This article was nominated for deletion on 23 June 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Adapted from an writeup for Everything2.com
Homenode: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=tlogmer
This page looks less like a description of the book and its conclusions than an attempt to rewrite the whole damn thing!!! Lee M 19:48, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I still think the analysis of this book is too lengthy. I've heard it's a great book, but, really, do we need this much of an analysis? Also, if you're going to reproduce charts, don't use ASCII art, it looks terrible.
But I digress. IANAL, but I'm fairly certain we can reproduce a portion of the book (like a line of panels) under fair use. However, this subject has come up several times in the Village Pump with no clear consensus. I think it'd be particularly useful for this article to show how McCloud presents his thoughts. — Frecklefoot 15:35, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I'm new to this site, and maybe it isn't the best medium for this. But I'm putting back the smileys (again) because, as I said when I originally put them back, if you remove them at least rework the part of the text that references them as an example.
— Tlogmer
This article contained an extensive summary. Wikipedia is not the place for such text, but such text is obviously important. So I've moved the summary text to Understanding Comics/summary until we find the right place for it. My guess would be Wikibooks. Kingturtle 23:25, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
From 142.177.93.33's restoration of previous overly long version:
I agree it is a very important book, but the analysis is overly long and looks like an attempt to rewrite the book! Even an in-depth review of the book would be shorter. I was releived to see Kingturtle's change to shorten the article. Finally someone had the guts to do what I'd wanted to do from the beginning but was afraid to do fearing backlash.
I had several problems with the overly long version:
If you really want to keep the summary, revise it in it's new location ( Understanding Comics/summary). When it's massaged into a form we can agree on (meaning everyone interested, not just me and Tlogmer), then we can put it back in the article. No, this is not standard Wiki practice, but this is an unusual circumstance. — Frecklefoot 15:48, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Sorry for disappearing; finals etc. I'll post to the McCloud message board in a few minutes. Here's the smiley text:
You performed closure when you saw the lines at the top of this writup as two anime smilies; more to the point of the chapter, you performed closure when you saw the two smileys as a single winking smiley. "See that space between the panels? That's what comics aficionados have named "the gutter!" And despite its unceremonious title, the gutter plays host to much of the magic and mystery that are at the very heart of comics...If visual iconography is the vocabulary of comics, closure is its grammar."
— Tlogmer, 27 Dec 2003
The summary page is now at Wikibooks.
Can U.C. really be called a graphic novel? Novels are fiction aren't they? Nitpicky, I know! ike9898 16:53, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
I understand the desire behind the move to Wikibooks, but I feel that if Critique of Pure Reason and Das Kapital are entitled to good meaty articles summarizing a book's key contributions to the field, then so is UC. An outline of McCloud's findings would not be inappropriate. - leigh (φθόγγος) 01:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
We all clear now? When I said, read it again, I meant it. Anarchangel ( talk) 00:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)