Talk:Comics artist

Recommend To Add

ZoltanWiki (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

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

In Comic Books section:

With the release of tablets and digital content distribution, interactive graphic novels or comic books benefit from 3D modeling, animation and rendering skills. Such an example is Immortals and Indigenous animated comic by animator and 3D graphics artist, Zoltan Barati. It is leveraging 3D modeling, texturing, facial and character animation, motion graphics, 3D clothing and hair design / simulation, 3D lighting / rendering, and visual effects. The iBook was published by 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

Comics artist vs. comic artist

I don't think I've ever encountered "comics artist" before? Is that really the most correct spelling? Non-native speaker here, so any input is appreciated. --Oskila (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "comics" is effectively a singular noun referring to the medium of stories-told-using-sequential-art. It isn't logical; it's English. :) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead collage

User:Nightscream restored the photo collage to the infobox stating, "Restore image removed on the basis of a poor rationale. Comics artists are not an "ethnic group or similarly large human population". Both the stated style guideline and the two archived discussions it links to as illustrative examples make it clear that ethnicity is the intended focus of it, and not an occupation."

The discussions were largely about the problems of images like this as they relate to ethnic groups, because that's where they were being commonly used, but the guideline says that it it isn't just about ethnicity, and many of those same problems apply here. One of the recurring (and frankly dominant) themes of those discussions was the POV and OR problem of selecting whom to include. Why depict these particular 16 white men (including 2 hispanic), 3 asian men, 1 asian woman, and 4 white women? It seems to be trying for some kind of representation, but in doing so it draws attention to the fact that there are no black or lgbt artists depicted. Isn't it a bit heavy on Brits? Why are there no comic strip artists or artists known for work published on the web? Does ____ really deserve to be there? And why isn't ____ (possibly the most important comics artist ever) included? It's all subjective and opinionated.

And it doesn't do anything that a lead image is supposed to do. It's a bunch of little thumbnail smudges, of faces that most people would never recognize, so it doesn't "give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page". It doesn't tell the reader anything in particular about comics artists... except maybe questionable demographics. It really isn't a "natural and appropriate representation of the topic" and can't be, because there's no way for a couple dozen faces to represent an entire profession. MOS says that "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The artists in the photo are those that are notable, which is neither POR nor OR, but a question of fact, vis a vis WP:BLPNOTE. The selection is determined essentially by a combination of that criterion, and the limits of what media we have in the Commons to use. You want a black or LGBT comics artist or a comics strip artist in there? Okay. Name one we have good quality portrait of who, enjoys greater notability than one of the artists in the collage whose removal or replacement can be justified. (Maybe Charles Schultz, now that I think about it, but which one in the collage would you remove?)

The top tier was chosen because comics are a quintessentially American-pioneered art form. Kirby was put first because he's the most notable comics artist of whom we have a good quality portrait, the subsequent four because they are among the most acclaimed, seminal and/or best-selling artists from the past several decades. Sim was chosen as an example of a successful self-publishing independent creator. The next tiers was chosen for diversity: Brits, who have often dominated the sales charts of English-language comics, then creators from Europe, South American and Japan, and finally, female comics artists. Is this is a fair representation of all possible demographic groups? No, but it doesn't have to be. It's a photo collage illustrating the topic, not a meeting at the United Nations. In this sense, the image is indeed a reasonable representation of the industry, as it is represented by articles on the English-language Wikipedia.

You hypothesize that someone could question whether a particular artist is included. Okay. Name them. Which one? You also suggest that someone might complain that "possibly the most important comics artist ever" was not included. Isn't that Jack Kirby? (I also now see that Will Eisner's article has a good portrait of him, which wasn't there when I first composed the image. But again, it doesn't have to show every artist. Just a smattering of some of the most notable ones.)

People would "never recognize" the faces if they're unacquainted with comics artists, in which case, no image will tell them that they've arrived on the right page. For people who are into comics, obviously, they would recognize them immediately. Nightscream (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

They're all notable, but someone had to choose them. And I've realized just now that it was you, which explains your protectiveness. Listen to yourself: you just insisted that your selection isn't POV or OR.... then explained the Point Of View that guided your Original Research! Furthermore, you're doing exactly what people used to do with those troublesome ethnicity collages: setting up arbitrary criteria, picking subjective favorites, and now getting defensive about those choices. Which is why those MOS discussions you cited came to the conclusion that they were a bad idea. And I think you're both figuratively and literally too close to the image to assess how recognizable they are: you picked them out, and you've been looking at it at full size. In the article it just reads as "block-of-faces". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Your statements are overly emotive and rhetorical. I find it odd that you go on and on about what is "subjective", but then arbitrarily assign the word "defensive" to the statements of the person who politely disagrees with you ---never once, of course, attributing that quality to your own words.

Again, the images were chosen on the basis of notability and what we have to work with in the Commons, neither of which is "subjective", since the former is determined by criteria defined by Wikipedia policy, and the latter is something I have no control over. To the extent that someone wishes to complain that Jack Kirby's notability, for example, and by extension, his place in the image is "subjective", then I will gladly listen to whatever intelligent arguments they can put forward for why he should be replaced with some other image. Beyond that, your feverish response appears to be much ado about nothing, and I would suggest that you take a deep breath, calm down, and let other, less hysterical editors join this discussion to offer some more reasoned perspective. Nightscream (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd welcome the involvement of editors who don't resort to such insulting adjective-hurling, and whose perspective is not limited by the (understabdable) instinct to protect one's work. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

For reference, there were two RFCs on this matter: one specifically about the then-increasingly-common and contentious use of such images on articles about ethnic groups[1] and one to clarify whether that guidance should also apply to other kinds of articles.[2] The first RFC was closed with a consensus to remove them: "The main reasons given for this decision are that, lacking objective criteria, it is original research to determine who should be featured in the gallery, that this selection process generates a lot of unnecessary conflict, and that a few individuals are not an adequate visual representation of a large group of people. This also applies to articles about other than ethnic groups, such as nationalities, because the discussion has shown that the same arguments apply to these groups as well." The second RFC didn't produce a succinct closing statement, but confirmed the original to be more broadly applied. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)