Talk:Midtown Comics

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 September 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Restoraton of advertisement-type material

Please stop attempting to restore the material that was removed from this article which made it seem like a blatant advertisement. The article survived its AfD largely because this stuff was removed, and the article re-written using only sourced material. Putting back in the advertisement stuff will certainly result in another AfD, which the article would be uncertain to survive.

Furthermore, any editor who has a connection with Midtown should take a look at Wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest and follow the recommendations there. Such editors should not be directly editing the article, and are advised to make suggestions on the talk page for other editors to implement or reject. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 19:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also keep in mind that behaviorial issues in connection to this article have not gone unnoticed in the past. See this. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

do we really need such a big gallery?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthFarWest (talk • contribs) 12:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

all the photographs are taken by the same person as well? is this perhaps a fellow who work at midtown comics? i can see why there were problems with this article. NorthFarWest (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the photographs were taken by me. Four of them were not, as they were taken by the store (the ones of Bloomberg, Tim Gunn/Phil Jimenez, Fallout Boy and Zachary Quinto).

I am not, nor have I ever been an employee of the store. I am, however, a customer at the store, which is why I am made aware of its various signings. All Wikipedia photographers presumably cover events relating to their personal interests, and/or are in areas close to where they live, and I am no different. I no more need to work for Midtown Comics to cover events there than I need to work for the Brooklyn Book Festival, the New York Comic Con, Barnes & Noble, MTV, or the city of Union City, New Jersey. Nightscream (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh hello there, much thanks for responding. are you friends with people who work there, then? NorthFarWest (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can say that. They're certainly seriously enough about how they run their business that they come to know their customers on a first name basis. I'm sometimes greeted by people behind the cash register when I walk in (one of whom knew me from our prior job at the Census Bureau before he started working there), and at this point, I'm a familiar sight there precisely because of all the store appearances that I cover. They certainly don't mind that my photos of their signings show up on Wikipedia, and I once helped them with this article (though I cautioned them that I would only do so within the bounds of Wikipedia policy, such as WP:NOTADVERT, WP:COI, etc.) But I do not work for them, and never have. I cover appearances there because that's the store where all the comics store signings are in NYC. Jim Hanley's Universe and Forbidden Planet do not have frequent signings that I know about, but on the rare occasion that they do, I go there as well, as seen here and here. Ditto for any other location that I can get to, as indicated above. Nightscream (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

alright. if i have a friend who is a musician, and i contribute a lot to his page, might that not be considered a conflict of interest? in very fact, even if your contributions to an article start out neutral, if they cause you to know someone, then after you get to befriend them, that may also be a conflict of interest. you do seem to like this store a lot, and are a regular customer, so mayhaps that is also a conflict of interest? apologies, but it does seem a tad fishy to me, especially seeing your name on all of those image file names. NorthFarWest (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i can't think of what purpose the whole gallery serves besides. NorthFarWest (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary, since you raise a valid point that I'm more than willing (and in my opinion, obligated) to respond to.

Yes, most of the photos in the article have my name on them. Then again, you can see my name on far more photos across Wikipedia, and in articles that have nothing to do with comics. Most of the images in the Union City, New Jersey article, for example, are mine. But that's not because I work for the city; I just live there. Again, I photograph those things in which I have an interest, or which I have access to. Others can be seen in the sample gallery on my user page, most of which have nothing to do with comics, even though admittedly, comics creators may constitute the most common subject of my photography, because I cover the Big Apple Con, New York Comic Con Midtown Comics, etc. Hardly my fault that I'm prolific.

Can a relationship between an editor and an article subject be a COI? Sure. But even if there is a presumptive conflict, ultimately, whether there is an actual one should be judged by the merits of the edits. If everything is sourced to reliable publications, does not employ peacock terms, exhibit informal or promotional wording, and does not violate WP:NPOV or any other policy or guideline, then it shouldn't be a problem. If the only edits that were valid were those that did not have some presumptive or possible conflict, then we would have to restrict a lot the photography on the project to editors who have no interest in the subject at all, which makes little sense, because it means that they'd have little incentive or interest in going to photograph them. But if someone does see material in an article that appears to violate COI or some other policy, then it should be discussed. If material is judged by a consensus to be inappropriate, then it should be removed or fixed. Nightscream (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see now that you changed your last post between the time I saw it and while I was composing the above response. In my opinion, the gallery serves the purpose of illustrating the size and sophistication of the company, by showing appearances by industry hotshots like Jim Lee, Grant Morrison, Joe Quesada, etc., but mainstream celebrities like Fallout Boy and Zachary Quinto. It's essentially a compliment to the text right above it. Nightscream (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i did not change my post, i am not sure of what you mean there. i will put it this way, then. the image section to me looks like an advertisement for this place, showing off all the fellows that have visited there. come to think of it that's almost what you say there, 'showing appearances of industry hotshots'. besides that, it looks to be an advertisement for the fellow who took all the pictures. i can't say if anyone else would see it different. not sure what to do here, thanks anyway. NorthFarWest (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry, I saw the newer post, and thought you replaced the old one with that one. I see now that it was simply a second one made in addition to the previous one.

I stated above that my intention for the gallery is to compliment the text right above it, and to illustrate the size and sophistication of the company in a manner for explanatory purposes, not promotional ones. In any event, if you want to start a consensus discussion on the gallery, I'm certainly not opposed to it. 22:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

not sure what you mean or how to start a consensus discussion. does it require a lot on my part? NorthFarWest (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't realize you were new to the site. In that case, welcome! Checking out Wikipedia:Consensus would probably be a good idea. I would also point out the Consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions section in particular. If you have an idea about how to proceed, like requesting Third Opinion, let me know, and I'll make that request, since I have some experience in that. Nightscream (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

third opinion does not seem right, perhaps the rfc, but i don't know what category would be right. NorthFarWest (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no encyclopaedia or informational value at all - just looks like we are producing some glossy promotional brochure - I've deleted it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking further - the section might want one or at best two images of a signing (using whichever one best indicates that it is a signing rather than a random headshot). --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]