Talk:Comic book

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Rarest comics?

Is the "rarest comic" session really neccesary? It doesn't really fit in with the rest of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.69.57 (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is informative and perhaps even more appropriate than Graphic Novels. That said, it *might* be better placed in the page for American Comic Books. Are those all American? Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.145.109 (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is approriate as well. Not only that, but I think a section should be added about comic books that are worth the most, to show that comic books can be worth quite a bit of money. Millennium Cowboy (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that comic book people should get a job. comment added by 137.164.225.226 (talk)

[edit] Contacting Editors

Now that the letters page is missing from many titles, what's the best way of contacting Comic Book Editors? --In Defense of the Artist 13:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comic production technology needed

Some background or related Wikipedia links into the various technologies used to print comic books would be quite helpful. A timeline of production technologies would be most helpful.

[edit] Categories

The "Genre" category contained things like "Tijuana bibles" and "Alternative." Those are not genres. "Comedy" is a genre. "Horror" is a genre. New category, "Non-Mainstream Comics," created. 24.215.162.226 Sept. 8, 2005 1:30PM ET

Tijuana Bible is a genre of comics. Chris Griswold 15:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with genre is that some people are not sure what falls under it. Sometimes it is used to denote a style as in the case with Film noir and Anime. They are more styles but are often called 'genre'. Perhaps the earlier idea of throwing out everything and starting over might not be a bad one. The progression from political cartoons to paneled stories to actual books had been largely lost thanks in part to the way the whole thing is structured.--BruceGrubb 22:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Franco-Belgian

Since there's Manga for japanese comics, how does everyone (anyone?) feel about a "Bande Dessinée" page for Franco-Belgian comics? -- Tarquin

I think we might use redirections from common spellings (sing,plur,w/wo accents) of the word, and acronyms such as BD, anyway.
(Right now, BD points to the page for Bangladesh. We could make BD a disambiguation page.)
I created a new page called Bande Dessinée as a redirect to Franco-Belgian comics, and updated BD. I also mentionned these terms in the Franco-Belgian comics page. Lvr 13:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've decided to point the Sandman link here at the Sandman (comic character) page, but it's a tough call, could also go to The Sandman. Anyone disagree? --AW

It seems appropriate to at least make reference to Tintin and/or Asterix in this section, as other regional summaries are making examples of their most popular series...

[edit] Questionable

It is hard to justify the line 'Like jazz and a handful of other cultural artifacts, comic books are a rare indigenous American art form' which appears in the main article, considering the American comic was preceded by European comics by a long margin. The British comice predates its American cousin by almost fifty years, for example, although the invention of the superhero, is a uniquely American contribution. The article should be amended to make this clear.

I completely agree and I've made what I think is a good editorial compromise. I think.Comme le Lapin 08:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

According to The History of Comic Books the first comic book/Graphic novel was The Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck which appeared in the US in 1842 only a few years after it appeared in Europe. But in essence you are right as it appears the first US Produced comic was about 50 years later in the form of The Yellow Kid in McFadden's Flats of 1897 --BruceGrubb 11:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone find it rather funny for the word 'indigenous' to be mentioned when referring to an aspect of culture found in the relatively modern USA? Then again, I suppose the Native Americans probably didn't have comic books... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.210.195 (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Books?

Is this article really about comic books? As far as I can tell, the article mostly seems to be about comics, which are a sort of magazine, and not about books at all... Sometimes collections of comic strips are compiled into books, but that doesn't seem to be what this article is about. Can anyone explain...? -- Oliver P. 00:49, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Serial stories published monthly (in most cases) in sequential art format, usually in a staple bound form are called comic books, even though they resemble small magazines more than signature or perfect bound books. "comics" is a shortened form of this. Collections of daily newspaper strips can be called comic books, but this isn't common. Monthly comics collected into books are usally called "collections" or "trades". Theanthrope 16:05, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I'm not convinced about having this term as the article title, though. In the UK at least, these serial publications are (almost?) invariably called "comics", and if they are indeed also called "comic books", it's not a term I'm familiar with, and certainly not the most common one. (The Wikipedia convention seems to be to title articles according to common usage, even if some people consider the common usage to be incorrect.) The New Oxford Dictionary of English (2001) describes comics under comic, and makes no mention of the term comic book either in the definition or etymology of comic or as a term in its own right. Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary (1972 - okay, a bit out of date) has "a comic paper" (no mention of a "comic book") as one definition of comic. Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1986) defines a comic as, among other things, "a group of cartoons or drawings arranged in a narrative sequence". It defines a comic book as "a publication in pamphlet format containing one or more comics", which would seem to imply that the term comic is the primary one. Even if it's true that the term comic comes from the term comic book, it's not something universally known, and in any case the fact that the term comic is now more common makes it irrelevant! We do have terms that were originally just abbreviations as article titles. Pop music is an example.
I would suggest having the content about comics at comic, and have a separate comic (disambiguation) page for other meanings. Alternatively, if that would give too many incorrect links, then comic should remain a disambiguation page, and I would suggest disambiguating with a word in parentheses. Comic (publication), perhaps. I think that would be less confusing than "comic book", which I think to a lot of people (including me) would conjure up images of actual books. -- Oliver P. 01:40, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
In American usage, 'comics' and 'comic books' are pretty much equivalent terms. I prefer the term 'comics' because it would seem to better cover comics in other media, such as web comics. I support the suggestion to change the article's title. How do you change a title? User:ike9898
Usually by using the "Move this page" feature. (There should be a "Move this page" link to the side of each article.) However, that doesn't work if there is already an article with the title that you want to move the page to. Some deletion and undeletion would be required in that case, for which you would need to get a sysop. But luckily I am one. :) As for your comment about other media, this article is only really about the paper things. (We have a separate article for Web comics.) Do you think that, in the US, the term comic wouldn't primarily conjure up images of the paper things? -- Oliver P. 22:05, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
As I understand it, "comics" includes daily newspaper strips, whereas "comic books" does not, but is limited to the larger, longer format. Theanthrope 20:23, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
To me it makes sense to use "comics" to refer to artform as a whole, and use the terms comic book, comic strip, graphic novel and web comic to be more specific about the format. This point of view is supported by Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics".
It seems that there are some over-arching concepts that are common to all formats of comics, while each format has different particulars in it's history, usage etc. A heirarchy of concepts, with the broadest, most general concepts at the top, helps in the understanding of the big picture. Other opinions? User:ike9898

We seem to have a semantic disagreement based partly in culture. In North America, "book" means "comic book" to afficianadi (as in Misty Knight should have her own book), who use "strip" for the newspaper items most other people call "comics". British usage, as noted, differs. Is there a way to settle this without acknowledging the writer's inherent cultural bias? I've noticed differences in tone in articles, (apparently) based on where they were written, Britain or U.S.; I daresay usage here bows to the writer's home.70.64.128.34 17:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)squadfifteen

[edit] Not just about superheroes

I'd like to see further development of thought that comic books aren't just about superheroes, and aren't just for kids or childish adults (like myself). That's what I used to think too until someone showed me The Sandman and I realized it was rich a medium as the novel, and there exist genres within the medium. I've recently been exploring the crime genre, and I swear it's so much more fascinating than pure text can ever do, and that's generally because of how things are hinted at, not shown directly.

I tried adding stuff regarding non superhero stuff like The Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck in 1837 and The Yellow Kid in McFadden's Flats in 1897 but somebody happily deleted claiming no reference even though the ealier paragraph DID have a reference to Platinum age.--BruceGrubb 11:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popularity in North America

I'm interested in this statement from the article, "Today fewer comics sell in North America than at any time in their publishing history." I'm interested in confirmation that this is actually true. User:ike9898

  • This isn't a scientific confirmation, but should give you some idea: [1] Everyone knows that the market is much smaller, but it's worth throwing in a historical comparison to flag up the scale: when X-MEN was cancelled in 1970, the final issue contained an editorial explaining that "the plain truth is that the magazine's sales don't warrant our continuing the title. We feel that the artists and writers involved can better devote their time to other projects, other characters." Two inches below, the Statement of Ownership appears, revealing that the previous issue had a total paid circulation of 199,571. Dipping below 200,000 was disastrous in those days. Today, IDENTITY CRISIS is considered a hit with sales in the region of 125,000, and FALLEN ANGEL hovers around the 10,000 mark. No wonder the publishers are more interested in licensing. -leigh 07:38, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Marvel

Someone added a detail that Captain Marvel was from DC Comics. I think this isn't really correct. I pretty sure that there was even a lawsuit brought by DC against the company that published Captain Marvel, claiming copyright infringement because CM was too similar to S-man. DC lost. Now, decades later DC actually owns the rights to Captain Marvel, which they bought after the original company went out of business. The name of the original company? I can't remember. Anyone? Anyone? user:ike9898

The original DC Captain Marvel was done by Fawcett Comics. There's also (at least three) Captain Marvels in Marvel Comics. Both the Fawcett/DC CM and the Marvel CM were in one article. This article was split into its two halves (see Captain Marvel for disambiguation). The Fawcett/DC CM was put in Captain Marvel (DC Comics), with (DC Comics) used for simplicity. (See talk:List_of_Marvel_Comics_characters) UtherSRG 14:33, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't follow the link before making my comment. Oops! Thanks for changing the article back. user:ike9898

[edit] Spoilers?

Without having read every word, why is there a spoiler warning on this article? It seems extremely lame that an article about the medium of comic books should contain spoilers. IMO the article should be re-worked to remove any spoiler info. -mhr 07:17, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree. There is no information in this article that qualifies as 'spoiler' material. I'm going to remove the warning. ike9898 15:30, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

Why I reverted a recent change....

  • additions to a short list of very famous comic books, were very 'un-famous'
  • contributor changed the whole list to be 'in no particular order', just be cause he didn't feel like putting his contribs in alpha order.

The article should be adapted to make it acceptable for non-Americans. Among others, please do not used the word foreign. Andries 18:33, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


[edit] A complete mess ?

I do agree with Andries, and other people: this article is really North-American-oriented, where comics are mostly published with a specific format and frequency. European's comic books are more graphic novels, ...
If we look at all the articles in Wikipdedia that speak about comics, they are a couple of them !

We find that the same information is spread and duplicated into these articles.

I propose we merge Comics and Comic Books in order to have Comics becoming more the "style" or "tehcnique" (the paper sequential art, whether we could also discuss on this definition), and Comic books one of its flavors, more North-American oriented, like we have an article for the British comics, one for the mangas, one for continental-European one Bande dessinée (although it is not filled in, they are already several links on it), ...
Some of you would argue that nowadays all of this become very similar, i think it worth thinking further about that

Another interest would for the links with the other languages. Comics would be the corresponding English article for Bande Dessinée, Stripverhaal, Historieta, ... Now it is definitely not case.

Lvr 12:25, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

If you look at the bottom of the comics artcile, the is a hierarchical listing of comics related articles. I think this should help explain how the articles are all related in a logical way. Comics is about the medium in general, regardless of format (comic strip, graphic novel, web comic, etc.). For more specific information on comics in a particular format, you can look at one of the sub-articles. Please do not merge the articles unless a consensus is reached on this discussion page first. ike9898 13:02, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
Of course, i will not do anything unless we have a consensus on this. My meaning is the same as you. I just thing that they are information from comic books that are not relevant there (ex Tintin) and some pieces of history that should be moved from comic books to Comics. I don't exactly mean a "merge" but more a "recasting" of both articles, with clear hierarchy and links between Comic books to Comics. Lvr 13:20, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
I think the pages are essentially correct. Comics deals with the medium in general, as ike9898 noted. Comic book deals with a particular version of the medium. There is bound to be some duplication of material among the articles, but overall I don't think it's egregious. It is certainly not "a complete mess"; I think by-and-large it's laid out well.
This is not to say the articles couldn't use some editing. Comic book is North American-oriented mainly because it's been written mainly by North Americans (for instance, I did one major rewrite, and I am not a fan of European or Japanese comic books, though I think I tried to provide a greater sense of variety than earlier revisions did). If fans of those other media would like to expand the article with perspective on non-American comics, that would be welcome. On the other hand, it's probably more appropriate for the bulk of info on Japanese comics to be in the manga article.
I don't see how Tintin is not appropriate in comic book. It seems perfectly appropriate to me.
In summary, I don't really see a problem here. Though on the other hand, you can always be bold. -mhr 16:54, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
I think there should be a an article American comic book and much of the content in this article should be moved there. Then this article should be re-written with some more place for non-American comic books. Personally I read a lot of comic books but, like many others, apart from Walt Disney mostly European (French and Belgium) so I think they deserve somewhat more attention (if these comic books have been translated into English or influenced comic books in English language). There should not be separate articles on stripverhaal and bande dessinee. Those terms are simply translations of the English word comic book.Andries 18:27, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
I think that the main point of contention here seems to be exactly whose "common definition" is being used. Lvr, coming from a British(?) perspective, sees the terms "comics" and "comic books" as being synonymous; Americans typically see the term "comics" to refer to the artform ("sequential art" if you will), regardless of the form of presentation, with "comic books" being the magazine-style format of production of comics (as distingushed from strips, graphic novels, graphic albums, digests, etc). Although merging comics with comic book might NPOV the article titles, it would also a) move away from Wikipedia's uniform use of American English (color or colour?); and b) hopelessly complicate and clutter the resultant article, in that it would be dealing with both the entire medium and with one specific (declining) form of production of that medium. Yes, the term "manga" is just another language's term for "comics"; but the phrase "Japanese comics" is used much less frequently than "manga" in reference to comic books of Japanese origin. Articles (and article titles) like "Bande dessinée", on the other hand, are pretty much what you criticize them for being, and ought to be renamed to (for example) French comics and/or merged with the relevant comics sub-article(s). Also, I agree that Tintin shouldn't be in the "comic book" article, but in the "graphic album" article (if one exists). -Sean 02:44, 16 May 2004 (UTC)


I agree with Sean's definition. Both terms are not equivalent, but I don't think that everybody thinks the same: I started my post from the statement of ike9898 that In American usage, 'comics' and 'comic books' are pretty much equivalent terms, that leads me to this impression of confusion. The fact is that there is a translation problem if we want to talk of non-American "comic books", since this latter term refers to a format that is not common in the european culture.
I'm back to Andries proposition, to have an article or at least a section in this article for American comic book, where all the specific American comics issues should be treated, while the Comic Book article could be more universal and pointing to articles about French/Belgian/Japanese/Italian/British... comics books.
Lvr 09:20, 17 May 2004 (UTC) of Belgian persective (for Sean ;-) )
I support the idea of creating an American comic book page and making Comic book more general and international. I think the scope of the Comics article should stay as it is - the most general of all the articles in this group. ike9898 15:01, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
Lord, let's not call it "American Comic Book", though. History of the American Comic Book Industry would be more accurate. -mhr 05:35, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
"American comic books" is a really awkward and unintuitive name for an article on that particular format of comics. Unfortunately, there's not any better names for the format that I can think of. "Comics magazine" is the closest I can think of, except for the fact that nobody actually refers to them as such. -Sean 05:58, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
To go back to a definition of "Comic Books", do we state it is this (often)soft-coverd and frequently published format, with opposition to the graphic novel' format ? If this is so, we should make it clear in the introduction of the article.
Regarding EU (and non british) comics, there is a clear difference between those two forms. The latter (graphic novel) is the most common form and the first one (soft-covered and weekly/monthly published) is more like a magazine with short stories and where longer graphic novel are pre-published by pieces. I think that this should be explained. Thus for exemple: Tintin Magazine is not the same is the Tintin graphic novels.
By the way, ike9898 I saw your stub for American comic book: this is great. Lvr 09:11, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

There is no "uniform use of American English", and to state such is offensive. RickK

"Uniform" is a gross exaggeration, I'll admit. -Sean 05:58, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I restructured the Related Articles in a way that should reflect the content. Let's move the US Superhero-focused stuff to American Comic Books, and get somehing here that's more about the form in general. - Randolph Hoppe

Good initiative ! Lvr 14:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is this entry Oh Yeah! Cartoons & Comics really relevant here ? There should not be a Some various comic books in alphabetical order section here. This entry should be listed elsewhere, like in the List of comic books, where, by the way, this title is already listed. Lvr 10:13, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I just reverted the last edit. ike9898 14:13, May 28, 2004 (UTC)


Again (i'll end up feeling somehow like a policeman): is this Follow this link to browse through works by Alex Ross and other talented comic artists relevant here ? This seems more a commercial link that a truly informative link. Lvr 15:10, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I made the big change regarding comic book the form and the US history. Also removed pamphlet as pamphlets are not bound, and comic books are. Rand

[edit] Why remove history???

I understand that someone removed the history section and put it in the American comic book article. I guess this makes sense because as written, it is very US-centric, BUT the comic book article should have a history section! I think the best way to build this section would be to restore the original history section, and start editing it to include relevent developments world-wide. Any better ideas? ike9898 19:52, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

I think Rand did a great job. However, this article lacks some form of history. I think someone should write something from scratch, based on sources found in American comic book, Franco-Belgian comics, Manga, ... while making it different of the history found in Comics! - Lvr 09:01, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Mmm... well, I really like the American article now, and I think the move was appropriate. But, what kind of history would you want to put in comic book that would not be the same as comics or one of the region/culture-specific articles? I mean, as has been discussed above, the "comic book" format we're talking about here is almost exclusively an American and British thing. (The Brits don't use the term the same way, but they do have smallish periodicals, which Europe and Asia generally don't.) I'm thinking that comic book should become a pretty minimal article that mostly just explains the confusing and regional aspects of that term, and links to the other articles. ←Hob 16:09, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

I looked over the American article and it is very misleading. Totally missing is Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuckwhich was published in New York in 1842 as well as the very comic that coined the term 'comic book' The Yellow Kid in McFadden's Flats of 1897 which come out in hardcover in 1899. One gets the impression that whoever wrote it was not familiar with if not totally ignorant with the American comics of the 1897-1929 period.--216.31.14.168 16:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manga

Why should we include Manga on this page? Japan does hardly even have traditional "comic books".

Who said that ??? To which "tradition" do you refer ? Lvr 09:18, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Refurbishment

Anyone thought of doing a section of comic repair techniques, such as are used to repair especially valuable comics? Just an idea; I don't know enough to do it myself, but would like to read some info on it. I hear they can replace rusty staples, take out stains using certain chemicals, even replace some of the covers and artwork (but there are limits to this, of course). Usually only economic for really valuable ones. I saw a repaired Fantastic Four #1 and it looked crappy, but then again I also saw a restored Avengers #1 and it looked really nice and was really well done. --DanielCD 16:17, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject on Comics

Hello, everyone. I've just created a project called WikiProject on Comics in order to establish consensus on the organization and content of articles related to comics and sequential art. See the main project page and please leave comments on the Talk page. Thanks! -leigh (φθόγγος) 23:26, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] discussion

I'd just like to point out that there are several pages on comics characters that are not having any attention at all paid to them! For example, there's the page on Quantum that is VERY INCOMPLETE! All pages on superhero/villain characters should discuss that character's super powers! But Quantum's powers arent' listed here! All it tells is that Quantum was part of the Unified Field Theory! And then the discussion pages aren't having any attention paid to them! If there's a project on expanding comic stub articles, I SURE DON'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF ONE! There are a whole bunch of articles which haven't even been touched for months! Somebody had better get busy! Scorpionman 02:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Uh...if you are interested in this subject, it seems like you'd be a good one to contribute to that article. ike9898 14:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
The fact is, I don't know a whole lot about these subjects, and I tried and tried to find a page of Quantum, but no web page on him exists! Scorpionman 01:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The list of famous books

To all users with an interest in the content of this article.....can we come to a consensus about the "List of particularly famous comic books". Over the history of this article this list has been a popular place for everyone to insert their favorite comic book (most of which are subsequently removed).

I propose that we decide explicitly the either A) The list should be a short, very select list of famous, historically important comics from a broad historical and international perspective - much like it is now. or B) Much more inclusive. Allow any book that is arguably famous. or C) There should be no list at all.

Please voice your opinion here (I'll start):

  • I vote for A There are many, many books that are arguably famous. Too long a list ceases to be useful. We already have lists of comic books on Wikipedia. If not A then I would prefer C. ike9898 01:46, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd go A, but I'd like to query removal of Bone which seems famous worldwide.[2] Never mind, worked it out. Hiding 14:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • A. -Sean Curtin 03:04, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • A. I'll remove Clifton, which is even in Belgium not very famous (even though it is quite good). I'll add the Smurfs and Lucky Luke, though, as those two are famous worldwide. This would give the inclusion of four Belgian comics and one French one, which is about right for an international, English language encyclopedia, I think. Fram 12:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • A Lvr 12:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Could do with an image?

I'm sure there must be something suitable? -- Blorg 19:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Particularly notable vs. noteworthy comics

Ike9898 asked, "This particullarly notable list is a problem; Spawn and Captain America are not particularly notable in the overall, worldwide history of comic books. Should we kill this list, or fight about each new..." I just changed "notable" to "noteworthy". Maybe it's my impression, but the word "notable" implies "noting down", whereas the word "noteworthy" would imply "worthy of notice". Thus the section now encourages people to list comics worthy of notice instead of just comics that should be noted down. Image:Tycon.jpgCoyoty 19:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with Ike that we should just kill it. Any noteworthy comic books should be discussed in the article anyway. Hiding talk 20:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a good point. If they really are noteworthy, then there should be something about them interesting enough to put into the text of the article. ike9898 20:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mad attempting to circumvent the comics code?

According to the article on Mad Magazine, it was a diffferent reason entirely. Someone needs to get this issue cleared up. --Nintendorulez talk 02:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. See [3] Chris Griswold 15:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "Comicbook"

I seem to recall a movement a number of years back to use the term "comicbooks" because the medium had moved so far from being just comical little stories. I have used the compound version since then. Can anyone help me with this? Chris Griswold 15:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Mila Bongco's Reading Comics:Language, Culture, and the Concept of the Superhero in Comic Books uses comicbook everywhere but the title, and Stan Lee is quoted in Les Daniels' Marvel: Five Fabulous Decades of the World's Greatest Comics as saying:

"Consider the word 'comicbook.' I've been fighting a losing battle with the rest of the world over that word for years. Most everybody spells it 'comic book' as if it's two separate words. As is, 'comic' is an adjective which modifies the word 'book,' thus making it mean a comical book. Such an interpretation would certainly give a casual reader the wrong impression... Now, let's consider the single word 'comicbook.' Ah, what a world of difference! Suddenly, it is no longer an appellation indicative of humorous reading matter, but rather a generic term denoting a specific type of publication."

However, that's the best I can do at present. The Lee quote is probably of value to the article if you want to build a section on the term within it? Hiding talk 19:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The Daniels books is most likely what I got it from. It's sitting ony my shelf right now. Chris Griswold 21:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The word "comicbook" is very much like the word "womyn" which removes the word "man" from the word "woman" to create a new word, supposedly free of connotations. There is no scientific evidence to support the idea that because a word is spelled a certain way, that it will necessarily carry a different meaning for the reader. Also, too few writers use "comicbook" that it seems too few readers would recognize it as immediately as "comic book." Using it would more likely be seen as a stylistic inconsistency. More simply put, it's used so infrequently, that using it here would look like a mistake.Comme le Lapin 08:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
My apology for all the editors on this page for my little edit for "other european comic books". Its just my way of telling that tiraspoltimes is a big joke. Sorry if you dont agree with my opinion and fell free to remove my edit anytime you want. It was my way to make a point. Catarcostica 03:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that when The Yellow Kid in McFadden's Flats came out in 1897 it used the term comic book (two words) so the term predated Stan Lee's arrival in comic by decades.--216.31.14.168 16:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comic Book Price Guide

There is a nice article giving a concise explaination of how the American Comic Book evolved. I have not read the recent ones but the older ones had it in every issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.10.127.58 (talk)

  • Although it may be an interesting article, there seems to be ample information about American comics in this article. Don't you agree? Comme le Lapin 21:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manga isn't Comics

Can't believe this even needs to be said. What utter ignorance. 85.138.0.53 04:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

From the comics article: "A comic book or comicbook is a magazine or book containing sequential art in the form of a narrative." from the Manga article: "Manga is the Japanese word for comics and print cartoons. Outside of Japan, it usually refers specifically to Japanese comics." So in what way is Manga not comics? Salamurai 04:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Manga literally means comics in Japanese. Comme le Lapin 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.

[edit] Bad Comparison

Note this sentence: "The manga industry is of economic significance as well: the weekly sales of comics in Japan amount to a greater sum than that of the annual profits of the American comic industry. " Comparing accounting revenue to accounting profit hardly means anything. 71.222.150.36 22:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand this to mean that a significant number of units are sold, and their sale has an effect on the economy. It seems like a sensible correlation for non-economists to make. No? Comme le Lapin 08:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I commented too quickly. I re-read the sentence and now understand that it's trying to compare weekly gross in one country to annual net in another country. Yes, that's meaningless. Comme le Lapin 08:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ACD Nomination

I forgot to mention that I nominated this article for the Article Improvement Drive, as lets face it, the article is in a dire state and needs some improving fast. Ixistant 20:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Check before editing

I was in the middle of providing references to the Comic Book Ages information I was adding when somebody when off and deleted the whole thing. Remember not everybody edits things the way you do and taking out somebody else's hard work while they are still working on it is not just bad form; it is down right rude.--BruceGrubb 11:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Again check before editing. I had to put back in information that was not in the connecting article because somebody did not check to see if it was even there. Additionally actually reading what is there before taking it out would help as I listed several independents predating Cerebus listed so I was hardly claiming it as the first independent.--BruceGrubb 06:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying, but these sections are so far from being up to encyclopedic standards that it's distressing. It reads like a personal essay. The claims you make about Tomb of Dracula, for instance, needs cited and footnoted. There are lots and lots of claims in here that, and I'm talking as someone from the Silver Age to now, seem like unsupported original-research analysis. I hope you'll go to that previous sentence's link, as well as to WP:SOURCE and related pages. Defining these ages for non-comics-readers using this encyclopedia is important, and I encourage you to come back in and do it encyclopedically (which also means writing in a form that a general-audience reader will understand). Thanks, --Tenebrae 06:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


Right now the whole Comic book section is a mess by encyclopedic standards as it is all over the map. Having grown up through what was when known as the late Silver Age to now I can tell you the problem with defining these ages is that even the 'expert' in the field cannot agree on them. In fact I was using 'Bronze Age' (from the Wizard article) long before it hit main stream and was the one who sent the Wizard article information on to Jamie Coville (author of The History of Comic Books which resulted in the renaming of the "Post Silver Age" page to its current "Bronze Age" around 1997. What I am putting in the article is what I originally sent Coville in a much more compact and cleaned up form. In fact I pulled information from that article in my January 4, 1997 reply to there being a Bronze Age. You will note Tomb of Dracula is referenced as part of the Bronze/Modern Horror age. It is a little late to contest ten year old statements as 'original research'.--BruceGrubb 13:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right that much of this article is unencyclopedic, hence the warning templates. We agree on that.
The 10-year-old statements to which your refer still need to be cited in an authoritative published or online source. Otherwise, by Wikiepdia definition, it is original research. Please read that article and also WP:SOURCE, which states that blogs can't be used unless it's the blog of the subject him/herself.
And for controversial edits, as you note that this is (with experts unable to agree on demarcations), then an actual quote from the cited source would be in order. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tenebrae (talk • contribs) 02:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Well the passage is now cleaned up with demonstrted facts which I might add directly contradicted a statement made in Modern_Age_of_Comic_Books (I have also cleaned that up) I might add that it is kind of hard to take as originally claimed "Horror science fiction titles were absent from the comics market since the establishment of the restrictive Comics Code in the 1950s. In the mid-1970s..." at face value when anyone can show via the Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide and Google searchs for the Gold Key titles originally provied that this is untrue (Ripley's Believe It Or Not! True Ghost Stories #2 for example is dated Oct 1966). I might add that the refered articles have citation needed throughout them which only goes to prove that perhaps the whole comic book section (including related articles) needs a total overhaul.--BruceGrubb 12:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- and, yes, the passage you cite immediately above was indeed unsupported and inaccurate. You made a really good first step in cleaning up this promising but way muddled article. It's an important article, too, and maybe it's the very scope of it that's been keeping me, at least, from going in and working on it. Your having condensed it is a big step. --Tenebrae 03:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the scope is insane but I think that at least in the case of this article that the problem really is that too much of what is in linked articles is being repeated. I should note that I had to add information to the American comic book as there were inaccuracies to be fixed such as "Comic strips had been collected in hardcover book form as early as 1930" which a simple trip to The History of Comic Books would show as totally inaccurate. In fact the entire American comic book history of 1837 to 1929 was a shambles with The Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck, the very loosly connected The Brownies (I left them out as they really were more illustrated books then comic books from what I got), and of course the critical The Yellow Kid in McFadden's Flats being all but left out. Which remember me I have to put in that The Blackberries (1901 was the first full color US comic.--BruceGrubb 12:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] African comics

A while ago, I removed the {{worldview}} tag from this article. The requestor was concerned that there were no African comics in this article. Unfortunately, no examples of such were provided. However, I just stumbled across some mentioned in a different article. Feel free to add these or use the references therein to generate additional material. Cheers, --GentlemanGhost 14:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I think a rewrite is in order.

This article seems to be completed confused with the comics article.

  • Comics are sequential art.
  • Comic books are short magazines with stories told with comics.

This article should focus on this specific format in which comics are published, not on comics in general, as the article looks to be doing. For example, the entire "Japanese comics" section needs to go as manga are not published in comic book form (with the exception of series such as Blade of the Immortal being published as such in America).--SeizureDog 21:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comic Book Cataloguing System

Why can't the cataloguing system I added stay up? It was devised by a student that had taken Library Technician classes, making him an expert in the field of cataloguing books.

Every system or idea has to start with one person, so the excuse that one man's opinion on how to catalogue them doesn't weigh in very well in my opinion, especially when the exception is made for Warren Ellis' suggestion to use the term "original graphic novel", who is also just "one man".Millennium Cowboy (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Warren Ellis is a recognized authority. Studying something is not enough to make you a recognized authority. When your cataloguing system is in widespread use and has been published or discussed by some recognized publisher, it may be worthy of inclusion. Your cataloguing system adds no understanding of what comic books are and what their history and importance is, and is a violation of Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Furthermore, it is an essentially US-centric system, not suited for e.g. European comic books at all, so not useful for a general article on comic books worldwide. Fram (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well I guess now that you explain it that way I can understand your point of view a little better. I had just assumed that you deleted it because of the ProjectFanboy.com reference and I didn't understand why the comic book resources one was allowed but my addition to the article wasn't. And just for clarification purposes that is not my catalogue system.Millennium Cowboy (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, you indeed never said it was you who created it, I somehow assumed or misread. I hope that this rather negative first experience doesn't chase you away, we can always use more people on Wikipedia (and at the Comics project). Fram (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Also you have to take into account that a link to a forum thread almost always fails WP:RS. Equally, an awful lot of people must have come up with comic book cataloging systems and we can't include them all. First you'd need to show their notability (who came up with it, where has it been discussed/analysed, etc.) and then you need to ask what it adds to the article - here it'd need add something to the broader topic (something like "comic book cataloguing systems" might be another kettle of fish and you could afford to be more comprehensive in your coverage as long as the examples meet WP:RS and WP:N).
Hope that helps explain why it was removed. (Emperor (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Web Comics Sub Section

Why was the sub section on web comics removed? There are sub sections on various other types of comics following modern trends, such as Underground comics, Alternative Comics, and Graphic Novels. Web Comics would be arguably one of the most relevant additions to a section entitled "Modern Trends in US Comics". There has been an explosion of web comics on the internet in the last few years. how is this sub section not relevant?

Hu12 claims,

Remove promotional addition from editor whose only contributions are to promote Project Fanboy and projectfanboy.com

My question is, how does referencing a site that pertains to the subject matter constitue adding "promotional" material? And how does it make irrelevant to the article in any way? In addition to this, two out of the three webcomics listed as examples of webcomics were not Project Fanboy publications.143.79.143.10 (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the promotional aspects of the specific edit: webcomics are a kind of comics (and are mentioned there correctly), but are not a kind of comic book, which this article is about. Fram (talk) 07:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. As I've said on other articles - if you have problems with HU12 and the COIBot then you need to address this on his talk page where this is already part of a broader discussion of your edits (as we can't answer this same question in the dozens of articles where the WP:COI issues have been raised and the links removed): here (Emperor (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Replace main image?

It might be more representative of the topic to use a more typical and conventional cover for the top, main image of this article. Something classic but contemporary. --00:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)