Talk:Tintin (character)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Tintin (character) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
January 6, 2014 Featured article candidate Not promoted


Lead first paragraph Comment[edit]

This is all about consistency. The current plan for the lead style of the first paragraph of each of the ten Tintin character articles is:

  • First sentence: Summary of all Tintin characters (introduce concepts of "fictional", "comics", "Belgium", "Tintin" and "Hergé")
  • Second sentence: Summary of this character (Stating, "[Character name] is" and introduce concepts of this character)
  • Third sentence: History of this character (Stating, "The character was created in [year] and introduced in [volume]")
  • Four sentence: Description of this character (Stating, "He appears as" or "[Character name] has").

Last sentence: Closing sentence to end the paragraph. Prhartcom (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

"Tintinology" and "controversy" sections[edit]

I've been making some additions and alterations to this article using the biographies of Pierre Assouline and Benoît Peeters, and I have begun to wonder as to whether the sections on "Tintinology" and "Controversy" are really necessary here. They are of course hugely important for our article on The Adventures of Tintin section, but this page exists to offer a discussion of the character of Tintin explicitly, rather than the wider series. Given that these two particular sections only really discuss the series rather than the character, I think it might be best if we remove them. Any thoughts ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I wondered that also and ultimately decided to go ahead with it. I do hear exactly what you are saying. We could make the same argument for the Awards section. Certainly these three sections won't be in any other character's article. The reason I decided to go ahead are: 1) Completeness for an understanding of the character Tintin; it was Tintin himself that performed those controversial actions. 2) Tintinology got it's name from the character Tintin. 3) It was essentially Tintin himself that was earning the award. I had planned for these three sections to be similar to the sections in the series article, but smaller in size, just touching on the subjects. This, I felt, gives a well-rounded feel to the future FA. Perhaps we can get another's opinion? Prhartcom (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly that the information on the Dalai Lama Award should be in there; after all, the award was given to the character of Tintin. However, I'm not convinced that we need a whole "Awards" sub-section just to contain this. I tend toward the view that it could just as easily be included in a wider "Influence" or "Legacy" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
On your first point, I'm not entirely sure that it is fair to say that "Tintin himself... performed those controversial actions". While that is true for the killing of the rhino in Tintin in the Congo, the overwhelming controversy in the series arises from Hergé's depiction of Africans, Jews, and other ethnic groups, rather than the actions of TIntin himself. Just a thought. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think redundancy between the two articles is in and of itself a problem, but I would reduce the issues to those directly involving Tintin himself. I'd drop the subsection titles—actually, I'd drop them for everything under the "Reception" section, as the only subsection with more than one paragraph is "Legacy", which only has two. You might also rename the section "Reception and legacy", or split off "Legacy" into its own section.
I see an issue with the "Adaptation" section. First, the MoS says "Adaptations" should be in the plural, even in cases when there's only one adaptation. Second, and more important, it's not the character that was adapted, but the series, no? I might take the key, character-specific tidbits from there and move them to a sigle paragraph under the "Legacy" or whatever section.
A last thing: isn't "Antecedents" an awful big, impressive word, especially as the first section of an article that will likely attract a lot of younger readers? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Good, I'm changing it back to "Origin" (or "Origins"?). "The "Adaptation" section will be renamed "Adaptations" (thanks for that) and kept because it discusses adaptations of the character. Same with the three "Reception" sub-sections, they deal only with the character and perhaps should be expanded, but I don't think a single paragraph sub-section is prevented or discouraged. Thanks, Curley Turkey, we always appreciate your insight. Prhartcom (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I look at subheadings as a structural tool to help navigation and keep material from getting unwieldy. If you can see five or six subheadings on the page at the same time, I doubt they are helping the reader—it's excess overhead, and interrupts the flow of reading when it's too frequent.
I'm not sure "Origins" is the best title—if Hergé claims Tintin le lutin was not an inspiration, then it could hardly be "origin" material. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Curly here on all points except one; I think that we could do with retaining an "Adaptations" section, as there are a lot of actors who have portrayed the character of Tintin over the years, and we really would need a whole section just to list them. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Can we expand the subsections a bit and keep the subsection titles? We have information in the main article we can draw from. "Origin" means "beginning", so is that word not appropriate? (Note: It's "Tintin-Lutin" according to Farr, who supplies a book cover. Hergé agreed the character was an inspiration.) Prhartcom (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
If it was an influence, then the article as written contradicts that: "although swore that he was unaware of the existence of Tintin le lutin until one of his readers informed him of the similarity in 1970".
As you said, there's no policy on the use of subsections, I'm just giving my advice. I don't like them. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah; I see: Assouline (2009) contradicts Farr (2007) and the current version of the article rightly presents both statements, however I see the article gives more weight to Assouline by presenting Assouline's facts as Hergé's own. I'm assuming both Farr and Assouline are citing the same source: Numa Sadoul (1975). An earlier draft of the article included Hergé's quote. "It's true. When I was young, I admired Benjamin Rabier enormously" which I quite liked. The structure of much of my work has been drastically changed. The jury is still out on that. Prhartcom (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, whether "Origins" is an appropriate section title or not will depend on how that gets sorted out. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Hergé was influenced by Rabier certainly, particularly in the manner in which he drew non-human animals, but he asserted that he did not actually learn of Tintin le lutin until much later. Again, this is an issue where Farr seems to have muddied the waters; as I have specified elsewhere, I think that we need to be cautious when using his works, as I for one have felt them to be chronically lacking in scholarly vigour. Assouline and Peeters generally seem to be far more reliable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
And I'm sure at one point you admired Farr and now your opinion of him changed. That's fine for the talk page, let us be careful to not to introduce such bias into the article. Fine, we can use caution with Farr if you suggest but personally, I think his work is fine. I question Assouline's accuracy on p. 21; he spells the name of the work Tintin le lutin but on p. 17 of Farr I can see the reproduced cover plate of that work and it's is spelled Tintin-Lutin (with the hyphen and sans the definite article that Assouline apparently added). I am still respectfully holding off on editing the article; I haven't wanted to get in your way until you have finished making improvements. Prhartcom (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Update: Happy to report upon second reading of both sources: There is no contradiction between Assouline (2009) and Farr (2007) (if anything I had misquoted Hergé in Farr (2007) in earlier draft). Article in current form looking good. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Tintin: The Art of Hergé[edit]

Have you seen Tintin: The Art of Hergé? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow. No, I had not, thanks! How did you hear about it? Prhartcom (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I was just at the Abrams website checking out their new Rube Goldberg book, and there it was. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Published just a few weeks ago. Prhartcom (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move notification[edit]

Hi, people may be interested to comment at the requested move discussion at Talk:Tintin. Thanks, Matty.007 15:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Controversy over copyrights[edit]

The article should probably mention the issue discussed at [1]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Belongs, if anywhere, in either the Hergé article or in the Adventures of Tintin article, not in the article on the character. Fram (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Needs a better, less partisan source as well... Fram (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Fram is correct, Piotrus. I am actively working on both articles (well, off and on) and can improve the main article with the Nick Rodwell information as soon as I can, or feel free to do this to the main article yourself, including an additional source. Prhartcom (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing hit and run tag[edit]

I've removed the undiscussed attribution needed tag from the introduction. I have not checked to see who placed it there, but had they read the article rather than just the introduction, they would have seen that this is already sourced in the relevant section, both to a print source and an online source.

It seems to me unnecessary to link to the footnotes from the introduction, and is not normally done in my experience, but feel free to do so if you feel that the attribution is needed there too (it is not difficult using the templates used here). Andrewa (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)