Wikipedia

Talk:A Distant Soil

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Toonopedia

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An External link to the late, respected comics historian Don Markstein's site, to his page for A Distant Soil, was removed without stated reason. It is the only other EL besides the official site, so WP:LINKFARM is not the reason. Since Don Markstein's Toonopedia is a highly well-regarded source of researched essays about comics and animation characters, it provides pertinent, informative further reading that belongs here as as an EL. An editor should not summarily remove a pertinent EL with no reason, since under Wikipedia policy each of us has to provide a valid rationale for our edits. If none is given in the next few days, this link will go back in. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Toonopedia

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To follow up on the errors in the Toonopedia article, it states that (WaRP) "...sought the same working relationship the Pinis had, with Richard acting as editor and writer of the final script, and Doran co-plotting the stories and supplying artwork." Toonopedia cites no source. However, there are many sources from WaRP Graphics that directly contradict this statement. The most obvious being that Richard Pini was never credited with co-plotting the work in the book. The credits in all issues of the comics from WaRP Graphics credit Doran as the sole creator of the plot. In an editorial, written by Richard Pini in first issue of A Distant Soil it reads "A Distant Soil is the brainchild...of Colleen Doran, the artist on the magazine." Doran is also credited as the sole writer (plot and scripts) on the credits page of the comics while at WaRP Graphics. The reason cited for Pini's brief scripting contribution, according to an interview with both Doran and Pini in Comics Interview, July 1984, pp 50-51, 53, 55-57, 59 and 61, is to help Doran to "learn how to write," not, as stated by Toonopedia to seek "...the same working relationship the Pinis had..." Toonopedia has no factual basis for this statement. Also, in A Distant Soil #6, on the editorial page, when answering questions about why Doran was getting credit for scripts, editor Richard Pini wrote "we thought it was time to make this a truly creator created comic". If Toonopedia gets this much wrong about one comic in the first paragraphs, I don't see why it should be cited as a reference source about this particular comic. It may be a very important research source for others. Just not this one.MayCauseDrowsiness (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Toonopedia

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

There are glaring errors in the Toonpedia article, and statements with no sources. For example, the claim that Colleen Doran considers herself the first female creator of a graphic novel. Where does that come from? Is there an interview? Simply stating it is a "highly well-regarded source of research essays" makes it neither pertinent nor informative on this particular subject. MayCauseDrowsiness (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

More mistakes at Toonopedia. It reads that "Most of (A Distant Soil) featured Panda Kahn, by Monica Sharp and Dave Garcia, in the back pages." Only three issues featured Panda Khan. That is not "most".
Also about A Distant Soil comics; "Those nine issues had been created with an unusual pencilled art style, in which the finished work appeared un-inked." Only the first couple of issues were published from pencil art. The next few issues were published from art created in a combination of ink, and ink wash, with some pencil detailing. The final being published entirely in pen and ink line art. Not in pencil as stated by Toonopedia. I have to wonder if the writer of Toonopedia has ever even seen the comic he is writing about. Almost every salient statement about the comic A Distant Soil at that website is incorrect, and it is a very short article. I'd have posted this information the first time I deleted the link to Toonopedia, but had to find my resources. MayCauseDrowsiness (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Four issues, actually, #6-9, had Panda Khan. So that's "many" issues, albeit, technically, one issue short of "most." I don't think a minor technical error is anything to hang someone on.
Markstein's said the finished work "appeared" as if it were un-inked, not that it was un-inked. He said the same access to Grand Comics Database that we all do, which lists every issue's main story has having an inker. An ink-wash certainly can give a deliberately pencil-like effect. So I'm afraid you're incorrect there: Markstein was speaking of the final effect, and chose his words carefully so as not to say that anything was actually un-inked. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply


'Markstein's said the finished work "appeared" as if it were un-inked, not that it was un-inked.' No that is not what he wrote. This is what Markstein actually wrote: "Those nine issues had been created with an unusual pencilled art style, in which the finished work appeared un-inked." Not "appeared as if it were". He writes all nine issues were created with an unusual pencil style as fact, and it's simply not true. It was created with multiple art styles. And yet, he posts the cover of an issue of the book that not only was published in pen and ink, but which features an editorial describing Doran's art as being published in pen and ink. Not ink wash. I have it right in front of me. It's pen and ink, and it says so. If Markstein is such an expert, he'd know, too.
GCD has many errors, the most glaring of which is listing inkers for this series on issue where there was no ink used. Issue 1 is printed entirely from pencil art. That is what Markstein seems to not understand. The art was not consistent on the series. The artist changed her style repeatedly. Yet, GCD lists Doran as the penciler and inker. This may have more to do with the fact that the format of GCD assumes an inker worked on the book even where there isn't one. What Markstein doesn't seem to know is that two issues of this book were printed entirely from pencil art. The next few were published from ink and ink wash art. And the remaining stories, including one short, were published from pen and ink art, and one was in color. Markstein is simply flat out wrong. Those nine issues were not created with an unusual pencilled art style, no matter what he says. It was very unusual for any comic to be printed directly from fully rendered pencil art, but the entire series was not published that way or created that way. At best, Markstein misleads the reader, but he really doesn't seem to know the subject he's writing about.
I assume "he said that same access to Grand Comics Database" means that GCD is where he got his info. Well then Grand Comics Database would be a better resource to link than Markstein because GCD can be updated and corrected, but Markstein's site has not updated or corrected anything in years because the writer passed away and the site is static.
He then goes on to describe how the work was redone "from scratch" in a new "conventional" style at a new publisher, even though that very style was used while the work was at WaRP Graphics. Again, one wonders if he ever saw the series.
Then there is the credit problem wherein he doesn't credit Doran for her own work even as she is credited in the actual pages of the comic. For some reason, according to Markstein, she is merely a co-plotter, as opposed to the sole creator of the story and the writer of most of the scripts as well. That's not only not a minor error, but an important appropriation issue with a senior man gaining credit for a work created by a teenaged girl. It is factually incorrect of him, but a serious sexist bias as well. Women have enough trouble in comics without having to fight for credit on books in website articles because people assume no one will actually pick up the comic and look at the credit box for themselves. Since there was a major lawsuit involving this comic over the appropriation of credit and ownership of the work, i.e. copyright and trademark, not copyright alone as stated by Markstein (including the issue over who actually wrote the early scripts for which Pini received sole credit in the final publication,) then this is an important historical matter for this comic which Markstein dismisses with the line "The contract was not renewed".
Toonopedia is written by one man who adds nothing to the discussion, who lists no references or citations, and doesn't have any insights about the work. And his commentary is wrong. These may be "minor" issues to you, but there is no reason to link to that site which simply doesn't have correct information.
It doesn't matter how respected some people feel Markstein's work on that website is, that is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. He isn't an authority on this comic just because he wrote a lot of articles about other comics. His knowledge of this comic is glancing at best. MayCauseDrowsiness (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
"Appeared" un-inked and "was" un-inked mean two different things. Markstein never said the work was un-inked, just that it appeared to be so.
And I can't help to think from your plethora of uncited, evidently OR claims that you may not be a dispassionate, disinterested, unaffiliated party regarding A Distant Soil. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
I should also note, since we both seem to be spending a great deal of time here, that I have not re-added the link and that without a consensus by other editors I don't plan to, which I thought was evident. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Distant Soil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Distant Soil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Distant Soil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Distant_Soil&oldid=1197171256"