Talk:Bryan Talbot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Copyright and rewrite?[edit]

I've cut the detailed bio added by 85.189.8.47 because it's a verbatim copy-and-paste from a fan website. Good information but someone will have to rewrite it, unless the author of the site gave permission (and even in that case, it would need rewriting since the constant references to "Bryan" are a bit unencyclopedic). Hob 07:58, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

This guy came to my town in Brazil in the late '90s for a local convention and I managed to talk to him for a long time. He showed himself as a very nice, accessible and educated person; he would draw an A4 sketch to every fan who asked him. There weren't many at the place, and guys like Serpieri, Vuillemin and, I believe, David Mazzuchelli were around to divide the attention. I was kindly given a silver-signed copy of "Orpheus", a sketch of Luther Arkwright (I think, but I have to check), maybe a sketch of a smiling Joker too (as he was drawing a lot of those to the younger folks) and something more personal I like to keep: his business card. Years later, "Luther Arkwright" was published here and I made myself a promise to get a copy of it, but it's still very, very expensive, as it usually happens to graphic albums here. [Rod, from Brazil, 18-June-2005].

I am the copyright owner of this info and I added it to Wikipedia myself; quite obviously I have given full permission for this content to be reused here; as I run the Official fanpage I saw no reason to rewrite what Bryan himself had given to me as his definitive biography. James Robertson; webmaster of the official Bryan Talbot fanpage at www.bryan-talbot.com

I am a friend of Bryan Talbot's and can vouch for what James Robertson says in the previous paragraph: I have met him (once) at Bryan Talbot's house. I think the content from the biography page on his website should be reinstated, albeit with the several references to "Bryan" made more formal or "encyclopedic". --R Cornwell 19:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that by just lifting one person's bio you get sort of "locked in" to that version (no matter how good it is) and after all that excellent bio is already online to read. The entry needs a tidy up anyway so what I'll do is remove the copyright violation and we create our own biography as well as expanding the entry. We could, for example, do with a picture. (Emperor 16:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

OK I have rewritten the entry and removed that awfully copyright violation notice (is it possible to make a bigger one??). I've trid to keep things tight and luckily it does break down neatly into sections. I have tried to avoid too much detail in the biography and so have expanded the bibliography to take some of the strain off it. Its no way near finished but I have thrown in more links to different biographies and it should be possible to use the rewrite as a base for a better entry. Hope that doesn't interfere with other people's plans but it seemed the best way to move things forward. (Emperor 18:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required[edit]

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. There is a lack of references but there are quite a lot of interviews in the external links section and I suspect it should be possible to move most of them up and slot them in as footnotes to support various bits of the bio. (Emperor (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

Template message[edit]

How does one go about removing the message at the top of the article which states "‹ The template below is being considered for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus. ›"? It doesn't link anywhere relevant and I can't find a current related discussion. ponyo (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox photo consensus discussion[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm not an admin but I'm boldly closing this in favor of D under WP:SNOW. If someone can find a newer photo they are welcome to start a new discussion. --Pine 04:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Which of these photos is better for the Infobox?

I somewhat prefer the one in the middle to the one on the left. The greyscale version seems somewhat pointless, IMO. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
If I had to choose, I would say the Greyscale image is the most superior image only because the color version has an odd look that seems somewhat fuzzy or blurry. Frankly I would think we could keep looking for a better image.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Adding one more which I think might be a little better in my mind. Support use of D.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I think th e greyscale on looks nicest, except that it's greyscale. After that, I'd go with the one on the right. His face is obscured in the one on the left. I must emphasize, though, that I have little photographic sense. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
"D" looks best to me for the infobox, because it's an action image, naturally lit, with a good expression. "A" is lit by flash, sadly, and B and C are too closeup for the infobox. --Lexein (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • D is best. It is professionally lit and -composed, much better than all the others. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
"D" for sure! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • None of them are great, but if I had to choose D. -- King of ♠ 04:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • (ec) Option D looks best to me. Generally, color photos are best in the infobox when possible, so D is the best option. A is affected negatively by the flash and B is too close, low quality, a bit blurry, and displays evidence of flash. The greyscale C is probably the second best but, again, color photos are generally better for the infobox. Tyrol5 [Talk] 04:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I would choose D. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • D, by a long shot (pun intended). Rivertorch (talk) 05:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • D because it shows him engaged in his notable activity. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Another snow opinion for D. Mkdwtalk 07:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • D, definitely. "A" might be somewhat salvageable, but D is ready to go. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • D A has his face part obscured by his hands, B is blurry, C is black and white. D seems to get the subject well. Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 09:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • D I've got to join the snowstorm. I thought A might be a candidate, but when I look closer, there is a definite impression of, ::sigh, yes, I will pose for a fan photo::. While that is true of D, the expression is better.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • D should be used, in my opinion, though I think it should be cropped to remove the elbow from the other person on the left side of the image. The first image would be fine if there were no others, but it's framed poorly (a painting, with what appears to be a shark's mouth is squarely behind the top of the subject's head) and the lighting is not good. The middle images are not as crisp, nor as warm/friendly as D. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
If these are the only choices, I'd go with A or D. They're about the same quality, and are about the same age. A newer one, if availible, would be preferable. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The elbow really bothered me as well so I have cropped the image and removed unwanted elements with GIMP.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • D As the author of "A", I must say, if I had known of the existence of "D", I would've just added it myself! :-) Nightscream (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • D It is a clear image without obstructions. David A (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • D - I was asked to comment on this, I prefer the last photo, as it is a crisp and illustrates the subject well. SeaphotoTalk 16:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • D - It's more active and it's clean. Less flash and natural seeming than A and more active than either B or C - a writer signing books is usually a safe bet. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Will somebody please hat this snowball? --Lexein (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Finding a newer image if possible[edit]

The problem with all of these photos is that they are between four and five years old, though they are still reasonable likenesses. I suspect the longer term solution is for somebody to release a recent photograph to Wiki. Until then personally I'd be happy with either C or D. Given the emerging consensus, shall we go with D? R Cornwell (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice to have both a newer image and one that everyone could form a consensus around, but many figures have terribly old pictures in the info box. Just releasing an image that is newer doesn't guarantee it will be used. The image "D" is the best image I could find at Flickr that had an acceptable license. An idea would be to look through Flickr for the best image available regardless of the license and then ask the author if they would release it a CC 2.0 Generic license. This has worked for a number of us in the past. Then bring it to this discussion for consideration. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rick Remender: Lead image selection - Redux[edit]

It got messy and stalled because new images came along midway. Can we try again?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)