinking along continental European comic lines (i.e. albums or graphic novels by a single creator as the main form at hand), quite a few thinking along US comic lines (i.e. monthly issues by a writer, penciller, inker, colourist, letterer and editorial team, which may be collected into trade paperbacks), a few thinking of the Beano, etc, and for all I know a few others. And it's beginning to cause friction - see #Categories above and #Comic Book infobox immediately above for two examples - with "one size fits all" approaches not really fitting.

Something needs to get sorted out soon, be it an accommodation, or a recognition that, like Manga and Webcomics, the artforms are different and should have different WikiProjects accordingly - SoM 23:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the WikiProjects should be split. It is not a question of US Comics vs. British comics vs. EU Comics. And what about South American comics ???
It is rather a question of Graphic novels vs. Comics, and the edge between both genres is really thin. So it does not sound right to me to have separated WikiProjects. Many authors are crossing this border every day. Many DC Vertigo publications are Graphic novels published in 5 issues, more than monthly-published comics.
Besides, with "internalization", many authors are active world-wide: in EU, in US, in South-America, in Japan, … Don't split this project and let's move instead to a more global view of the comics. Lvr 09:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I aggree with what is mentioned above, don't split the WikiProjects into a bunch of smaller projects. I really don't see the need for it. And since American Comics don't have an ISBN number, I think that this should be clear that the number can be used to separeted comic book and graphic novels. Without splitting up into multiple WikiProjects. --Goanookie 09:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it needs splitting, just that the different traditions need respecting. Hiding 07:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Indeed food for thinking, and a consensus around this would be great. So Comic Books is used for everything published in either softcover or hardcover, including graphic novels? --Goanookie 15:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Comic books and Graphic Novels are not entirely seperate entities. Some Graphic Novels are serialised, Jimmy Corrigan for example, and sometimes, collections of comic books are also called Graphic Novels. See, even that last sentence is confusing, because it looks like I said the same thing twice, and I did. There's an Eddie Campbell interview here that might help explain it better.

The European format translated into English is a comic album. In the UK we tend to use comics or comic magazine instead of comic book, as our comics are published in magazine format, and collections of comic magazines or comic strips are comic books or comic book collections.

Some people will use comic book to describe a Graphic Novel, although usually to be disparaging, eg. bah, that's just a comic book!

It's become a very confused atmosphere. Especially as some people seem to believe that one creator producing a work is a continental European tradition.

Maybe splitting the superhero comics off into one project might be a good idea. But I think the whole problem stems from trying to create a template box thing and enforce it across all publications that contain examples of sequential art, regardless of the format. There are too many variations. It looks to my eyes like the template superhero box is fine, because it addresses a specific item, whereas the templates for Graphic Novel and comic book are probably unworkable, although comic book could work if applied only to superhero comic books.

Graphic Novels do not need a template box thing. Hiding 16:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all of Hiding's post above, especially with the clarification that "one creator producing a work" is not just a European thing and is not a separate genre. There are plenty of US comics made by single creators, in both serial magazine and book forms. There just aren't plenty of mass-market frequently appearing serialized comics magazines from large publishers made by single creators in North America, for the same commercial and logistical reasons that weekly television shows are rarely written and directed and produced by one person. Still, there are plenty of Euro comics done by two or more collaborators: Goscinny & Uderzo, Schuiten & Peeters, Van Hamme & Vance, Trondheim & Sfar & Walter & Blain & Larcenet, etc. Either way, they're all comic books, in my book. ←Hob 10:51, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
So, where does that put Gaiman's Sandman? Originally published as 75 issues serially, then collected as ten "graphic novels" for convenience, and I suppose so that adults wouldn't feel so silly buying them. When collected, comic books turn into graphic novels, with ISBNs and everything. Unfortunately, there's a great deal of overlap between superheroes, ongoing series centered around single characters, superhero teams, and ongoing series centered around superhero teams. I doubt a uniform style for all these things would make sense or be at all useful. Superheroes and teams, yes. Books, series, graphic novels... no. Infobox fetishism has its limits. grendel|khan 16:31, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
Well, it depends on your definition of graphic novel as to whether a collection of comic books becomes a graphic novel. I'd argue that since a collection of stories don't become a novel when collected, but rather a collection of stories, then the nature of the work must define whether it is a graphic novel, rather than a collection. Gaiman's Sandman is more than likely a graphic novel, serialised in 75 comic books, or 10 collections. See Bone, which has been released in a one book collection, which is the graphic novel, I should reckon, and the collections are just volumes in that work. When something like the first 25 issues in Amazing Spiderman get collected, I should think that's just a collection of Spiderman stories, as opposed to a graphic novel, since it's really just a chapter in a seemingly unending work of mostly entertainment value. User:Hiding
If, if **IF** those two boxes were redone and there was a consensus they were a good thing (you'll note I've removed them from the project page right now - I don't think they are, and I suspect I'm in the majority), it's fairly simple - the Sandman article would get the ComicBookBox, and the articles (or sections) for the 10 or so volumes would each get a GNB.
Overall though I agree with Hiding "forgot to sign his name :p" above. They're too one-size-fits-all to work. - SoM 00:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


Oops. Yes, I'd broadly agree that that's the way it could conceivably work with regards to Sandman, but then you can get into the area where you could end up labelling the latest X-Men collection as a graphic novel, when it's probably better defined as a trade paperback. I'm still with you in that it's too one size fits all to work. Hiding 08:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Article names beginning with "The"

e.g. The Avengers (comics), The Invaders (comics)

Does this seem painfully redundant to anyone else? - SoM 17:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and it is not in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming policy. While "The Avengers (film) is appropriately named, as that was the official title of the movie, the comic book team "Avengers" has appeared in a comic book titled simply "Avengers", and should be moved to Avengers (comics). However, the Invaders title was actually "The Invaders", so I think it should stay as is. For comic books such as these, the article should only be used if it is explicitly used in the team's name or the comic book title. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:12, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). The question we have to ask is, is the article primarily about the character/s or primarily about the book? If it's about the book, for example, The Amazing Spider-Man, keep the definite article. If it's about the character, though, no definite article is necessary (for example, the Beast, the Hulk, Silver Swan, etc.).
Since the Avengers article is primarily about the superhero team rather than comic book The Avengers' itself, it should be at Avengers (comics) rather than The Avengers (comics). Since you already moved it, SoM, I take it that you agree with me.
—Lowellian (talk) 16:25, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Yup - SoM 21:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
And can I take a moment to point out that the current official (i.e. in the indicia) title is simply Amazing Spider-Man - SoM 23:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
No, the official title still begins with the definite article, as can be seen by looking at the cover of recent issues of ASM. —Lowellian (talk) 05:47, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Request For Comment

As suggested I have now moved the debate to Category talk:Graphic novels and put in a request for discussion. Could all members of the project please comment.

The Graphic Novel

I appreciate the validity of your argument, I just feel it applies just as much to Graphic novel, and if Category:Graphic novelist (which you are quite correct, needs renaming) is valueless, it seems to me that the graphic novel article is too. I've already been accused of presenting a circular argument, and I may appear to be so doing again, but that's not my intent. If this category is redundant, why then is Category:Graphic novels not?
See above - I didn't have an opportunity to comment on the graphic novels category before. ←Hob 21:22, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
Right, cards on table, let's do it now. The category probably exists because the list of notable graphic novels exists on the graphic novel article page, and policy is that a list of links becomes a category. So either the list and category go, or they stay. Because either we can define a graphic novel or we can't. And then that means the disambiguation tag of graphic novel goes too, since that is a definition, and we've just decided graphic novel can't be defined. And the article on graphic novel reflect that it is undefinable beyond being a category used for marketing purposes, and within bookstores and libraries to display works within the comics artform which they sell/hold in their collections. And consensus is built to that view.--Hiding 11:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Yeah - essentially, either you call all comics-in-book-format "graphic novels", or you don't. Even when companies release material solely in book format - be it hardback or paperback - they refer to it as Original Graphic Novels (OGNs for short), which seems to recognise this point. (Prose) Novels are recognised as novels (as opposed to novellas or short stories) purely by length, and collected trade paperbacks are very often longer than OGNs. - SoM 14:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Right, that's a damn good point, and a vote for defining by format.--Hiding 15:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
And you're right, it should be Category:Graphic novelists. I will attend to that within the next 24 hours. Hiding 09:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC) (edited 21:42 same day.)
My contribution in this really long discussion:
In EU (esp. in French) there is only one word for comic books/graphic novels/... There are no distinctions based on the format. But I think the term that should apply is Graphic Novel, while the most common translation is comics. My opninion is that the Graphic Novel article must stay, while the definition that Hiding gave above is for me more the definition of the Comics medium. A "Graphic Novel" is just question of format (and hype?). Lvr 13:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Slight clarification: in French, all comics are called bande dessinée or BD - a general term for the medium which is equivalent to "comics" (it means "drawn strips") and applies equally well to books, serials, newspaper strips, etc. But there is a separate word for the most popular book format, album. It's often hardcover, and is several times longer than the typical U.S. single-issue comic, but shorter than most U.S. trade paperbacks or hardcovers (shorter in page count, at least - the pages tend to be bigger and denser, though). Some albums are self-contained stories, but many (most?) are installments in a series. So I think it's a little misleading to say that it's equivalent to either of these English terms. I mean, take the Donjon series, which so far amounts to a couple dozen albums by multiple artists in a projected series of hundreds of albums telling one epic story... it would be odd to describe this as hundreds of graphic novels. To further confuse things, the French have started using the English word "comics" to describe things that resemble U.S. comics in either genre or format. ←Hob 03:46, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
Indeed. I forgot this notion of album8-O Lvr 15:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
To confuse things even more, here in Britain we use the album format to produce annuals of our children's comic magazines, and so it is known colloquially as an 'annual'. Perhaps it's worth a write up of all these formats and terms on the comics page. I think leigh (φθόγγος) came up with a good outline of what the comics page should look like at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/organization, but it hasn't yet made it into practice. I'm still trying to source and amalgamate good reference for a write up, at the minute all I've got is Kunzle's essay on comics in my Brittanica cd-rom, The Penguin Book of Comics and Sabin's Adult Comics.Hiding 07:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Categories

(Split into separate header by Hiding for better navigation and reading)

Besides, I'm not really fond of this new Category:Graphic novelist proposal, because I think the edge is really thin between a Graphic Novel and a Comic book. A single piece of art may hold both names ! It's a 'Comic book' when it's first published, and when it's reprinted it is labeled as 'Graphic Novel'. So what, should its creator be a Comic book creator or a Graphic novelist ? Or both ? I think the comic world is not that large and varied to deserve so many categories for its creators and writers. How many categories do we have now ?

Isn't that too much ? Lvr 13:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes and no. Comic Creators should stay as an "overview" category, holding only subcategories rather than articles. CBwriters, CBartists and and Cartoonists are subcategories of that, with Cartoonists referring to comic strip creators, editorial cartoonists and, arguably, a certain percentage of book illustrators (although it may be worth breaking it up into these subconstituants). Category:Comic book creators and Category:Graphic novelist are redundant and should be deleted (I'm going to WP:CFD the C:CBC category within the day, and I'm leaning towards throwing C:GNist to them too and seeing if it floats.) - SoM 15:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Hold off of Graphic Novelist if you don't mind, I'm going to check the speedy delete procedure. As for Comic creators holding no articles, is that wise? It seems a little redundant to me, and perhaps it's best to place cartoonist, comic book artist and writer as subcategories on comics. As for cartoonist applying only to comic strip creators, editorial cartoonists and, arguably, a certain percentage of book illustrators, are we absolutely sure that's the definition? If so the category needs a tidy up, as many people in the comic book field have been listed there. Damn, this all needs thinking through. Hiding 16:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
"Damn, this all needs thinking through" - and there's the problem in a nutshell. This HASN'T been thought through, either by the people adding the articles to the categories or people adding the categories in the first place. We need to do it now.
And you're perfectly right about C:CC being redundant in and of itself, come to think of it. It's a holdover from Lvr's attempt to get rid of all of the comic-creator individual categories, and I made it an overview category so that it was doing something, but you're right - it doesn't need to be there at all, and the subcategories would be better off as direct subcats of Category:Comics. Want to do it as preparation for nominating all the redundant categories on WP:CfD as a group? - SoM 17:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Knickers, being impetuous I went and listed graphic novelist on cfd already, after I realised I couldn't speedy it. As for comic creators, do we want to keep that and get rid of writers and artists? Also, where would we put letterers and colorists? I think Lovern Kindzierski, John Constanza and Richard Starkings are probably notable enough in their fields to warrant entries at some point. Hiding 18:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
We don't want to get rid of CBwriters and CBartists because they feed directly as subcategories of Category:Writers and Category:Artists respectively. And I would have no problem putting colourists (and inkers) under CBrtists, but letterers are a trickier proposition. Not sure what to do with them, since I doubt there's anything like enough entries for a specific cat (although maybe there's a category for scribes or somesuch we can use to justify one?). Perhaps we need a category for ancillary people like letterers and editors? - SoM 19:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
So, will all comic book creators who both write and draw be listed in both categories? That used to bother me, but now it seems reasonable or maybe I just gave up on trying to make this stuff make sense. :) I'm still not sure I like the wording - what about just "comics writers" and "comics artists" (I'm pretty sure the plural comics is the right usage here) - to avoid getting it mixed up with the whole format question. The cartoonists category needs to be better named and defined, maybe split into newspaper and editorial cartoonists or something. ←Hob 03:51, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
Also: based on reading The Comics Journal and other critical writing over the last decade, and talking to artists, my sense is that "cartoons" vs. "comics" is still a very hazy divide. Some people use "cartoon" to refer only to a drawing style, some use it for single-panel illustrations - Scott McCloud says that no single-panel cartoon should be called "comics", but he got a lot of flak for that within the field. Anyway... I think this just means that we should (a) make sure we acknowledge these problems of definition in the relevant articles, and (b) define categories in a way that clearly indicates what we're talking about. ←Hob 04:22, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
The term cartoon is a very hazy divide because it both defines a form and a drawing style. McCloud has also admitted in debate with Eddie Campbell on The Comics Journal message board he regretted making that distinction, although I'm not sure he's ever retracted it in print.
I'm one who is bothered by the definition of those who do both as needing two categories. Here's a possible middle ground, although it's slightly long winded: have comics writers; comics artists; a comics cartoonist category for those who do both, like Eddie Campbell, (reflecting the Harvey awards usage); a panel cartoonist category for those who produce panel cartoons, like Marmaduke, or editorial cartoons like Steve Bell; and a strip cartoonist category for Bill Watterson and the like; all being subcategories of a comics creator category, in which notable letterers and colorists sit, although we could hive them off into comics artists or a unified comics letterers and colorists, get rid of the comics creators uber category and sub categorise them all on category comics. Hiding 07:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't like the use of the term "cartoonist" for those who work in comic books, TBH - like User:ike9898 said the last time this came up (see /Archive01), "if I drew comics I wouldn't want to be called a cartoonist." Comic books are rarely called "cartoons" anyway, and I was kind of stretching it to include strips, since other people seem to have included them and I hadn't noticed at the time that we actually have a Category:Comic strip creators category, created in Nov last year. My inclination was always that a cartoonist was someone like Steve Bell.
And the fact remains that a lot of those who both write and draw comic books (e.g. Alan Davis, Dave Gibbons, John Byrne and Phil Jimenez to pick four off the top of my head) often do both seperately (Davis is only drawing Uncanny X-Men just now, Gibbons is writing but not drawing Rann/Thanagar War, Byrne is drawing but not writing Action Comics and Jimenez is solely writing The Return of Donna Troy). Trying to lump them in a single writer/artist category kind of ignores that fact. I'd far prefer to continue to have the appropriate people dual-listed (NB: I'm not bugged about Category:Comic strip creators for the simple reason that each strip is almost universally done by - or at least credited to - a single person) - SoM 14:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
The term "cartoonist" is used by some comic book creators to refer to themselves though, and I'd take their words over someone who isn't actually working in the field, if User:ike9898 will forgive me. Also, the term in such usage does have a precedent with The Harvey Awards. Whether comic books are cartoons isn't so much the point, as cartoon is a multi-defined word, with one definition certainly allowing for cartoonist to be used as it is here. Strips most certainly are cartoons, being strip cartoons, which, ultimately, leastways historically, is what is printed inside a comic book. As to the examples you give, yes there may be some dual listing, but then there would be dual listing whichever way we go and I don't see that as a preclusion. As to comic strip creators, that sidesteps the issue by not differentiating between writers and artists, so it doesn't arise in the case of a strip that is dual created. That is another option open to us. However, whichever way we go, let's make sure we define our categories well. If cartoonist applies only to panel cartoonists, lets define it as such.Hiding 15:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree with SoM for the "Cartoonist" connotation (even if some author refer themselves as Cartoonists).
Why couldn't we just have:
  • Comic artists: The main category, where everyone (like pencillers, ...) who don't fit in one of the 2 subcategories stands,
  • Comic writers: A subCatgory for the writers
  • Comic creators: A subCatgory for the "main" artists
And an artist can be dual-listed. Lvr 16:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

A Consensual Position?

Right, is consensus coming to this as a line up for categories:

  • Comics artists: defined as for anyone who draws/has drawn comics, be they OGN or comic book.
  • Comics writers: defined as for anyone who writes/has written comics, be they OGN or comic book.
  • Cartoonists: defined as for panel and editorial cartoonists only, possibly renaming it to panel cartoonists.
  • Comic strip creators: defined as those who create newspaper strips, possibly renaming it to newspaper strip. Hiding 18:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Not 100% sure about the comics vs. comic books in the first two since the use of "comics" implies that "comic strip" is a "daughter" rather than "brother". If you've got a good reason though, I might be persuaded.
No on the comic strip creators --> newspaper strip creators. The article's at comic strip for a reason, just as newspaper strip is a redlink for a reason.
Yes on the definition of "cartoonists", no on the renaming. Make the definition clear in the cat. text (and we might need to look at Cartoonist and List of cartoonists...), but, unless the category gets big enough to need subcats, no adjectives. - SoM 19:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
The only reason for using comics instead of comic book is because it avoids the need to specify a format, which would help with the European question. It also defines the creators by the art form they work in, similar to painter and sculptor, rather than the format, such as watercolorist. I can live either way with the other two. Hiding 20:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
One other reason is that it places them as sub categories of comics, rather than comic book, which is where comic strip creators and cartoonists sit. Hiding 08:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

And leave letterers and colorists in category:comics until we need to worry about them. Thoughts? Hiding 18:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I think colorists might as well be included under artists—otherwise we'd end up really splitting hairs with pencillers vs. inkers, etc. And as someone said above, there aren't a whole lot of widely known colorists (who only do that) to make up a category of reasonable size.
Anyway, if the current proposal is for "Comics artists", "Comics writers", and "Comics letterers" to be subcats of "Comics", and for the latter to be also be a subcat of "Calligraphers", that sounds OK to me. ←Hob 03:45, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
This sounds to good to me.Lvr 10:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with all this as it stands if someone wants to get on with the sorting/sending the redundant cats to WP:CFD. - SoM 02:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I know that comiccovers are considered fair use and we have Template:Comiccover for them. However, I'm seeing an increasing number of comic book page scans or panel scans being uploaded (i.e. Image:Exs002b.jpg and I was wondering:

  1. Are these covered under Wikipedia:Fair use?
  2. If so, should we create a template to state their comic book status?

I'm not a lawyer, so I feel hesitant to assert my opinion until I know the status. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:40, May 19, 2005 (UTC)


Not a lawyer either, but as I understand it, panel scans are okay IF:

  • They're short excerpts - a page or splash from a 22-page comic is probably okay, more is pushing it
  • They're relevant to the purpose - the one linked to is bad, since less than half of it relates to what it's being used for (the Magnus (comics) article)
  • They've been scanned by the person who uploaded them and NOT taken from another site without explicit permission (this one applies to covers as well, BTW)

SoM 21:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Personally, these interior panels have bothered me for a long time. Covers are fine, but the copyright status of a lot of the interior panel images is sketchy. Without naming names, a few individuals are responsible for uploading a vast number of interior panels, many of whom look raided from other websites (as in I've seen them on other sites). Maybe we could have a policy wherein we delete them unless they are properly attributed, and by properly attributed, I mean more than just the {{fairuse}} tag; we should ask uploaders to give the exact source. —Lowellian (talk) 02:13, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

By "exact source," do you mean issue, page and panel nos? I'd be fine with that. - SoM 02:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed on all points. I'm pretty sure I suggested something extremely similar a few months ago on this page... -leigh (φθόγγος) 01:46, May 22, 2005 (UTC)


I think you did here. Would it also be worth putting a website source if we haven't scanned it ourselves but rather taken it from the web? (User:Hiding forgot to sign his name here)

While we're on this topic, User:Exiles03 (who uploaded the Magnus image above) seems to be uploading several Exiles-related pages (at very high res, no less), without so much as a {{fairuse}} tag let alone info. I'm tagging these {{no source}}, but anyone want to ask him/her about the source (did he scan them, etc at the least), and are they beyond the pale for {{fairuse}}? - SoM 03:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I also feel that it's in the remit of this WikiProject to define our interpretation of Wikipedia's fair use policy in regards to comic books. If you like, we can involve the discussion board on Wikipedia talk:Fair use. Ideally, I would like to come out of this with a set of guidelines like the ones we've been talking out above, and official templates to use for inner panels, pages, and other comic book materials (like sketches from TPBs and the like). We want to make sure we're on the right ground here. In the meantime, I'll post another message on Exiles03's page; I've already encouraged him to join this WikiProject, and maybe we can get him to start attributing his images. -- DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:57, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure magazines can excerpt panels of comics and graphic novels when reviewing them, and that it is covered by fair use. Does that apply here?
I wish that wikimedia supported smileys of some kind so i could include the one that is totally baffled here. Like I said, I have no legal understanding of fair use, and I'm hesitant to assert anything here. The precedent for magazine panels sounds pretty promising though, do you have an example of that being used somewhere on Wikipedia? Is there some other wikiproject or group that has dealt with this for a different media? I'm going to post a note on the fair use talk to see if any legal eagles want to help us out. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:49, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
What I'm trying to say, badly, is that when a magazine like The Comics Journal or a newspaper like The Guardian reviews a comic, they usually print an interior panel or two, which I believe is covered by fair use, but at this point I should point out I'm no lawyer either.
Here, have a read of this What is fair use, I think that the use of one interior panel per article would satisfy all the conditions for fair use in the US: since it is for nonprofit educational purposes; has been published to a wide audience; it is one panel, so it won't constitute more than 5% of the comic book, and in an ongoing series it's even less, in some cases miniscule, even if it is a full page, (although the smaller the panel used the better); and finally, I don't think displaying one panel would harm the sales in any way.
However, would it be an idea to contact the comic publishing companies and ask for a GDFL release to cover wikipedia use of one interior panel or cover image per article?Hiding 08:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Isn't one panel a bit of an odd choice of unit? After all, a panel can range in size from one-sixteenth (1/16) of a page to two whole pages. - SoM 21:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Oops, I think I meant "page" not "panel", but we had been using the term throughout the discussion. I would rather that we try to get a license per issue rather than article. For example, the X-Men article, which covers a wide swath of X-Men history should link to many different important covers and panels. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:49, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed - SoM 22:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Addendum. I contacted 2000AD about using the image at Robo-Hunter, and they were happy for it to be used as long as "2000 AD and Robo Hunter copyright Rebellion A/S 2005" and a link to their website was included, which I've done. I'll ask them if that applies to all images, and then move on to contacting other publishers.
    • Awesome work, Hiding. We should have a list on the main WikiProject page with a list of publishers and what our agreements with them are, as well as our interpretation of fair use for publishers with whom there are no agreements. Oh... can you also place the e-mail conversation either here or on Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics#Copyright? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:40, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Stubs

Look, I think that part of the goal of this project should be to expand the comics stubs! Instead of subdividing the stubs, EXPAND THEM! Scorpionman 02:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam and Twitch

Ass-ugly. I'm gonna take a crack at it tomorrow, but if anyone else wants to pitch in, I'd appreciate it. --InShaneee 04:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I fixed it alittle. --Kross 04:59, May 21, 2005 (UTC)


Avengers (comics)

I'd just like to point out that this article is, on the whole, REALLY FREAKIN' GOOD, and suggest that it could serve as a model for all other similar articles. Thanks to all the editors that have worked on this one. -leigh (φθόγγος) 04:11, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should nominate it to be a Wikipedia:Featured Article? However, before you do that, I can almost guarantee that the two big complaints you'll get will be
  1. Large intro section. I recommend that this section be trimmed down to be more consise. Some of the backstory can be moved down into a section called "Influences", or "Inspirations" or something.
  2. Lack of historical context. While the article does a good job of explaining the changes in respect to other comics, it might be more relevant to non-comic readers if you tied in how the comic was affected by external happenings (politics, wars, catastrophes).
  3. Analysis. Both of the other two comic articles that have become featured are completed with an analysis of the character's and their motives, etc. Can anything similar be done for the Avengers?
I think it would be great to get more featured comics articles. So far, only Batman and Superman have made the cut. I think that we should work to get either this article or X-Men up to snuff (lest we be accused of running a DC-only shop ;-)). --DropDeadGorgias (talk)

Multi-series arcs

With both Marvel and DC, following a given story arc requires jumping between many different titles. How about a template or something which can capture the titles/issues of a given arc, and their sequence, in a standardized manner?

Example: Scourge of the Underworld. The character sporadically showed up at numerous points in the history of Marvel. There is no index to find the issues he appears in, nor the arcs he influences. Summarizing every issue in every arc in which he appears may be outside the scope of Wikipedia... but a list of the issues he's in would be very helpful.

New category: Squadron Supreme

I just added a new category for the characters from Squadron Supreme and Supreme Power. I probably should have named it Supreme Power instead. :P --Kross 00:11, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Could you look at the pre-existing category structure before adding new categories that don't fit. - SoM 02:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

lesser characters

i have a question about smaller (non villan, non hero), side characters like Highfather and others...should there be a template (or boiler....something) somewhere for less important characters? As im kind of confused. maybe i should just use a superhero tag? i kinda lost what i was going to say lol --mysekurity 03:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think these side characters are of notable value to have their own page, to be honest. Highfather and all other Fourth World characters might be best placed in a characters section of the Jack Kirby's Fourth World article. Hiding 08:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

List of Participants

Currently, it's a bulleted list, mostly alphabetized except for the most recent additions. Personally, I think it would be neat to turn it into a numbered list (to see how many we have) and sort the whole list chronologically - for archival reasons, not because I want to be #1. On the other hand, I can imagine some people might want it alphabetized in case they need to look up someone. But then comes the question: do I go under "leigh" or "phthoggos"? etc. Regardless, I think a numbered list is a good idea, and I'll volunteer to enact whatever the community decides. -leigh (φθόγγος) 20:27, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

A numbered list is certainly a good idea. I'm not bothered either way on how it is sorted. If if you want to sort it chronologically, stick a notice up asking people to whack themselves at the bottom and use the four tildes though, thinking about it. Although you probably thought of that already. Hiding 07:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blue Monday (graphic novel)

Is there someone here who might help write at least a stub for the Blue Monday series of graphic novels for the Blue Monday disambiguation page? BlankVerse ∅ 11:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_3&oldid=1144450544"