Talk:List of American comics creators

Move?
Move "List of American comic creators" to "List of USA comic creators"? (Since there is South America, Central America and North America.) --EarthFurst 06:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a strange thing to have a list of comic creators and an extra list for the American ones. But it disrespectful to exclude people from Brazil and Uruguay from the latter one. Please change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.236.3.135 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 12 June 2006


 * American is the term used to describe the nationality of citizens of the USA, much as Brazilian will describe the nationality of creators from Brazil. Hiding Talk 22:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Consistency, style
I've just done some cleanup on what was becoming an unreadably cluttered list-page. The bluelinked names don't really need descriptors, and there was no consistency as to what credits to include and how many; someone with just a couple of comics to his name might get the same amount descriptor space as someone very established. Then others, some well-known, some household names, might have nothing. These differing weights attached to some names and not others can give skewed impressions to a non-comics reader (i.e., the general-interest audience at which Wikipedia is aimed).

This page needs more work, and we should probably have a discussion here to determine a uniform policy.

Additionally, I sourced what redlinked names could be verify via reliable sources. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Recommend To Add
ZoltanWiki (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

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

In Living / Independent and underground section:

Zoltan Barati, creator of Immortals and Indigenous

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 link would be:

Immortals and Indigenous

"Deceased" section
It's weird that this list separates the deceased subjects into a sub-list. This isn't standard procedure among most lists I've seen on Wikipedia, and there is no way it's up-to-date. It would be far more useful to integrate these people into the other sections of the page, wherever they belong. Personally I'm done with this page, but it would be great if someone with an interest in the topic would take this on. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)