Talk:American comic book/Archive 1

Archive 1

Titles of American comic book and British comic

I'm not sure where to post this; the issue is argued on Talk:British comic, but I'm mostly concerned about the moving of American comic book to, and back from, American comics. Hiding, I really appreciate the work you've done on these articles, they look great. But I share Peter Isotalo's concern about the titles of American comic book and British comic. It seems to me it would be a good thing to address Peter's carefully argued points fully, rather than refer to a consensus that, well, I don't know exactly where it's expressed. Peter is the main contributor to some great Featured articles, and if you're serious about getting British comic up to Featured standard, you could hardly do better than draw him in to help. In other words, c'mon, a little elasticity here...?
The title of American comic book came about, if I understand the note at the top of the page, because it was an offshoot of Comic book. Maybe it's time to reconsider the title on its merits, without being influenced by its origin? Best, Bishonen | talk 19:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

My point is that these articles are to discuss the publication formats of the "comic book" and the "comic". With regards to British comic, it had long been at British comics and I had edited it as such until User:Nohat moved it to British comic. I weighed up the move in my mind, and upon creating Ally Sloper's Half Holiday, came to the realisation that the article is about the publication history of the British comic, and not about British comics, the form of comics as practised in the United Kingdom. If you read this article, you can quickly see that the same is true, this article is about the publication history of the American comic book. I have attempted to point out to Peter that these articles are not about the form as specific to their respective countries, but are about the publication formats. Articles regarding the form would also have to cover newspaper strips, graphic novels, caricaturists, cartoonists and comic magazine or comic books. As you can surely concede, British comic and American comic book do not do so, and therefore do not discuss the form. I do not object to pages discussing the form, I would welcome their creation. However, these two pages are not the pages Peter believes them to be. It leaves me with the impression that their is a lack of understanding of the terms "comic", "comics" and "comic book". He has already attempted to argue that a "comic", a publication format, and the British term analagous to "comic book" is equal to the artform McCloud has defined as "comics" and which Eisner defined as "sequential art". This is simply incorrect, and any attempt to persuade him otherwise has been doomed to failure, even after I provided him with sources.

I am offended at the suggestion I have no understanding of the merits of both sides of the argument. I would hope my explanation above would quickly disabuse people of that notion. I am also worried that you argue we should not be unduly influenced by the origin of this article. Let us not disregard the fact that this page grew from Comic book, a publication format, and not from Comics, the art form.

Further to that, surely the article, being about the American comic book, and not American comics, deserves to be at American comic book. This is the common usage term, the least confusing term and also properly reflects the merits of the article best. (added Hiding talk 15:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC))

Further note, "The Comics Code" had no impact on American comic strips, only the American comic book and that superheroes only dominate the comic book, not the artform. I would hope these examples would show why this is an article on the comic book and not the form.

As to Peter's experience in Featured Articles, whilst I respect that I would have to wonder how it helps him understand terms and edit articles regarding the field of comics. In fact, to go further, I have already been slightly worried at the lack of research he showed on another page (comics unrelated) in deciding the older of two terms without any external research. Hiding talk 13:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I am also worried at your praise of my work on this article. A quick glance at the edit history should show I have put no work into this one and I can only extend your praise and add mine to the people who have worked extremely hard on it. Hiding talk

And as to sourcing my argument, please advise me as to the viability of doing so when Peter so willingly disregards my sources and references as above in the Bronze Age section? Hiding talk 16:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, if all you ask is that we start a separate American comics, then I'm more than happy to oblige. I thought you were just generally opposed to writing about comics from a perspective that wasn't specically medium-related. I'll start working on it as soon as possible.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I would welcome such pages and apologise if I have given any other impression. It has long been a goal of WP:CMC to have such pages. Thank you, that sounds perfect. Hiding talk 18:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Marvel Comics

As I recall, in 1961, it was still Timely Comics.--K D Faber

In early 1961, publisher Martin Goodman's Magazine Management Company had begun using the "MC" logo, for "Marvel Comics". See Atlas Comics (1950s), which talks about the transition and the cover logos from Timely to Atlas to Marvel. - Hope this helps. Tenebrae 15:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In your "Golden Age" section there is a typo. The sentence reads:

In February 1935, National Periodical Publications published New Fun Comics, which contained the first original characters and stories in the mew format.

I believe you meant "...new format"

Mason 23:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Mason Emerson

The list of significant american comic books removal

I removed the list since it is against our neutral point of view policy, and especially per Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms and Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Hiding Talk 20:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Showcase4.JPG

Image:Showcase4.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

March 4 revert

Following the Feb. 26 edit by Scottandrewhutchins, many additional edits were made citing circulation numbers, giving quotes, and supplying paraphrases that may or may not accurately depict what a party was thinking, using existing footnotes whose citations did not support those claims.

For example, neither the paraphrase below nor the circulation number, added after-the-fact, are verified by the preexisting citation:

Why bring out comic books as premiums for other people, Gaines asked himself, when they could be sold directly to the kids? Gaines and Wildenberg collaborated with Dell for a printing of 35,000 copies of their 36-page comic book they titled Famous Funnies: A Carnival of Comics — :http://www.comics.org/details.lasso?id=75 Grand Comics Database: Famous Famous - Carnival of Comics.

We can't just add our assertions, no matter how well-intentioned, to an extant citation that doesn't support the new edit. There were so many of these, woven in and out of so many paragraphs, that it was impossible to go in and surgically examine each and every one — and in any case, it's each editor's responsibility to verify our own claims. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Manga?

Should a manga section be added? Although usually originating in Japan, they are increasingly popular in the u.s, and replace American comics like marvel in many peoples lives.Ehccheehcche ([User talk:Ehccheehcche|talk]]) 23:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Manga isn't originally published in comic book format, as I have interpreted the meaning. (17 x 26 cm (6 ⅝" × 10 ¼"), about 20-200 pages, soft paper cover). 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth adding Original English-language manga into "see also" but this is about a very specific publication type - best place for more coverage of OLE manga would be comics. (Emperor (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

Summer events

The last paragraph on the modern era of comics touches on it somewhat but the summer "events" (crossover storylines) are a big deal in getting more eyes on comics. Secret Invasion got a lot of coverage and the massive sales (estimates give it as over 250,000 issues) show how important it can be (and can lead to other titles being spun off from this hopefully getting a boost on the circulation - as with Captain Britain and MI: 13 this year). I was just reading this article on Newsarama, and it got me thinking. Anyway just thought I'd throw it in. (Emperor (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

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. Hiding T 15:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Chromium age

I've removed the section on the Chromium Age because the only source so far provided, [1], states that the age is referred to as either 'a “Gimmick Age.”' or the “Dark Age”, and refers to it as the “Chrome Age” or “Chromium Age,” only in footnotes. I'm also wary of ascribing this site reliable source status since they have such a bad handling of grammar. Hiding T 13:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Production section

I see that section has not been touched in some time. Yes, collaborative efforts, dubbed the "Marvel Way", is the prevalent way of creating comics in the Americas but by no means the only one. Also, the section quotes no references and in that sense could be considered original research. This should be explained, have references added, and alternate modes of production presented as well, such as in Europe and for Manga, where multiple credited artists are not the norm. Fetternity (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about American comoc books, not European or Japanese comic books. The norm in other cultures is not relevant to an article about the American version of the art form.64.222.94.132 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Crossfire

"strong cross influences—inked lines emphasize aspects of the scene, but is this particular emphasis the intention of the penciller or is the penciller's preference off-base compared to the point of the story?" Should we be asking the reader to guess what's in the artist's mind? I deleted this. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Proto-comics

An anonymous IP is repeatedly deleting the section on proto-comics from this page. While I appreciate that what constitutes a "proto-comic" is open to debate, simply deleting the article's references to The Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck and The Yellow Kid collections isn't the best way to rectify this -- it leaves the article with the false impression that Dell's 1930s books are the first examples of the form, and eliminates all reference to these important works. Obadiah Oldbuck and The Yellow Kid books clearly exist, and are often cited in comics criticism as early examples of comic books. If an editor disputes this or has examples of earlier books, the best thing to do is to expand the section, or better yet discuss it here. Simply throwing out important material isn't a constructive way to improve the article. ~CS (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Size matters

Is the page size intended to describe the foldout size, or the single page? Because I'm pretty sure single pages (or closed books) aren't 10" wide! Or is that supposed to be 10" high? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

CC of post at User talk:218.186.9.10

You are continuing to make disruptive changes, this time to American comic book, a very broad, general topic that is not the place for plot minutiae about the X-Men and the Morlocks. After this material has already been reverted once for that specified reason, your insistence on returning that minutiae is disruptive editing as this IP has consistently demonstrated in the past. If you continue to make disruptive edits, an admin will be asked to protect the page and to block this IP address. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

On sale

"EC Comics' more adult-oriented horror titles sold 400,000 a month." Was that 400K each, or total? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 20:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It was per issue, with more than one title per month, but only for the horror books AFAIK. Moot point, as I've removed the statement, and its ridiculous (and unsourced) claim that these comics were "adult-oriented". CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 06:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Price of comic books

It seems to me that the price of comic books (and books in general) has skyrocketed well beyond inflation. Perhaps there should be a section about this, since the price of comicbooks was once attributed to their popularity and is now being attributed to their niche status. Part of it has to do with the quality of paper now used, but that does not seem to be the only factor. I'm not sure comics would be that much less expensive if they were done on newsprint like they were fifteen years ago. --Scottandrewhutchins 13:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A section on the typical pricing of comics is a really good idea -- the dates of the price rises and the amounts are historically significant facts relative to the medium. I'd hesitate to draw conclusions about the price affecting popularity, unless we had an authoritative quote from, say, an economist. Otherwise ... yeah! Let's do it! --Tenebrae 18:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

True, speculations about popularity are not encyclopedic, but comparing prices to inflation is. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Some six years on and there is still nothing on prices except for the 50 cents figure for the 19th century. I thought comic books in the fifties were 5 cents, but an unauthoritative source on the Internet says 10 cents (which was the price for at elast part of the sixties). The price was often on the cover, so someone with access to old comics or pictures of their covers could supply this info if the trade doesn't list it somewhere oneline or in print.211.225.33.104 (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

They were typically ten cents from the 1930s until the early 1960s, when they jumped to twelve cents. There was a psychological barrier to raising the price from ten cents, so the publishers instead kept cutting the page count, which started at typically 64 pages in the 1930s and steadily dropped from there. Of course, this all needs a citation. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)