Talk:Comics/Archive 3

Recommend To Add
ZoltanWiki (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to recommend the following edit. I can make the edit if you agree:

In Forms and formats section:

Interactive or Multi-Touch comic books are the product of digital distribution. This form of digital content creation can contribute to rich viewing experience by allowing moving camera views, animated character clips, turntable with acting key characters, 3D clothing and hair simulation, and visual effects. An example of interactive comic book: Immortals and Indigenous on iBooks. Interactive content leveraging 3D modeling, texturing, facial and character animation, motion graphics, 3D clothing and hair design / simulation, 3D lighting / rendering, and visual effects by Zoltan Barati, Digitone Pictures.

Notes to editors:

I had lengthy discussion with an editor whether my recommended addition is within the guidelines and as a result I opened up this talked page discussion as I believe it is within the guideline:

- The edit is informative.

- Since the surrounding paragraphs contains example of author, publisher or book title as an example, I would think it would be fair and informative to include these in my additions as well.

- The example book Immortals and Indigenous is published and distributed through Apple iTunes, a reliable third party. (I am not an Apple employee, and I am not getting paid for making the edit.)

- According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, ... audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources.

- Listing the released book Immortals and Indigenous as an example, not only match the surrounding style, it serves as evidence of distributed material and helps understanding the edit through an example.

- Since there is a free preview sample version of the book, the financial advancement could be minimal or none. Because of the free sample preview, the edit does not advance more than the interest of Wikipedia.

- The edit is little-known but valuable. I am a subject matter expert as I author such books and subject matter experts are encouraged to edit according to Wikipedia.

- Even though the edit is informative, it would not oppose or challenge the existing information.

- Our discussion with an editor went on that an edit would need trade journals, mainstream newspaper backing and referred me to notability. However, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability, it is stated that notability determination is related to whether a topic would have a separate article on its own. These are guidelines only to outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit content of an article or list. My addition is simply an addition to an existing topic and backed by reputable third party distribution as explained above.

- After further discussion, I was referred to undue weight section (According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight) However, my addition is not opposing a majority view. My information is an addition to majority position. I do not argue whether comic books, or digital content distribution stop using ink illustration or sprite animation. I simply stated other, such as 3D format exists and released  and this is a factual statement with example. It is not demonstrating a different viewpoint from majority view. According to these guidelines "John Doe had the highest batting..." or "Many people think...." should not be used and I am not using such argument or statement. But the edit would be an informative addition.

- During our discussion, it also came up whether the link highlight of Immortal and Indigenous or the link highlight of www.DigitonePictures.com can be included in the body of the text or to provide below the External Link section. According to Wikipedia whether to include external link in the body text can discussed case-by-case. Thus, I would like to recommend to include link highlight in the body of the text for easy readability so that the viewer can quickly find the example and helps user understand. If you’d rather keep the link highlight at bottom at the External link section, I can accept that.

The external links would be:

Immortals and Indigenous

Digitone Pictures


 * In the edit summary, the editor explained that third-party reliable sources are required, and that's really a non-negotiable requirement under Wikipedia's policies. I'm also wondering if this is the right article, since the content is about a technology that is in no way exclusive to comic books, at least conceptually. Additionally, I believe there is significant prior art that you're glossing over in your quest for self-promotion. This would need to be put into context. Samsara 19:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think mentioning it is a bad thing per se, but the suggested wording is far too long (compare to the wording for webcomics) and the sourcing is totally inappropriate. Find done better sourcing, and cut down the wording to something appropriate to its weight (probably no more than one sentence). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you cut the last two sentences, add one or two reliable sources, copy-edit it a bit, it would be okay. I still think similar developments such as the motion comic style/genre should be mentioned in the same paragraph. Samsara 23:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Given how fringe some of these things are (motion comics aren't anywhere near as common as webcomics), I'd be inclined to shoving them all into a single sentence: "Other forms include XX, YY, ZZ, etc". We have to think of WP:WEIGHT.  More importantly is the sourcing issue—the two sources provided are totally inapprpriate. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Would you say that it's important to you to always impress on others that you're right and they're wrong? Samsara 00:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what prompted this sudden burst of aggression? It's especially puzzling when I'm agreeing with you that these things should be included. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're constantly replying to me like you're trying to correct me, although largely restating things I've already said before. I originally posted here to back up your position. If that offends you, I would like to know so that I can avoid backing you up in future and let you fend for yourself if that's your style. Samsara 01:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You appear to be reading things into my statements that aren't there. As an admin, I know you're aware of WP:AGF—perhaps you could apply it? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Awkwardness needs to be fixed
There are a few things that need fixing in this article.
 * The "See also list" – I have never seen this before and it sticks out like a sore thumb. It was introduced with this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comics&oldid=537513744
 * The use of comics in the singular. If you google search any phrase, I think you'll find "are" beats "is".

Thank you. Please fix at the nearest opportunity as most of my edits are undone. --Honestly, Bodhi 23:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhi Peace (talk • contribs)
 * The use of comics in the singular. If you google search any phrase, I think you'll find "are" beats "is".


 * Uncountable "Comics" refers to the medium, and countable "comic" refers to particular instances (for example, individual comic books). This is well established usage that can be found in the works of Eisner, McCloud, Spiegelman, etc, and using "comic" in the singular leads to horribly confused and ambiguous text.  A Google search without analysis for context is meaningless.  All of this is sourced—have you bothered to read any of the sources? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've picked out some further items of question. (1) The one uncategorized external link (2) Combine "Notes and References" under one heading (see Obama) (3) "Comics" should come before "Comics by country" (4) the opening section is a bit long and detailed (5) the "walls" of images really break up the text (6) the miniscule "see also" section with an overly large "lists" section (7) the awkwardness of the titles "English-language" and "Franco-Belgian and European" (maybe split?) (8) a questionable use of the word "idiom" (someone could point to a few of these) (9) the relative length of the bottom section (1/3 of the article) but I'm not sure there's a remedy for this (10) are there any more categories for this in-depth article? Bod (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So drop it?
 * No, there is nothing to gain from that, and articles all do it differently.
 * Huh?
 * How so?
 * So you're saying an broad article on a visual medium should not include many images?
 * And?
 * Come again? You wouldn't suggest splitting if you understaood what splitting would mean in the context.
 * You'll have to elaborate.
 * What are you calling the "bottom section"? The references?  You think we should delete references?
 * Probably. If you find any, go ahead and add them.
 * Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 7) "1.2 Franco-Belgian and European comics" can be "1.2 Franco-Belgian comics" because all of the referenced works are in that tradition. The (quite small) European article could be linked as "see also" (inline) Bod (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Or, rather, the text could make it clear that the European tradition follows the lead of the Franco-Belgian tradition. A section on European comics would be WP:UNDUE, and not mentioning European comics in connection to the Franco-Belgian tradition would be wrong. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comic book handles it differently with shorter headings and more subheadings. The three schools are "American", "European" and "Japanese". Bod (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comic book is a confused mess that needs to be rewritten from scratch. The "comic book" is an American publishing format—there are no significant European or Japanese comic books.  European and Japanese comics magazines are not comic books.  "American" is unacceptable, as the British and other Commonwealth contributions can't be ignored (British examples predate American ones).  "European" is misleading, as the Franco-Belgian tradition has dominated European comics and is the far more common term. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Look at the sister category for the singular/plural issue. Category:Comics. Bod (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're still not understand the countable/uncountable difference. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that you are saying it is like "Painting" or "Charades" or "Literature" Bod (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, or "econimics", "politics". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to have to say something about older versions. Have you taken a look for things that might have been better in the past? See this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comics&oldid=511755291. Bod (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Everything about it is horrible—mostly unsourced and frighteningly American-centric. You can't seriously be suggesting that version was in any way superior. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe not in content, but in format, structure, and aesthetics. Bod (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh ... no, no, and no. That version is horribly unbalanced.  "Artistic medium"?  That's what the whole article is about!  "In higher education"?  What other medium has such a section?  It's POV-pushing, trying to legitimize comics.  Several sections don't belong in the article at all ("Comic creation", "Tools", and especially "Social context").  Aesthetically there's image sandwiching towards the top, and then seas of white towards the bottom.  Photos of four comics creators, all Anglo-American.  Out of 14 images, most are not of actual comics.  An article about comics that hardly even shows any actual comics?  Imagine an article on painting filled with images of painters, critics, and museums. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Credit where credit is due: the images are much better; they show actual drawings using comics. Except that first image. It is illegible at my resolution with all those small panels and I much prefer the "yellow kid" of yesteryear. Why do you object to describing how comics are made? Graffiti has a section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti#Methods_and_production) under "characteristics of common graffiti" that briefly describes techniques and materials (modern). Bod (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I hate the lead image, but the Yellow Kid one that was there doesn't show anything very comics-like. The lead should ideally show panels and dialogue balloons. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Art media category and definition
There might be an issue with this definition and categorization. If you look at the current List of artistic media, it has been excluded. A previous version (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_artistic_media&oldid=363975904) shows it was once under "Muralism". The talk page shows a specific discussion over removal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_artistic_media#Confusing). Instead, it was considered a "style" or "type of content". Bod (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's right—the older version of the article was horribly confused and did not distinguish the comics medium from its various published incarnations, content, and styles. That has now been fixed—the article is now clearly about comics as a medium. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you could please appropriately find a place for it on that list, if you truly believe it to be a medium. Bod (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Believe"?! It's a medium.  It's sourced.  But seriously, you're going to claim otherwise?  What do you think it is—a puppy? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Here. But this is last time I'm going to do your work for you. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The confusion arises because it is listed as both an "Artistic medium" and a "(communication) medium" in the categories. It was clearly booted from the "List of artistic media", so the proper Wikipedia page should be linked when it is defined as a medium in the lede. Even the link you gave me: "If comics is a medium—something that might be disputed depending on the definition of the term “medium”—it is certainly constituted as such by other circulatory channels than those of institutionalized art. Comics circulate through news media". Bod (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, could you throw the brakes on? Your edits are not helping.  You're WP:OVERLINKing (20th century?), and changes like this are just wrong: "propose origins in the 12th century" does not mean what "propose origins as early as the 12th century" means—there are different origin proposals for different eras, and the 12th century is the earliest one.  Seriously, could you please familiarize yourself with the subject, the sources, and guidelines before making these kinds of changes?  Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Multiple Issues
There are multiple issues that have to be confronted in this article and any attempt I make to reasonably solve them has been met with an obstinate reversal to the status quo. I am making one last attempt to resolve the following issues: -- --Bod (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Medium definition and categorization - the article must unambiguously point to the appropriate defining article for the sort of "medium" it is being described as. Furthermore, it should be listed on all appropriate lists and categories. --Bod (talk)
 * I can't tell what the dispute alluded to in the first sentence is, but I believe this article is not an appropriate member of the "Media Formats" category. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This dispute is better defined in the last part of this section. Bod (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Improving word choice and sentence structure - the word "cross-pollination" is out of place, there are multiple examples of inappropriate or excessive semicolon use, there is a need for more conjunctions in some cases to read fluidly, "among" is more common than "amongst" --Bod (talk)
 * So the article's style is not in your preferred style. Well, isn't that sad. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, luckily, this is fixable. Bod (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Fixed", as in how a dog gets "fixed"? No, thank you. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The metaphor "cross-pollination" works for me where I see it today. "Among" is better than "amongst".  I don't have time to develop an opinion on overall use of semicolons or conjunctions.  Bod's preferred style is as important as any previous editor's.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Idioms and "Terminology" - The heading of "terminology" is appropriate given that "idiom" is being used incorrectly and the main article is Glossary of comics terminology. The terms get lost in the subsequent section and should be emphasized. In the main article, they are bolded, so it would be appropriate to use italics to comply with MOS:BOLD. Also, onomatopoeia is used incorrectly as an adjective. --Bod (talk)
 * Glossary of comics terminology is a list. This article is not a list.  "Onomatopoeia" is not used as an adjective—or do you think it's modifying "sound words"? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's redundant. The emphasis makes it easier to read for someone who hasn't read the article a bajillion times. Bod (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not the target reader, and it's not in the least redundant—it's a term and its gloss, both of which are necessary. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The redundancy is "Onomatopoeia sound words". The "gloss" is necessary. Bod (talk) 07:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As in: you have no idea what "gloss" mean, or what purpose this article serves to what target audience. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Terminology" is better than "Vocabulary and idioms". It is the usual terminology for this kind of section.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "onomatopoeia sound-words" is a syntax error. If "sound-words" were actually a gloss, which means it would have to be offset by e.g. parentheses ("onomatopoeia (sound-words)") it would not be.  But I prefer to omit the gloss; it doesn't help much and just makes the sentence clumsier for those who know what "onomatopoeia" means.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The defined words need to be set off as such. Quotation marks will do; italics do better.  WP:ITALIC.  As it stands, the sentences do not read as an exposition of terminology, but rather as a bunch of random statements about comics.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "onomatopoeia sound-words" is not a syntax error—it's a very common way of providing a term and its gloss, and the term "onomatopoeia" is set off by being linked. This is a non-issue.  The other terms do not need to be italicized or quoted—doing so will not improve the text in any way. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "See also lists" - although minor, I have not seen another article that does this and therefore the subheading should be removed --Bod (talk)
 * It's not even "minor"—it's a non-issue. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not needed. Bod (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "See also lists" should not be a subsection. It not only makes the section a little harder to read and inconsistent with other articles, the phrase itself is jarring as bad grammar.  "Not needed" is not a reason by itself not to have something in an article, particularly if at least one other editor thinks it's needed.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Subtle changes - linking "thought bubbles" and the German and Russian, "comic" and "komiks" respectively --Bod (talk)
 * Thought bubble should not be linked—it goes to Speech balloon, and there's no credible reason it should be spun off into its own article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be linked like all the other terms even if it only has one section. Bod (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't tell what the dispute is; if someone is saying there should be a link to an article that doesn't exist yet instead of to a section of Speech balloon, I disagree. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The dispute is whether the term "thought bubble" should be linked, like "speech balloons". It is a redirect to "Speech balloon#Thought bubbles" and it will probably never have its own article, but it is still a term worth defining. Bod (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is defined—it's a variation of the speech bubble. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Making sense - This sentence is contradictory: "While comics are often the work of a single creator, the labour of making them is frequently divided between a number of specialists." The last sentence uses "similarly" when in fact it is not so similar because it does not borrow from English. Having a separate "artist and writer" is not mutually exclusive to having multiple artists working on different parts. "Prehistory" does not mean what you think it means in this context. --Bod (talk)
 * You're suggesting "often" contradicts "frequently"? Sorry, try again. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just go ahead and say whether it is more often a single creator OR a team. Bod (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't be serious. Absolutely no. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The sentence has almost no meaning. It just says there is either one "generalist" or multiple "specialists" and both are common. Bod (talk) 07:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So you've found the meaning! Wonderful job contradicting yourself. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The sentence is not logically contradictory, but is very hard to interpret. On first reading, I too thought it contradicted itself.  It is worded as if to say that "frequently divided between ..." and "the work of a single ..." are different aspects which might at first thought seem inconsistent.  Like in the sentence, "While most cities have fewer than 1000 residents, most people live in a city with more than 100,000 residents".  To fix this, the sentence needs to use parallel construction and probably not "while", as in, "Comics are often the work of a single creator, but also often the work of a team of ...".  There is no need to say which case is more frequent; it's significant that both are frequent.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Both are extremely frequent—in the US, comic strips are typically solo works and comic books are typically collaborations. In Japan, comics are very most frequently solo works, but the solo effort is very frequently supported by one or more uncredited assistants.  And so on.  No one approach comes anywhere close to dominating, and different approaches are more or less common in different cultures—for instance, the penciller–inker collaboration that is more-or-less standard in American superhero comics books is almost unheard of in any other culture, or indeed in non-Superhero comics in the US (it's extremely rare in American comic strips and arts comics).  Bod yet demands the article state which approach is most common, and refuses to do the work of examining the sources and finding out. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand the motivation for this extremely insignificant nitpicking. Prhartcom (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mind nitpicking so much if it improves the article, and this article definitely needs improvement. The majority of these things do not improve the article, and several of the edits hurt it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Defining what you mean by the terms you use in the opening sentence and proper categorization are not nitpicking. Bod (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because apparently the reader is in danger of believing "comics" might be a tool with which to draw something if we throw such an ambiguous term as "medium" at them. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, actually… Exhibit A is medium, a lengthy disambiguation page. Exhibit B is the fact that until recently it was categorized along with all the other Category:Art media Bod (talk) 07:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You've not refuted what I wrote. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Still don't know what is in dispute; I'd probably comment if someone could spell it out for me. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In dispute is the definition of "comics", whether the term "medium" is ambiguous, because it should be linked to the appropriate article, not the large disambiguation page medium. An older version of the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comics&oldid=511755291) shows links to "Hybridity" and "Mass media" in the first sentence definition. If it is a medium, there should be a category of all related "media" but "media formats" doesn't seem to fit. Bod (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand the motivation for nitpicking (I do it myself). And the fact that a nitpick edit does not improve the article is not a reason to reverse the change.  Only an article owner would be motivated to do that.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As I've pointed out above, the edits not only didn't improve the article, they damaged it by introducing misinformation. If the edits don't improve the article, they are at best worthless. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You've effectively stalemated this article. Seeing how the opinions of others don't seem to have much effect on you, I'm not going to make further changes to your article. You may review the suggestions and the places where the "Third Opinion" concurred and maybe you will decide to make changes to your article. Given my lesser experience on Wikipedia, you obviously have the upper hand, and I have no other tools handy to employ in an effort to make the article more friendly to new (casual) readers and similarly structured to other articles on Wikipedia. Bod (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice spin, but the whole issue is that you can't be bothered to do any of the actual work necessary to improve the article, but are itching to change it for the sake of change. Have you gotten around to reading any of the sources yet?  The are huge areas where this article desperately needs improvement—why aren't you tackling any of them instead of forcing your preferred style ("among" vs "amongst" and other irrelevant word choices) on the article?  What does "Cartooning is most frequently used as the style in making comics" even mean?  Or "The history of comics is split between different cultures."?  Then there are more obvious errors like this: "bandes dessinées, from the French, for Franco-Belgian comics"—where you've removed "French-language", as if Dutch-language comics were called bandes dessinées.  Or how about "magazine-style comic books followed in the 1930s, during which the superhero genre became prominent after Superman appeared in 1938"—superheroes became prominent during comic books?  Gibberish.  Then you keep adding categories like Category:Media formats.  As I've already made clear, a comic book is a format, a graphic novel is a format, a comic strip is a format.  "Comics" is a medium and not a format.  Would you like me to go on with how you're damaging the article? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a list of needed improvements? The "among" issue was brought up in the GA review. The article was categorized for years as Category:Media formats, I did not add it. Are you saying a category does not exist for comics and related media? It is categorized as a "narrative form" but not defined like that. It was previously defined as a form of "mass media". Bod (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did re-add Category:Media formats. "Among" is not an issue, merely a preference, and changing it improves nothing.  Are you suggesting "comics" is a mass medium?  There couldn't possibly be comics are are not reproduced?  Then we have WP:CIR issues, don't we?  Instead of waving your hands in every direction you can, how about you find a concrete and unambiguous improvement and propose that? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

This thread is a little hard to follow because everyone isn't signing their posts.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 04:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The original bulleted list (single-indentation) was all me. I tried to go back and make this more clear. Bod (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion
A third opinion has been requested. In view of the number of issues being discussed, and the generality of some of the issues (some of which appear to be of the form "the article needs improvement"), I for one do not think that Third Opinion, which is an extremely light-weight process, is the most suitable way to handle this dispute. I would suggest instead that additional editors be invited to edit the article via a WikiProject. I am leaving the Third Opinion request in case another volunteer is tedious enough and brave enough to answer all of the issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Try WP:WikiProject Comics and WP:WikiProject Visual Arts. Also, please be civil and concise. Some of the comments above are becoming sarcastic, and that doesn't help. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Another problem is that the talk page doesn't make it clear what the disputes are - one would have to plow through the revision history to put each talk page post in context to know what opinion is wanted. But I can take the tedium, and will offer an opinion where I can tell what the dispute is. There doesn't seem to be topic-specific knowledge or even interest involved, so I don't think wikiproject communities are the best forum for this. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The appropriate comparison is these two versions: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comics&type=revision&diff=684373498&oldid=684370768 --Bod (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This "comparison" is to a mostly unreferenced, American-centric, unbalanced, poorly-written version of the article that confuses the medium with the formats in which it's published. There are zero advantages to the old version, and suggesting there may indicates that Bod does not have the competence to deal with this article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Methinks thou hasn't followed the link. Your attempts at slander might be falling on deaf ears, my dear Turkey, for I am not suggesting the content of the years-old article has any advantage over the content of the article at present. The comparison was only to the most recent edits I made (which were reverted) that added emphasis and links. There is no "unreferenced, American-centric" added in either version. Bod (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Bod, I'll offer to take a look at your proposed changes if you wish. I was the GA reviewer for this article and, like you and Curly Turkey, I have the best interests of the article at heart. Prhartcom (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Prhartcom, you may of course review the differences. There are only two outstanding issues awaiting a third opinion: the linking and categorization of "medium" issue, and the "thought bubble" linking issue. Bod (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no credible reason to create a separate Thought bubble article, and as the article already links to Speech balloon, that would be WP:OVERLINKing, as I've already explained to you. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the intention of Wikipedia is to make readers who want to read more about "thought bubbles" have to hunt down the section when there is a convenient redirect (but I could be wrong). However, that is quite the minor issue, which you seem to be discussing in lieu of the more important one, which is to disambiguate "medium" in the lede and categorize it with similar media. Bod (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The "similar media" are those such as theatre, literature, painting, music, film—how are they classified? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Bod and Curly Turkey, Regarding those two issues that remain, may I ask you both: Will you both allow me to decide on these two issues? Then we can put this behind us? If you agree, then we can all go back to other areas of Wikipedia and call this settled. These are fairly straightforward issues and it won't be difficult to resolve them. Remember, if you agree to let me decide, that means you agree that to not continue argue about this. But at least the subject will be settled. Agreed? Prhartcom (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The "thought bubble" link is quite a small thing. You may decide that. Even better if you can back up the third opinion on any of these points and make some changes. The medium definition is significant and does not appear to easily resolved. If you can help to classify and define "comics", that is obviously important. Many articles have multiple links from the first sentence because the definition needs further definition, and "comics" in layman's terms is subtly different. Sure, you may decide that. You appear to be the only other editor currently with a stake in this article. Bod (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You may find this link useful: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comics&oldid=33042028#Controversy_regarding_the_terminology. Bod (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * All that's dealt with in the current article from a wordlwide perspective. And sourced.  Seriously, what do you even think you're proposing?
 * Sorry, Prhartcom, but I have a big issue with Bod's approach, which appears to be to throw as many things at the article as he can with the hope that something somehow will stick. Several of his edits are simply mindboggling—when they don't introduce outright errors, they are at best unconstructive petty tinkering.  At best.  Bod would be best to back off and reconsider his approach. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My fear is that Bod will propose a hundred unreasonable changes and we'll be told to "split the difference" with fifty of them. And then he'll propose another hundred. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your trust in me, Bod, and I know your trust is there somewhere, Curly Turkey. Note that Bod said we only have two issues left. I just took care of the thought balloon; I hope this is satisfactory. Prhartcom (talk) 11:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, as I've stated already (more than once), there is no credible case for thought balloon ever becoming its own article, and the article for speech balloon is already linked (thus violating WP:OVERLINK)---and not only that, but it's linked in the previous sentence. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)