Talk:The Walking Dead (comic book)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Comics / United States (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the United States comics work group.
 
WikiProject Horror (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Summary style plot[edit]

Several sections of this article are presented in summary style. The Plot section is, compared to the rest of the article, obscenely long and getting longer, and attempts at shortening it have been resisted. Given these facts, I propose presenting the Plot section in summary style. Because as it stands now, this is not a good Wikipedia article. —Frungi (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There isn't anything wrong with the length of plot section. You're the only that seems to have a problem with it. Your repeated attempts to take a hatchet to it should tell you something. You're trying to go too far in imposing your will on the article. If you new anything about the subject matter (which you admitted you don't) you would understand why others think you are going too far in chopping the plot summary. Maybe it's just time to move on. It's not worth fighting the same battle over and over. 98.209.42.117 (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

28 Days Later[edit]

I wonder if the similarity of part of the beginning of the story to the film 28 Days Later should be addressed here? 28 Days was released in 2002 and the books in October 2003, so the question about copying of storyline must have arisen. Hzh (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Hzh: If sources discuss the similarity, then sure. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

About that cleanup notice[edit]

Any particular reason the plot of a comic needs to be kept up-to-date in an encyclopedia article? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Because, you know, that’s what bloats that section… but then again, The Superior Spider-Man#Plot (with a much shorter series run) is worse. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Since it seems redundant to have both the “Plot” and “Story arcs” sections, and the latter is more concise and better formatted, we can just remove the former. Problems solved. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

To anyone in favor of long, detailed, page-by-page summaries, I ask this simple question: If the plot is important enough that we need that level of detail, why doesn’t the article discuss the importance of the plot? I’d love to see a (properly sourced) section on what kind of impact the story has had on the world. Otherwise it’s just too detailed. See MOS:PLOT: “The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections.” Also see WP:NOTPLOT. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Free comics[edit]

If there is an unofficial website that makes The Walking Dead comics available as a free download, could someone explain, both here and on its § External links listing, why it does not violate WP:ELNEVER? “Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it.”174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)