Talk:American comic book

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Comics / United States / DC Comics / Marvel (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Comics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Comics - United States comics work group (marked as Top-importance).
 
Note icon
This article lacks sufficient references and adequate inline citations. Once the references are added, please remove the |unref= parameter from this template.

This article was created to address concerns that the comic book article was too US-centric. See the discussion on that 'talk' page if interested ike9898 16:48, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion RE: This paragraph[edit]

The comic book saw a decline from a World War II high but has increased drastically during the last 30 years. This has been caused by a number of factors, including the advent of the underground comics, the influence from and rise in popularity of manga and the recognition of the comic medium among academics and literature critics not just as trivial childrens' entertainment, but as a serious form of literature and art.

I'm not sure the facts hold up above, and in any case they're not given or cited. From my understanding, there is only a core of about 100,000 readers, and this is down from even the early 1990s when a comic could still sell a million copies. I'm not sure there's been a million-seller in a while, so this seems a decrease rather than an increase.

The advent of of underground comics was 40 years ago, not 30, and either number of years makes me wonder how relevant their influence is to present recognigition as literature/art. Wouldn't the rise of naturalistic works such as Harvey Pekar's, the Hernandez Bros. and "Ghost World", from about the '80s on, be the more relevant influence?

Lastly, and as much as I like and respect manga, I'd have to question whether it contributes or actually takes away from the literature/art equation. Even a technical and aesthetic breakthrough like "Akira" has had mixed critical response on its story, and the overwhelming majority of manga titles I believe are aimed at youngsters, along the lines of "Sailor Moon". (Certainly I've read that's true in Japan.) I wonder if it's the European works ("Dylan Dog", Moebius. et al.) that might be more relevant here. Could we discuss? -- Tenebrae 13:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that point about naturalistic artists' influence is significant. I recall that Pekar and Los Bros Hernandez were referenced in most of the articles I read about indie comics in the 1980s. Both brought in new readers by "crossing over" into literary, jazz, and punk subcultures, putting the comics artform within other contexts. LBH aren't mentioned, either, and they were some of the most popular artists back then. Also, Spiegelman, LBH, and Pekar were all self-conscious about their work as related to literature, and they would discuss it as such, and to different degrees, strove to expand the artform. They also saw themselves as the next stage in underground comix. (Crumb also did a number of autobiographical stories at the time. Joe Sacco also influenced the form with his journalism.)

Manga's influences were on two fronts. There were a number of works that were naturalistic and got popularized as reprints in America, however, they aren't really considered mainstream. The "anime" style was far more popular, but what it seemed to bring to the form was more complex storytelling and some new twists fantasy and science-fiction themes. I think, in Japan, there's a division between these two types of manga.

Finally, the public perception of comic books isn't "trivial children's entertainment" but as a fantasy genre for young boys. Manga hasn't changed that very much, if at all. The comic "words-and-pictures" artform, however, has a measure of respect in the art world and in the academic spheres. It's holding its own, and the proponents have been doing their work. This should be recognized. -johnk 66.245.193.131 09:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Bronze Age[edit]

I added a Bronze Age section which I'm surprised didn't already exist. Unfortunately, some of it ended up being redundant with the Silver Age article, but I felt the Bronze Age was too important to just omit. Other people can fix the redundancy if they wish. Ken Arromdee 30 June 2005 02:34 (UTC)

Having a look, it appears the bronze age does exist, however on wikipedia its discussed as the modern age of comics. Do people think the modern age should be broken out into the bronze age and the modern age, or should the bronze age remain a part of the modern age in discussion here? If it is decided to break it out, then the articles need to be better edited to reflect that, particularly Modern Age of Comic Books Hiding 30 June 2005 07:16 (UTC)

Even this article pretty much associates the Modern Age with the mid-1980's, except for that paragraph about the direct market. I've never seen 'Modern Age' or any variations used to describe the period from the 1970s to the present. Ken Arromdee 30 June 2005 14:07 (UTC)

Um, did you actually have a look at the article Modern Age of Comic Books, to which Bronze Age of Comic Books redirects? It looks to me, especially in this article, that here on wikipedia the consensus so far has been to define the silver age and the golden age, but to leave any periods afterwards to be defined as the modern age. Whether that consensus is right or wrong I do not know, but I think there should at least be consistency across all the articles that refer to this period. Hiding 30 June 2005 15:43 (UTC)

I did a Google search and it does seem that Modern Age can be used for the post-1970 period. On the other hand, much of this is use by dealers, who have less motivation to distinguish the Bronze and Modern Ages because they don't differ in price much. (On the gripping hand, most Google pages dealing with comics seem to be related to dealers.)

Even then, redirecting Bronze Age to Modern Age doesn't make sense if you're also defining Modern Age as 1970 to present. If Modern means post-1970 then Modern includes Bronze, but Modern isn't the same as Bronze.

On Google, "Modern Age" -"bronze age" "comic books" gives me 11100 references and "Bronze Age" "comic books" gives me 32100. Ken Arromdee 30 June 2005 20:54 (UTC)

All this talk of "XXX ages" though they were set terms accepted by a consensus really isn't a serious treatment of the topic of comic history. First off, searching Google for just the words contained in the title doens't prove anything. If you want to use these kinds of names, you need to show that there is a very clear consensus among serious comic historians about these terms. I've looked at serious literature about comics and so far I can't find a trace of agreement with the terminology. Secondly, all this "Gold" and "Platinum" and whathaveyou really smacks of peacock terms and it makes the articles look a lot less serious than they really are.
Mind you, I'm not criticizing the content, which looks great, it's just that this kind of era naming isn't compatible with serious history writing whether it be about medieval castles or comics. You need to give these article more neutral and less whimsical names that reflect more than just your own views on the topic.
Peter Isotalo 06:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd care to peruse Superhero Comics of the Golden Age: The Illustrated History (Taylor History of Comics S.) or The Comic Book Heroes: From the Silver Age to the Present or The Silver Age of Comic Book Art or The Silver Age of Comic Book Art for starters. Hiding talk 16:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
One book does not make a consensus. There are "Golden Ages" of pretty much every aspect of history, but very few of them are set terms in themselves. You need to show that a majority of comic historians agree on this term. The same most certainly goes for "Platinum" and "Silver" ages.
Peter Isotalo 17:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Whilst I can, and would normally be willing to provide more sources, there seems to be little point as you seem unwilling to accept or consider them. Please also advise me as to where in Wiki policy it specifies that a consensus of sources is required before one can input datum. Hiding talk 16:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
We're talking past each other here. I'm not trying to ignore that some or even a lot of sources use this kind of terminology, but I just am very skeptical that it should be considered encyclopedic. There's a problem of POV, since "Golden Age" implies very distinct connotation of superiority; an age that is undisputably better and more prestigious than previous or following periods. While it's certainly valid to explain that many refer to certain periods as "a golden age" or even "the Golden Age", it's an entirely different matter to actually name articles this way. And where does "Platinum Age" come from? Is this used in any literature at all and what is it supposed to mean? Are all comic book periods per definition better the older they are?
What I'm asking for here is wide consensus among experts and aficionados about terminology. You don't need to start counting source or Google hits, just give a proper thought to how this affects the neutrality of the articles.
Peter Isotalo 18:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
See, I object to the point about encyclopedic. There doesn't seem to be an agreed standard of encyclopedic, it simply equates to POV, yours or mine. As to using the names themselves in section headers and articles, your best bet is to RFC then. They are established terms, but I can see your point and would not personally object to section headings which use dates with the terms mentioned in the text as used by [insert sources].
Per Platinum age, I'll give you three Platinum age cites, google would give you more but I'm sure you know that:
  • Beerbohm, Robert L. 1997. The American Comic Book: 1897-1932. The Beginning: The Platinum Age. in The Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide, 27th ed. by Robert M. Overstreet, New York: Avon Books and Timonium, MD: Gemstone Publishing: 1-15
  • Star Collector: Robert Beerbohm - Platinum before gold. Diamond Dialogue (January): 48-49
  • Collectortimes.com
It's a recent term Beerbohm has coined but seems to have become adopted by comics scholars, if you need further confirmation your best bet is to join and ask at the comics scholars mailing list.
If you need to cite terms, the comics research bibliography will probably be useful to you. Yes the naming conventions are based upon being superior. Bronze Age and Platinum Age are recent terms, I'm not sure of the coining of the first two terms though. Hiding talk 19:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The first reference I ever saw of Bronze Age was in Wizard magazine when I talked about modern horror titles (some of which go all the way back to the mid 60's) Glad to see that Jamie Coville (History Of Comic books) is not the only one to use Platinum age as a reference for the 1897-1938 period. The Modern Age beginning tends to be marked by Crisis and Secret Wars and some have come up with a host of names for it- Iron Age, Gimmic Age, etc.--BruceGrubb 12:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


By the way, to what do you refer when you say you have access to serious comics literature? Be aware Sabin for one is thought sloppy in places. Do you have access to any Kunzle, his work is reputedly the best, but sadly out of print. Hiding talk 19:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
My vote goes to have a standalone Bronze Age entry. 1976 is 30 years ago; that's far more than separates the Golden from the Silver, and there's a highly recognizeable difference in style, theme, conventions, and accepted industry standards between the post-Silver Age '70s, and today. Here's an example: An interracial romantic kiss was never done to my knowledge pre-1970s. It's common today in the Modern Age. What was in-between? Its controversial first occurrance in the Bronze Age, when Don McGregor and P. Craig Russell pioneered it in the "Killraven" feature in Marvel's Amazing Adventures. I give just this one of many possible examples by to indicate the demarcated step-process between Silver Age and now: Between taboo and commonplace, there's a distinct territory where boundaries are tested, and conventions redefined.
Related to this change and distinction is the early-70s updating of the Comics Code, the first since its inception in 1954. The subsequent initial blossoming of creators newly liberated in certain respects — testing what these new liberties meant — marks a different era than today, when standards are much more established.
The Bronze Age, I'd suggest, also has a pantheon distinct from the Silver and Modern Age. Creators such as Gerber, Englehart, McGregor, Gulacy, etc., while certainly active and producing good work, had the same resonance, fan-following, etc., that Bendis, Millar, Moore, etc. do today. While there's a cycle to audience likes and dislikes, you can compare this to the movies following the start of MPAA ratings in 1968 -- there were 1970s stars and directors like Burt Reynolds, Peter Bogdanovich, Bob Rafelson, Faye Dunaway, etc., who are still around and doing quality quieter work, but the feel of movies in the 1970s, just after the studio system broke down and filmmakers were newly liberated in certain respects — testing what these new liberties meant — and marking a different era than today. -- Tenebrae 15:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
As someone who grew up and started reading comics in the 1970's, I definitely believe there is a distinction between Bronze age and "modern" age comics. The writing and characterization changed rather drastically in the mid/late 80's, from a more naturalistic/realistic style, which showed both the highs and lows of the characters, to a stylized, grim and gritty, joyless, almost cyberpunk style, with many "heroes" revealed as either corrupt or as tortured victims of abuse. Compare the Dark Phoenix Saga, or the early New Teen Titans, to something like The Dark Knight Returns or Grendel. Now, of course, this is all my own subjective opinion; but then so is the difference between the other comic Ages. I don't agree that "serious comic historians" should be the only ones to define the terms or ages used in the article; this smacks of non-neutral POV, by rendering a value judgement on who is Serious and who isn't. The terms Golden, Silver and (to a lesser extent) Bronze Ages are in frequent use among comic book professionals and comic dealers; is their use less valid than armchair historians?

Noclevername 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Your point would be better take if you weren't an anonymous IP. Not registering can be perceived as a way of avoiding accountability. But read on through the last paragraph; this isn't as bad a posting as it sounds.
Comics scholarship does exist, in that professors teach it in colleges, and in that journalist/authors such as Ron Goulart and Les Daniels are hardly "armchair" historians. I could be wrong, but I detect an anti-intellectualist bias in your statements. Yes, someone who studies and writes or teaches about a topic is more authoritative than someone who doesn't. And in any case, the phrase we usually find is "during the period that fans and historians called the Golden Age of comic books", etc., so fan opinion is note.
And in any event, the point is moot. If the term Bronze Age is in common useage — and, yes, personally, I very much think it is, so I do agree with your in principle — then it won't be hard to find citations. Simple as pie, everybody goes home happy and verified! --Tenebrae 02:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
(Yeah, I'd typed in the dashes and then forgot the tildes! 30 seconds later ... I was too late!) -- Tenebrae 02:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Not anti-intellectual bias (there's too much of that these days), just not wanting to eliminate pragmatic sources as opposed to scholarly ones. This is essentially a pop-culture subject, and the common usages of dealers (and, yes, fans) should be taken into account, I believe. Sorry if I didn't make my emphasis clear before; I'm not denigrating historians, I just wasn't aware of the extent of comic book scholarship. Noclevername 09:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
All good; and yeah, I agree with you completely. If you haven't already got it, ask for Gerard Jones' Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters, and the Birth of the Comic Book (Basic Books, 2004; trade paperback ISBN 0-465-03657-0) for a present. What a great read!
Now let's find us some cites, brother!--Tenebrae 16:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Marvel[edit]

Marvel Comics[edit]

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

Titles of American comic book and British comic[edit]

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)

The list of significant american comic books removal[edit]

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[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

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)

Price of comic books[edit]

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)

March 4 revert[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

On sale[edit]

"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". CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 06:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Production section[edit]

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)

Chromium age[edit]

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)

Crossfire[edit]

"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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)