Talk:Comic book archive

Readers
Shouldn't there be a common list of readers in all relevant articles (cbr, cbz, cdisplay). Also shouldn't they all be sorted alphabetically? Seems to me some people are putting personal preferences here...
 * There was a list of readers (as external links, included below) on the CDisplay page. I tried to move it here but a bot reverted it since I just made this account. In any case, this is the proper place if anywhere. TheManxome (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)




 * I'm removing this. Wikipedia is not a host for a collection of software links. If said programs are notable enough for their own articles, we have list articles and categories they could be added to. if not, they don't really qualify for inclusion. Chris Cunningham (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a link to an external comparison of comic viewers at ZCultFM (a popular comic forum). It's a Wiki, so if someone feels a viewer is missing or the information is outdated, he can sign up and edit it. Roskakori (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are so many readers that I don't know what to click on. What are the differences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.87.39 (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I find it amazing how wiki policy can in effect destroy an article. The current reader section has of course nothing to do with the real world and the readers that are actually used by real people. Linking to some readers that made it through the notability standards by either being put into wiki in the stone age, or being open source (this seems to help) or being just popular everything and the kitchen sink programs that can "also" open comic books does not help. Search for "best comic readers" in google and try to find the listed programs in the results (or linked articles). And don't let me get started about this only being PC and totally ignoring any iOS or Android devices. So if I'm a trusty wikipedia user and try to inform me about comic book archive files I will be forcefully misinformed. I tried to edit this article in the past, but now I've just given up. --Solano2k (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Creation?
You have links to readers, but how does one create CBR or CBZ files?--RedKnight 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Simply have a collection of images and ZIP or RAR them into a file, but make the file extension CBZ instead of ZIP or CBR instead of RAR. Many file compression utilities will allow this. - 66.93.144.171 11:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How about PDF?
Should we mention PDF as comic book archive file? I think marvel officially released their old spiderman comics as PDF, some websites do PDF comics (for instance STEL science comics and City of Heroes), and a couple of viewers support it (at least FFView and Jomic). Roskakori 17:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, because a pdf isn't a "Comic Book Archive" file any more than a printed comic book is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.241.144 (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Reader spam
This counts as an indiscriminate collection of links, mostly to external sources. Such things serve as nothing more than advertising pits on Wikipedia. Away they go again. Chris Cunningham 15:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * WP has ENTIRE PAGES, like List of file archivers that are exactly the sort of thing you removed from this page. Are you going to request that those sorts of pages be removed?  208.66.211.217 01:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note the word "list" in the title. And list articles get deleted as being spam or non-notable collections of arbitrary data all the time. Chris Cunningham 10:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that deleting such obviously useful information is an all too common practice on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's not a form of vandalism. I'd guess substantially more than half the people looking up a file type are looking for readers for their system.  Hga 07:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I just came here looking for a reader.72.192.55.156 (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * same here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.148.57 (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And me as well, as I often do. Please don't remove this information. Maybe linking only free/open projects would be a happy medium? 50.37.115.8 (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a Wikipedian corollary of Godwin's Law which deals with random comparisons of editorial disputes to vandalism? Chris Cunningham 17:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't know, this is the first time I've even seen it used for anything other than classic white line vandalism. But that's why I said it's a form of it, not classic vandalism as the term is used.
 * But I'm game: what word do you suggest I use for deletion of useful material most readers of an entry want to know? Hga 10:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Content dispute", though feel free to use "vandalism" for any edits you disagree with (like most everyone on Wikipedia does). For now though, let's see if you can come up with any more substantive reasons than "they're useful" and "other people treat Wikipedia like Download.com so we should too"; we might even come up with some consensus to put some back in. But an arbitrary collection of external links to readers is not fit for an encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham 12:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest that we include a list of CBR viewer names for educational purposes without including external links. That way it won't be advertising and those who ARE interested can just google the names. Chronus Valtiel 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

How about creating a list of comic readers? Comic readers are NOT the same as image viewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solano2k (talk • contribs) 14:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Note from article page
This was added by User:142.177.232.8:

"Feel free to verify with google, but Pierre and I are still the only people producing comics specifically designed for .cbr format."

- Jim Shelley

Chris Cunningham 08:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Tags in e comics
Hello, is there a way to put tags in e comics files ? --Itomi Bhaa (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

ComicRack "section"
Since this article is so small the format section's mention of ComicRack seems to take up A LOT of space. Sionce the CB7 format was mentioned in the paragraph before it, it seems to be out of place and just a way to stick "ComicRack" into the article. There is no mention of features from other CB readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Linux
Is there any software for the Linux environment? I heard about one, but forgot the name. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comical. --Pmsyyz (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

External links, again
It would seem that the links here (at DMOz) adequately cover the function of linking to notable reader applications. appears to be a single-purpose account invested in adding another link to a different, less well vetted site for the same purpose. This seems to be redundant. I'll be removing this again shortly unless there's a pressing reason not to, and reporting Solano2k for spam at the same time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems you're one of those "mighty" wiki guys who give this whole project a bad name. No real knowledge in Comic Viewers and Readers, but copy editing whenever and whatever he likes. Calling 10 edits in 2 years spam is also nice. My expertise lies in electronic Comics and Comic Readers, so calling me a single purpose account is also nice.
 * Ok, I get it, trying to update this article with programs not dead since 5 years (CDisplay, CDisplayEx), bringing in other platforms and give people the information that Image Viewers are not the best way to read comics is a bad thing. But all this, I think, shows what's wrong with wikipedia and small niche topics like this.--Solano2k (talk) 03:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I can sleep well enough at night when I consider my contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of software, which is emphatically not improved by allowing articles to turn into software directories. If other readers / image viewers are notable then try writing articles on them, or finding references in secondary sources which cover them; this will improve Wikipedia's coverage far more the repeatedly adding back inappropriate external links. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I tried creating an article for ComicRack once (google "comic reader", mentioned in www.addictivetips.com, www.makeuseof.com, www.pcworld.com to just name a few - sorry for the links if they are against any rules). It was deleted of course, because such mentioning does not make it notable enough for wikipedia. Comic Reader tools are niche products, wiki admins do not know them (instead of say, ACDSee, WinZip etc.). So there goes the article.
 * Sorry if I got personal, I did not want to.--Solano2k (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If a subject does not receive any independent coverage then it isn't notable enough to link to, either. I have a hard time believing that there are no reliable sources which have ever covered comic book readers: how do people find out about them? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the above example reviews and articles about the ComicRack Reader Program are independent and by respected general software/computer sites. But I can assure you if I would create an article about ComicRack (again), it would be gone in 2 days. Some wiki admin would work his queue of new articles to check, would not know this niche product and gone it is. To answer your question: people are learning about readers from exactly such lists (mostly in blogs and user forums) I linked to. Only some bigger programs make it into mainstream sites (like ComicRack). But even they, ACDSee: millions of users, ComicRack: a few 10k. Not notable enough. Issue closed, thanks for listening to my arguments. Every year or so it seems, I have such a discussion with one of you guys. --Solano2k (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

ComicBookInfo Metadata
What do you guys think about mentioning this new ComicBookInfo metadata file standard? It was created by the guy who makes ComicBookLover for macs. Well, he didn't create anything, rather he found a way to use the "ZIP Comment" section of a zip file (or .cbz file) to store the metadata. So yes, it only works on .cbz files, not .cbr. But it looks promising. And it is a complete open standard so any program can use it. I thought it might be worth mentioning to maybe help spread it so digital comics metadata can become standard, rather than having each program use its own. Anyway, here is the google code page with all of the info: http://code.google.com/p/comicbookinfo/. Lilscoy22 (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks more like a RFC type proposal than a standard. The article mentions some comic book readers including extra XML infromation without properly explaining it. I was at least able to add the link you provided as an example but I suspect the text may have been talking about something else since the link you provided only suggests copying the XML used in EPUB book archives (since they are also Zip/Jar based) but then goes and uses the Zip comment instead (which IIRC is just a text file in a zip archive.
 * CBZ is an elegantly simple solution, uncomplicated and making use of clever recycling. The idea of extended metadate is good but it a little complicated and reusing something that already exists is definitely the way to go, and there are many Zip/Jar based file formats that could be potentially borrowed from. Having said that though it is probably easier and to leverage the existing options for image metadata such as Exif/Dublin Core/XMP and make the viewers a bit smarter about reading that from the first/cover image.
 * Probably best to rephrase the article and make it clear it is a proposal rather than a standard and that no real standard exists. if you have any other links please let me know and I'll try and fit them in. I'd also like to remove the general "unreferenced tag" and get the article to a stage where the particular sentences that need fixing are all tagged. -- Horkana (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thinking maybe of adding a See also section for FILE_ID.DIZ but it doesn't seem to be used very often. Maybe a link to .nfo? -- Horkana (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Some viewers/programs support NFO info files inside the Comic Archive files. --Evert Mouw (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The original CDisplay seems to open any text file (ReadMe.txt or .nfo files) and display it. CDisplayEx doesn't seem to bother. Can you give a few examples? Do you think NFO is used often enough to be worth mentioning? I've seen a few archives that include SVF checksum files but again it's hard to know if this is common enough to be worth mentioning. -- Horkana (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Reception
I was thinking about adding a Reception section to the article but this is more difficult than it seems. Industry commentators generally complain about "Comic Piracy" and without mentioning the file format, and the as admittedly it is just a convenient way to package images and is largely beside the point.

Even supporters and cases of authors engaging with their audience and releasing their comics for free to help promote it little discussion is made of the file format used (.cbz and .pdf in case you're interested, and it was first released as .cbt which has since been removed).

From a newsroundup on Comic Book Resources (CBR acronym again!) I found a review of an iPad comic book viewer and the reviewer does discuss how most CBR files are created by fans although he does note various collections and compilations of webcomics have been made.

This doesn't quite fit with what I was thinking of adding, but perhaps another editor might give it a try and phrase it differently or find other sources. I think this information might be useful as references for other parts of the article but since none of the sources are newspapers or printed magazines I'm worried overzealous editors will just delete them and I've spent a little too much time on this already. Hopefully these comments will be of some use to anyone else interested in improving the article and adding more referenced information. -- Horkana (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * EyeMelt.com the digital publishing arm of Slave Labor Graphics releases comics in CBZ in PDF formats and Pullbox online uses CBR and PDF. Maybe not anymore, the article was dated 2007 and I can't connect to the site.
 * Again it doesn't really fit with Reception but information about use by publishers (preferably ones still operating) might fit well under the existing Adoption section or something similar. -- Horkana (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Android viewers
There seems to be a whole slew of viewers for Android (expect the same for iOS), such as: Challenger Comics Viewer, A Comic Viewer, Prefect Viewer, Comics Reader, Komik Reader, OPen Comic Reader, etc. W\&#124;/haledad (Talk to me) 14:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

CoMet
The article had a mention of efforts to create an Open Standard for comic book metadata, specifically referencing one called CoMet, found at [www.denvog.com/comet/comet-specification/] (note that the website is "denvog.com"). Looking through the article's history, that was added by the user User:DenVogel in this edit. While it's true that this is an example of an attempt to create an open standard, it seems to have been added by the creator of the standard (website is "denvog", user is "DenVogel"), and after searching around, it seems that the only reader that implements it was created by the same person as the one who drafted the standard; as such, I've concluded that CoMet, while potentially-useful, is nonnotable, and thus have removed the entry. Hppavilion1 (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Request: Category of file extensions that are common archive containers.
nt - 97.123.10.53 (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Will work?&mdash; Chowbok   ☠  21:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)