Talk:Romance comics

Move?

Was that needed? The manga and more recent comics are covered in legacy and it wouldn't have been too difficult to expand the focus of this piece to cover the whole range of romance comics. Either than or expand romance comics to look at the whole genre and then {{main}} this in from a relevant section.

A similar problem can be seen at Horror comics/Horror comics in the United States, 1947–1954. Actually as it is a wider problem I might raise this at WT:CMC (Emperor (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC))

I agree. Why narrow it down? Where does one go to read about horror comics after 1955? Pepso2 (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The article title was significantly changed unilaterally and without discussion. It also does not accurately describe the article, which has a section on romance comics in the 2000s. Given that this was a unilateral change without discussion, it should return to its previous status quo. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was Moved. Also moved Romance comics to Romance comics (disambiguation).--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Romance comics in the United States (1946–1975) → Romance comics — One editor, unilaterally and with no discussion -- made a major name change to a longstanding article. The title, which includes "(1946-1975)", is also inaccurate, as 2000s comics are discussed. Three longtime editors, on this talk page, have questioned or objected to this change from "Romance Comics" to the unwieldy and inaccurate "Romance comics in the United States (1946–1975)". -- Tenebrae (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Works for me. Hiding T 10:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

intervening years

This article makes it sound like romance comics died in 1977, and then reappeared in the 2000s. This seems to overlook the romance output of the 1980s and 1990s, which does not seem to have been at that much slower a rate than what we see now. There are titles like Renegade Romance, satiric takes like Empty Love Stories and My Terrible Romance, the long-running romance soap opera Strangers in Paradise, and reprint efforts like Real Love, Teen Angst, or Soap Opera Love. Obviously, the genre was not as thriving as in the 1950s, but I find it hard to see a significant resurgence in the aughts. Is there some sort of evidence I'm missing, or should the Aftermath section better reflect an ongoing low level of romance comics since 1977. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say satiric takes are not romance comics, but humor comics, just as Blazing Saddles is not a Western but a parody of Westerns. Reprints by their nature are not original stories, and indicate there was little or market for original stories during those years. Strangers in Paradise may have been a soap opera, but one could certainly make a strong case it doesn't the definition of romance as a literary genre. Although I agree with you that whatever existed that does fit the genre definition needs to be listed. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I realize that it's hard to look for consistency when defining a genre, but I cannot help to note that at this point, we're saying that romance comics started with a reprint project, and the last thing we list is Marvel Romance Redux, a satiric reprint-based project. I see Strangers, which is very much about the conflicts of romance, more of an evolution of a genre (much as we can consider Tomb of Dracula or the Veitch Swamp Things to be horror comics, even though they aren't in format like the EC tradition.) It seems to me to very much fit the definition of the romance genre given in the Wikipedia entry... and does so far better than many of the broken hearts stories that were part of the traditional romance anthologies. I would find it hard to say that True Story Swear to God isn't a "romance comic", even if it doesn't have a fixed end in mind the way that the stories for Young Bottoms in Love do (he says, writing that title here so he doesn't have to remember it later.) I can certainly see classifying Last Kiss, Marvel Romance Redux, and Empty Love as satires of romance comics rather than as romance comics, and thus refer to them more as an aside.

I'll try taking a pass at this soon. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, but keep in mind that everything you're saying would be, without WP:RS outside citation, POV and WP:OR synthesis. For example, you may say SIP fits into romance genre. I would say not. Who's right? That makes it a matter of conflicting POVs, and it can be included only with a reliable-source citation. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There is better sourcing to be had on SiP being a romance comic than any of the existing references in Aftermath, none of which invole the term "romance comic". Consider the use of "a non-traditional romance comic" (at about the 5 minute mark), or "almost a pure romance comic, but a Romance Comic For The 90's" -Nat Gertler (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Negro Romance

I am on a tablet and cannot reasonably edit a table from here, but Negro Romance should be added to the list of notable romance comics. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)