 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
History
edit"The earliest examples of motion comics are found in independent creations such as Broken Saints (2001)." Really? Because the 60's Marvel cartoons were essentially motion comics, even if they weren't called that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marvel_Super_Heroes Elessar (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Sources
editSee here for a dump of sources that could be used here. (Emperor (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC))
Basic Standards
editThis article does not explain what a motion comic is, which is a fundamental flaw. It says that the form combines features of animation and print, but does not describe how, or what the basic medium is, etc. 65.96.127.232 (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
More info needed.
editThe article does very little to explain what a motion comic actually is. How does it differ from a comic or a cartoon? What format do you buy it in (DVD, download to PC, standalone device, generic reader or purpose built reader with interchangable input media, etc)? It may sound dumb to those who know, but to anyone who hasn't seen one it's a very vague concept to grasp.Angry Mustelid (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Digitone Pictures
editZoltanWiki (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I would like to recommend the following edit:
In History section:
Digitone Pictures has also released an interactive animated comic book, Immortals and Indigenous by Zoltan Barati. It contains 3D animation, simulated clothing, hair animation, visual effects. The viewers can view acting key characters on a turntable from various angles. The book is also categorized as Animated Comics or AnimaCom.
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:
- Few editors are likely to read all of that because of WP:TLDR. Also, this talk page is for this article only, not all of the others that you want to add yourself to. I didn't see any reliable, third party sources anywhere in that post that shows why any of it should be included. Wikipedia is not an avenue for self promotion. If your only interest is to include yourself and your work in articles, then it would seem that you are WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 14:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I should also note that I was the editor that was the other side of the email exchange. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 14:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I have removed my recommendation for the other terms to make this page shorter. 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. Apple distributed the book. I would think that Apple Inc. is a reliable third party. The addition would fit in the surrounding and the external link shows even more information, free example, illustration sample, slide shows. If there is an interest, I can include even more info in the wiki sections but some of the rich media cannot be included in Wiki.
- If you honestly believe that the iTunes link selling it is independent, then I don't even know how to reply. You might want to read the whole page and not just one small part that is defining what published means to WP to get a better idea of what we need. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 15:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Dear Apparition, according to Wiki Questionable sources, they are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. I also understand that personal website would not count but we are not talking about personal website distribution here. 51 countries on all continents distribute this book on iBooks. We have also discussed that wiki notability definition which you are enforcing here related to whether a topic would have a separate article on its own. This is a comic book category which is less scientific by nature. You have also given me the opportunity to discuss this with the editors of the articles and it appears we are going back to the same discussions as you are retaking the thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoltanWiki (talk • contribs) 17:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Other editors are more than welcome to chime in here, but the fact of the matter is we need reliable, third party sources before inclusion should really even be considered. Despite your insistence, your iTunes link is not one of these. It exists to sell the product. It clearly has a vested interest in it. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 23:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Motion comic. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100507220720/http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/comics/589 to http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/comics/589
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110111174751/http://www.comicsalliance.com/2010/12/02/ben-templesmith-black-sky-illustrated-film-teaser to http://www.comicsalliance.com/2010/12/02/ben-templesmith-black-sky-illustrated-film-teaser/
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) 21:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Motion comic. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100519140610/http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/comics/616 to http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/comics/616
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101208011618/http://www.comicsbeat.com/2010/12/02/nice-art-ben-templesmiths-black-sky-teaser/ to http://www.comicsbeat.com/2010/12/02/nice-art-ben-templesmiths-black-sky-teaser/
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) 11:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Cómic: Noveno arte
editThe Spanish TV series es:Cómic: Noveno arte took frames from comics classics and added some animation as an illustration. I wonder if it could be called "motion comic"? -- Error (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)