To discuss article changes, please use:


If you see comments on this page, they remain for archive purposes.


Mike Peters Editorial Cartoons

Question for the general population. I just uploaded one of Mike Peter's political cartoons, featuring Kermit. But I'm wondering if it should really go here, since this is a page for his strip, Mother Goose and Grimm, and not his political cartoons. Perhaps it would be a better fit in the Minor Comics Mentions? -- Nate (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly right, but you can link Peters name to thise article, so they're connected. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. Thanks Andrew! -- Nate (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Joe just merged back in all the Peters editorials. I'm separating them right now, on the page, but it has me wondering if it would be better to just move this to Mike Peters and cover all the bases. What do others think? Also, the layout could use work. I understand Joe's desire to have the comics appear longer, and it's worked pretty well, but it looks awkward now with the addition of the differently shaped political cartoons. A way to note the dates when known would help as well. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I think a redirect to Mike Peters from Mother Goose and Grimm would be a good idea. -- Nate (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the way it is now works well: "Additionally, many of Peters' editorial cartoons, independent of the strip, have also featured Muppet mentions." —Scott (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
That probably works. I'll go ahead and make Mike Peters redirect to here, then. Dates would still help, though, if anyone can find any. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The dates are actually on the images (hover your mouse and they'll pop up). I'm not sure why they aren't showing up underneath the images like they normally do. — Joe (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
They don't show up underneath because there aren't any frames and it's not done in a gallery format (thus any additional text won't matter). And there are no dates at all for the Grimm strips (what I was really referring to; with the others it's agreeing on an arrangement, whether in a gallery or with frames, so they can be displayed without hovering and thus context is more readily apparent). The Grimm dates may be hard to get at this point (not impossible, just require going through online archives if they're there or otherwise remembering exactly when they're from), but especially since we have two sections, it would be nice in terms of chronology (no doubt there were Muppet mentions well before those here, but they'd be in older collections and someone will no doubt get to them eventually). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused. If we can see the dates on these cartoons by putting the mouse on them, can't we use them, or is there a chance they might not be accurate? -- Ken (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
For the political cartoons, in the current format, they can't be seen (i.e. they won't show up for technical reasons, not that we don't want them to show up). Thus my earlier misgivings about, at least with the political cartoons, keeping them at large size and frameless. The justification for the other pictures is given below (though that was some time back), but there still should be a practical means of noting the date and thus arranging a chronology. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to clear it up, we have dates for all of the comics in the article, so no hunting will be necessary. — Joe (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Aha! I thought that just applied to the political comics, but I see the mouse over was just slower on the others. So that's okay, but still, Joe, if you can find a compromise format where the dates can actually be visible it would be a lot clearer and less confusing. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that we've got to choose between being able to see the comics and being able to see the dates. I prefer it this way since you can view the date with the mouse hover. And chances are that more people would be interested in seeing the comic than the date. — Joe (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, but if/when you get the time and inclination, messing around would be appreciated. I honestly never really cared for the layout and now I think it looks even worse (we don't do this on any other similar page, really), but I know you like having the fuller sized, frameless images. So if you can find something that works for you and solves the problem, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture format

(moved from User talk:Toughpigs)

Heya Danny! I saw that you gallery-ized the Mother Goose and Grimm comics. I was thinking that it'd be better if we could actually see the comics without having to click on them. I can't think of any other pics on the Wiki that necessitate an extra action to view them. I kinda liked them bigger anyway.

Also, I'm currently going through all of the old MG&G comics looking for the other Muppet references that someone mentioned on the article before it was edited. I'm about halfway through the archives, so hopefully I'll have some good stuff pretty soon! -- Joe (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you're finding new ones -- I think it's awesome that we have all those strips, in color and with dates and everything. The page is really cool now.
I know what you mean about being able to see the comics without an extra click -- but technically, to fit in with the other pages, Mother Goose & Grimm should have one representative sample strip, and that's it. (That's how the Muppets comic strip page works.)
We came up with the gallery format for pages where we wanted to have a whole collection of images, but didn't have enough text to support them all. There's tons of gallery pages now, including Grover books, the Statue of Liberty, the Moon, Michael K. Frith Sketches, Sesame Street Magazine.
So I wasn't dissing the Mother Goose & Grimm collection by putting it in the gallery format. I love that page, and I want to see the other strips you find. Is that cool? -- Danny (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, but I feel that it's not necessary to shrink the comic strip pictures down so small. When they're that size, you can hardly even tell what they are, which isn't the case with anything else that has been put in a gallery. Even the Muppet comic strip page doesn't use a gallery, it links to a ToughPigs site.
I'm all for transferring pics to galleries (I've done a few mysely), but the Grimm pics are barely recognizable this way. -- Joe (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
While I have no strong preference for presentation, I don't see that the Grimm pics are any less recognizable than DC Comics. That is, they are equally unrecognizable, but for myself, I wouldn't necessarily expect them to be instantly viewable in that way. The notes on Michael K. Frith Sketches likewise can only be viewed at a larger size. The advantage to that is, in fact, that the source image for a gallery page can be as large as desired, so text need not be obscured to shrink it to 300px. Andrew Leal (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: Simply adding caption descriptions to the gallery may well solve the "unrecognizable" problem. Andrew Leal (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I see your point. But in the Frith sketches, the pictures (which are clearly visible in gallery form) are the highlight, rather than the text. I'd vote for an enlargement of the DC Comics pictures too, seeing as they are practically unidentifyable in their current form.
Would a possible solution be to create a second gallery template where the pictures can be doubled in size? I guess I'm just a little confused as to why there "has" to be a gallery on a page where the only information in the article is the pictures. -- Joe (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the comic strips are the feature of the article and don't work as well as a gallery. — Scott (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)