Talk:Comic book

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Comics (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 
 
Note icon
This article may need general cleanup. Please see below for details.
Note icon
This article is a candidate to be the project collaboration of the month.
WikiProject Magazines (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Contents

Rarest comics?[edit]

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)

More important than Graphic Novels? Graphic novels are a form that comics take. "Rarest comics" is pointless trivia that is meaningful only to collectors of comics, not readers or creators. Does the wiki page on Novels talk about the "rarest novels"? Would anyone tolerate it?Acidtoyman (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2009 (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)

Contacting Editors[edit]

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)

Comic production technology needed[edit]

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.

Categories[edit]

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)

Franco-Belgian[edit]

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...

Questionable[edit]

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)

Books?[edit]

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


In response to the squadfifteen's post,that I agree the wiki page has differences in tone. I counted the differences in this wiki and it is 2 times that I notice the change in tone in this wiki.I believe that these 2 differences in tone need to be fixed because it just does not sound right. -Rosevictor (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Not just about superheroes[edit]

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)

Popularity in North America[edit]

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)

Captain Marvel[edit]

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

Spoilers?[edit]

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)


A complete mess ?[edit]

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

Why remove history???[edit]

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)

Manga[edit]

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)
Manga are the first comics reaching a mass audience in the U.S. since the 1970s when changes in newstand distribution and lifestyle via suburban development all but ended the comic book as anything but a hobby product sold via comic book shops. Places like Barnes and Noble and Borders have extensive offerings of manga.Dgabbard (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Refurbishment[edit]

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)

WikiProject on Comics[edit]

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)

discussion[edit]

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)

The list of famous books[edit]

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)

Could do with an image?[edit]

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

Particularly notable vs. noteworthy comics[edit]

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. 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)

Mad attempting to circumvent the comics code?[edit]

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)


"Comicbook"[edit]

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)

Comic Book Price Guide[edit]

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)

Manga isn't Comics[edit]

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)
Actually, manga has a far broader meaning in Japanese than "comics", including all forms of cartooning and animation (otaku will split hairs, but your average Japanese has no qualms referring to animated cartoons as manga), and, of course, the genre of woodcut prints from which the term manga originally derives.Acidtoyman (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
More than that, it seems like whoever is writing the Manga section is using subjective, biased language. "manga has historically held a more important place in Japanese culture than comics have in American culture." - I would argue differently, seeing as world wide icons include Batman, The Flash, Superman, and Wonder Woman, and historically, those major DC characters have held high esteem within America at large since the 40's, namely Superman. 2601:49:1:5316:2C59:E2D6:64DE:2609 (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Bad Comparison[edit]

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)

ACD Nomination[edit]

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)

Check before editing[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

African comics[edit]

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)

I think a rewrite is in order.[edit]

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)

Comic Book Cataloguing System[edit]

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))

Web Comics Sub Section[edit]

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))

Replace main image?[edit]

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)

Images reworked - nothing contemporary would likely be free to use - Leonard G. (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so sure of that, as we use them all over the comics project as appropriate, and in adherence to fair-use policy. My issue is that these the comic books here are so atypical of the subject that I feel any general-audience reader seeing them would get a skewed impression of what comic books are. Surely something like Action Comics #1, the debut of Superman, is an appropriate, historically significant and fair-use image that helps convey the topic with accurate connotations. Wouldn't you say?
In the meantime, I'm going to default-size the images already there, as per Wikipedia policy. I won't touch them otherwise/ Please let me know your thoughts on the above. Thanks --Tenebrae (talk) 05:26, 26 June 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. Comics-awb (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved[edit]

Irish comics[edit]

The comic scene in Ireland began in the late 1990s with a few xeroxed humor titles appearing. The first professionally 
produced and distributed comic was MBLEH! by Bob Byrne. Byrne has remained the figurehead of Irish comics and continues
to publish titles, most notably Mister Amperduke.[citation needed]

I moved this here, as it is an unreferenced section, and without citations, really doesn't seem notable. One artist (if he exists) does not make a "scene".Dillypickle (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, he exists. What is meant is that his comic was the first purely Irish-produced comic distributed worldwide, and that he remains a figurehead. (Garth Ennis and Peter Milligan worked in teams, and directly for the foreign market.) On the other hand, the section would need expansion, anyway. Even if there probably, for a vry long time, have been a massive British cultural import, I have trouble believing there hasn't been any locally produced comics in Ireland before the 90's. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Dates[edit]

How does the dating system of U.S. comics work? I think a comic with "September" printed on the cover is actually released in August? Why is this done this way? Danceswithzerglings (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • It's a remnant of newsstand distribution. I don't know how the dates work now, but they used to be printed three months ahead. The date was to let the newsstand know when to return the comic, so that they'd have two or three issues of the same title on the stand at the same time. There's some explanation at Cover date, but not a great deal. I can't source this right now so I can't add it anywhere. Hiding T 09:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Diamond Comics Distributors has killed the market in the United States[edit]

http://sites.google.com/site/tparchivesite/Home/Nameoftheblog%7CExposingtheDiamondDistributionMonopoly.pdf?attredirects=0

That's an archived PDF somebody made of the reality, from a comic book store's owner experience, what Diamond has done to the comic book industry. To be frank, comics won't be sold in the United States by two years or so. Too expensive at $3.99.

To put the price into perspective, a 64-page color comic from 1938 cost $0.10, that was 0.0004% of a person's weekly salary during the so-called "Great" Depression. Ergo, if a comic was only 32 pages in 1938, then it would cost 0.0002% of a person's weekly salary, which back then, is $0.05. If calculated for inflation and the same percentages are applied to the Minimum Wage mandated by the Federal Authorities at the Department of Labor, today (in 2009), 0.0002% of a person's weekly salary is roughly $0.78. And that's the price a comic book needs to be. To make this even more clear, go out on the street and start asking people how much the average comic book is, without telling them. The result would be, "Oh, I don't know...fifty cents? A dollar?" and it's clear that's what people want to pay for a book. At $3.99, and most fanboys are unsuccessful clones of Todd from the G4 show Code Monkeys, or worse, how can anybody afford more than three to seven books a month? Coffee4binky (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that hte prices are pretty high, but, first of all, cutting a book's size in half won't cut its costs in half (different economies of scale, plus the cover will still cost more than the contents). Second, the printing today is much higher quality than it was in 1938. I don't hear of too many cartoonists (aside from Dave Sim and Chester Brown) who are itching to go back to newsprint---especially for colour comics. Acidtoyman (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Japanese comics[edit]

Manga has a blue-linked "main article" header here. Most of this information belongs there. With "main article" headers, we only include a basic identifying paragraph. Someone who knows manga better than I needs to move the bulk of that content, and provide a basic one-graf summary. -- Tenebrae (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that because of the stupid pop culture of comics and because of the sentence 'comic book is not only funny' , we should and migt say and write "comix" (comixes,comix's)...[edit]

79.179.36.137 (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  • We could, but the dominant usage is comics and comic book, so that's why we use them, per our policy on representing views and using common terms. Hiding T 17:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Name/remit[edit]

I'm not convinced by how the article matches the name. British comics aren't called comic books ("comic book" referring to the main format American comic books come in), graphic novels are comics in the form of books, I have never heard manga volumes referred to as comic books and I could go on.

Best I tell comics covers sequential art and this article covers the formats comics come in, so I think it'd be better if this were called "Comics formats." Thoughts. (21:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC))

latin american comics[edit]

digging through various articles on wikipedia, mainly via links with Franco-Belgian artists, I get the impression there is a fairly vibrant comic book tradition in latin america, with authors and artists such as Alejandro Jodorowsky, Juan Giménez, Carlos Trillo, Eduardo Risso , Alberto Breccia, José Antonio Muñoz . I don't know anything about this subject and wiki was the source of most of the information I found (nor much idea which of these are most prominent, or which are missing), so I wouldn't dare writing about it myself, but perhaps someone might expand on this topic?. I'll put a worldwiew tag here.Aryah (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, there's a fairly substantial article on argentine comics already. Perhaps I attempt a very amateurish paragraph summary so as to irritate an informed reader into correcting it :) (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

<SIDEBAR> It's interesting to see Alejandro Jodorowsky referred to as "Latin American." Yes, he was born in Chile, but to parents who were Jewish immigrants from Ukraine. The majority of his comics bibliography was published in France and Belgium, (by such publishers as Les Humanoïdes Associés, Casterman, and Delcourt), and although he has collaborated with South American artists such as Juan Giménez, some his most well-known works are his colloaborations with Europeans (the French illustrator Moebius, the Serbian illustrator Zoran Janjetov, and the Italian illustrator Milo Manara). He is still a Chilean national, but it seems like he's more famous in Western Europe than in South America. </END SIDEBAR> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.41.134 (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Comics?[edit]

It seems to me that "Comic book" and "Comics" is actually the same thing, therefore I would suggest to merge the two articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.232.232 (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Comic book is a publishing form, comics is a medium. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

First comic book[edit]

In the intro it says the first comic book was made in USA, but further down in the article it says the first comic books were Japanese, pre-dating the american comic with a couple of hundred years. So, which one is it? Tommkin (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is written in a confused way. It doesn't seem to clearly separate comics from comic books. The comic book is the American-style floppy comic magazine format. Obviously, comics predate this format (e.g. comic strips). I'm not sure if the format was ever widespread in Japan. I could be wrong, but I'm almost certain the comic book format was an American thing, even if Japanese comics far predate American comics. Kibyoshi certainly seem similar, but I'm pretty sure they're not the same thing.
Maybe to encourage future editors to focus on the publishing form rather than the content for this article we could include a hatnote along the lines of not confusing comics with comic books? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 04:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The article is written with an American slant. Comics were late coming to America. The suggestion that they were first popularized in America in the 1930's is false. They were popular in Europe 50 years earlier.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Not in the form in which we know them today. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Superheroes dominate the North American market?[edit]

This phrase was marked as needing a citation:

In the United States, the superhero genre dominates the market.

Is that actually controversial? It seems to me to be obvious. What would be acceptable as a citation? A Diamond catalog top sellers chart? Or are they too focused on superheroes to count? Is someone actually compiling sales figures for all comics, regardless of genre? I am doubtful one would find What I Hate: From A to Z, Habibi, Tokyo on Foot, or Isle of 100,000 Graves on the top of that list. I'm all for being pleasantly surprised, though. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be disputed to require a citation. "It's obvious" maybe to comic book fans, but certainly not to anyone who has never walked into a comic book shop. The mound of manga at your average library or bookstore these days would certainly have many people wondering if superheroes' dominance was really true. Anyways, Wikipedia is not about truth, per se, but verifiability. If the statement can't be independently verified, then it shouldn't be included. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 09:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems to me to be one of those facts that is so obvious it would be hard to find a reference for it. How would you find an authoritative reference for the fact that water is wet, or that there are a lot of pictures of kittens on Facebook? Serious writers seldom bother to state the obvious, and anecdotal evidence is of little value. Nevertheless, in the United States superheroes do dominate the comic book market. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The wetness is water is something well studied, and there is a whole field devoted to wetness that has its own Wiki page.
The number of pictures kittens is on Facebook is something that's not even mentioned on its Wiki page, so if you're comparing the obviousness of that to the obviousness of the dominance of superheroes, then you're arguing for the statement's complete removal from the Comic book page.
The dominance of superheroes may be obvious to superhero fans who spend their time in Direct market comic book stores, but to the vast majority of the population that has never set foot in such an establishment, it is far from obvious, especially if their idea of comic books is the Archie comics they see at the checkout stands or the mountains of manga that seem to be crowding bookstores and libraries these days.
This completely ignoring the fact that a citation needed tag is not a challenge to a claim's veracity, only that it needs to be cited. Uncited claims have no business being on a Wikipedia page, no matter how "obvious" they are. I'm changing the title of this subsection, as it is making the claim that someone, somewhere has claimed superheroes are not dominant. Nobody has made any such claim.
Finally, please, before anyone makes any more comments of this issue, read up on Wikipedia:Verifiability. The guidelines are there for a reason. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 14:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not arguing, I'm asking. So, can we tone the rhetoric down a notch?

I'm not new here; I am well aware of WP:V.

To whit:

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation.

So, actually, it does need to be disputed (or likely to be) to require a citation. (Although there's nothing wrong with adding citations even when the facts haven't been disputed.)

I was surprised that the statement regarding the predominance of the superhero genre was challenged, which is why I asked for clarification. Some people think that you must cite every sentence within an article, but that's not actually what WP:V says.

But, since a citation has been asked for, and there is some question as to the veracity of the statement, I shall endeavor to make one.

(Questioning the wetness of water, on the other hand, seems rather pointy to me.)

In good faith, GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, nobody did question the wetness of water. Rick Norwood claimed it as something so obvious that few "serious writers" would bother to write about it. I countered that it is something "obvious" that "serious writers" do, in fact, expend considerable time and energy studying and publishing about. The obviousness of the dominance of superheroes is not even remotely as obvious as something as universal as water, especially given the diversity that has arisen in the non-Direct market in the past decade or so (which is what the average person is exposed to). Further, the industry has not always been dominated by superheroes (like in the late 1940s and 1950s, when WDC&S and EC Comics were at the top of the heap). It's likely to be surprising to many non-superhero fans that today, in 2011, superheroes are still "dominant". CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
With a;; due respect to my good longtime colleague GentlemanGhost, I agree with Curly Turkey that a statement about the dominance of superheroes requires a cite, and should probably be placed within a context of historical eras. As noted above, the 1950s, for example, was a period of a large number of genres and types of comics; we don't want to fall victim to recentism — and even today, horror comics, crime comics and humor comics (Bongo Comics, Archie Comics, etc.), among others, are large, significant parts of the market. The term "dominant" in this case really needs a bit of fleshing out, since something can be dominant as a plurality, which isn't the same as an overwhelming majority. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Curly Turky. And hello to Tenebrae. I've been lazy and haven't looked for a citation yet, but I will. I did recently look at the sales chart in Previews, and superheroes were definitely the order of the day. That catalog may not be the best representative of all comics books, though. The non-superhero examples I mentioned were from a recent issue of Publishers Weekly. Unfortunately, that magazine doesn't include comics in their sales charts. Nielsen might have sales numbers, but I'd have to pay to get access to that.

That's a good point about the '50s. I don't precisely know what the top-selling comics of that decade were. Obviously, EC was doing pretty well during the pre-Wertham era.

Also, "dominate" is kind of a loaded word anyway. It might be better to replace it with "predominant" or something like that.

--GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember where I came across these figures, but I remember reading that WDC&S peaked out somewhere around 1955 with a circulation of something like 3 million, and that it was the most successful comic book until the whole speculator thing happened in the early 90s; that EC's top books (like Tales from the Crypt, and I forget which others) regularly topped 1 million per month; and that girls made up 55% of readers after funny animals and romance comics took over the industry after WWII. I don't remember too many other figures, other than that Western (or was it Dell?) would ditch any book that sold less than 500,000. If only I could remember where I came across these numbers. I don't think they were all in the same place. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 09:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The disputed sentence is about the present day. Before about 1960, superheros were a very small part of comics. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The numbers I provided were a response to GentlemanGhost's statement: "That's a good point about the '50s. I don't precisely know what the top-selling comics of that decade were." CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 22:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The best selling comic book for most of the 1950s was Walt Disney's Comics and Stories. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what WDC&S stands for. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 05:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we're all coming up with great historical context that will ultimately benefit the article. I confess I haven't looked around much, but I'll start digging it. I'm sure Bradford Wright or David Hajdu or some other academic writer of mainstream non-fiction about comics and popular culture may have a statement on superheroes' popularity that we could cite. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Check out Of Comics and Men: A Cultural History of American Comic Books by Jean-Paul Gabilliet. A really well-written book on the history of American comic books, with a ton of hard figures. For instance, on page 40 it states that, in the early 1950s, Dell had ninety titles whose average circulation was 800,000 copies each; out of the 25 top-selling titles, 11 were from Dell, ranging from 950,000 to two million copies each, etc etc. On page 44, there's a breakdown of the market by publisher. I'd love to get a copy of this book, but unfortunately it's $55... CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Manga section[edit]

The section on manga is headed by a "main article" link, leading to the main article where details can be found. When a "main article" link is used, the section is then designed to be a brief summary /overview of the main article. Otherwise, the duplication creates a content fork, and the long length defeats the entire purpose of having a "main article" template. This section needs to be condensed considerably. I can do it, but it might be preferable to have someone more well-versed in manga. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Content fork category[edit]

This article is in the category Category:Wikipedia articles with content forks, and I have no idea why. Is there a template that is doing this?

The tag at the top of the section on Japanese comics is the culprit. Fram (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Refocus?[edit]

Given that a lot of the "international" content focuses on style and content of international comics, rather than the form of "comic books" per se, would it not be a good idea to refocus this article on American comic books? The manga section in particular is mostly (entirely?) about stuff that should be (or is already) in the comics article. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I just realized there's an article already for American comic book. So, what exactly is the focus of this article? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 04:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
That's a really good question, Curly. I've often wondered myself. Maybe this should focus on comic books internationally, and remove the overlapping / redundant material on American comics? What would the article then be titled? Perhaps leave it at "Comic book" and make American comics a one-paragraph section with a main-article link? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

To have an article American comic book seems like having an article American jazz. The comic book, while it may have its origins in Germany and be imitated around the world, and even though there are now more Manga than comic books, is still generally viewed as an American art form, and Manga, proto-comics, etc. should be the offshoot articles. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You'll get no argument from me on that — excellent analogy, by the way — and I'm just trying to consider the counterarguments that may crop up, since that's how this division came about in the first place.
I would even go so far as to say that American football is only appropriate because there's a totally distinct sport called football (soccer), whereas comic books are comic books worldwide, whether we call them Franco-Belgian comics or Japanese manga. While the rules and uniforms and everything else about American football and soccer are distinct, comic books worldwide are magazine-format panelgraphic literature with word balloons and other conventions.
So then: "American comic book" would become "Comic book" with main-article links to "European comics", "Manga", etc.? --Tenebrae (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
No, that's what we have the article "comics" for, to make the distinction between "comic books" (the American format), "Comic strips" (the American-invented, worldwide used format), "Manga" (and Manhwa, Manhua, ...), "Graphic novels", and "Franco-Belgian comics". I have no problem with merging "American comic books" with "Comic books", but your suggestion is closer to a merge of "American comic book" with "Comics", which is a bit too radical. Franco-Belgian comics were seriously influenced by (first) American comic strips and (slightly later) Disney animation; the influence of comic books though is minimal before the 1960s. Fram (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I would say that, while the content of American comic books may have had an influence on the content of Franco-Belgian comics, as far as I know the comic book form has had a negligible influence, if one at all. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 03:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

We have to be careful not to confuse the medium (comics) with the method of delivery (comic book). The method of delivery called the "comic book" is a predominantly American phenomenon, although there are international examples. What I think should be done is: the contents of American comic book should be moved here; a section on international examples (say, Canadian ones; are British comics "comic books"?) should be added; all content that has to do with the comics medium should be removed or moved into comics.

European and Japanese comics periodicals are not "comic books". Unless there are European or Japanese examples (with citations) that can be dredged up, I don't they they need to be mentioned at all (unless, of course, we're talking about reprints of that content in "comic book" form, assuming they played a significant, citable rôle in the history of the "comic book", and not just because some otaku can't live without "manga" being dragged into every article). CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It would probably be worth it to mention briefly (briefly!) the periodical publishing practices of other cultures (with proper citations!) in the "international" section as contrast. All in all, it shouldn't take up more than a paragraph, I think. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 03:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

1933 or 1934[edit]

The article states that the first comic book was in 1933 and that the first comic book was in 1934. Which was it? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

According to the Famous Funnies article, Famous Funnies: A Carnival of Comics was published as a one-shot in 1933, and the first issue of the regular series hit stands in July 1934. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 13:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

STALED WITH NO CONSENSUS:
The discussion has staled with no consensus to merge. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm proposing we merge American comic book and Comic book. The Comic book page is extremely unfocused---at times, it seems to be about the Comics medium rather than the comic book form in particular. I'm imagining that the American comic book page should pretty much replace what's in the Comic book article---I doubt there's much to salvage. What's important is to keep the article focused on the comic book form and not let it veer off into tangents best handled on the Comics page or something else. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 03:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I could see merging the american section of Comic book. But not the whole page. Comics book should be the overview page (with the broader international focus), with American comic book being a separate page per WP:SS. So there would be a small section at Comic book, hatnoted with template:Main. - jc37 05:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
That would assume that "comic book" simply means "comics periodical". Is there a need for a page about comics periodicals? Are the periodicals in which Franco-Belgian or Japanese comics published notable in some way that is not best handled in the pages on their comics traditions? The American "comic book" periodical (what is almost always menat by the word "comic book") undeniably is. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Im not sure if the article is about Comic magazines or is it about comic books (or if there is any difference between the two) in particular. It seems to be seperate sections on comics from different parts of the world with no real overall connection. Eopsid (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that publishing and variations of publications (and the terms and terminology) are different around the world. - jc37 12:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Do you have significant sources to show that it is normal to call comics periodicals from around the world "comic books"? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WorldCat Genres[edit]

Hello, I'm working with OCLC, and we are algorithmically generating data about different Genres, like notable Authors, Book, Movies, Subjects, Characters and Places. We have determined that this Wikipedia page has a close affintity to our detected Genere of comic-books-strips-etc. It might be useful to look at [4] for more information. Thanks. Maximilianklein (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"American comic book" section[edit]

Seeing as how there's an entire American comic book article, this section should be compressed to a paragraph or so of basic information with a "Main article" link. I'd like to give this a week for comments, though this shouldn't be a controversial edit: It's standard protocol to do this when there's a main article for the subject of a section. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Comic or strip?[edit]

Is this the same thing? If so why not say it? 95.178.215.38 (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Earliest Comic - Blockbook hand painted woodcut printed about 1450's AD - years prior to Gutenberg Bible[edit]

I call our attention to what looks very much like a comic book from the 1450's - an illustration of the Book of Revelations

The Apocalypsis Sancti Johannis cum figuris can be viewed at the Cambridge Digital Library -

[1] Rpauli (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, but a "comic book" is a magazine, not just any comics. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Curly Turkey — more of an illuminated manuscript. It does combine text and image within a panel, so it and illuminated manuscripts in general certainly seems antecedents and perhaps worth a sentence. In fact, aren't there other antecedents prior to Obadiah Oldbuck? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Depending on your definition of "comics", yes, there are many. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I wouldn't call those antecedents comics or comic books, no. I mean, cave paintings apparently tell stories with pictures, but they're not comic books!   : )  --Tenebrae (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but again it depends on your definition of comics. Did Hogarth make comics, for instance? How about older images with word balloons (say, the bois Protat)? The closer you get to Töppfer, the harder it is to say simply yes or no, and there are those who deny even Töppfer. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I read something interesting recently, but I've already forgotten who wrote it or what terminology they used. Basically, the idea was that comics is a subset of visual storytelling. This would mean that, say, comics, wordless novels, illustrated childrens books, block books, etc, are all part of one visual storytelling family, but are all different subsets of this family. This would mean that, say, the Lascaux cave paintings wouldn't be considered comics (based one whaever criteria for classifying things as comics), but both comics and cave paintings would both be part of this superset—I suppose in the same way that novels and poetry are both literature, but a novel is not a poem. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
That's an interesting thought — visual storytelling. I guess that would include film and theater as well, but not radio plays or printed-word literature. Or would theater and film not be part of it since those are moving images and not still images? "Still-image storytelling" is awkward-sounding. I wonder if there's a synonym?
Damn, Curly! Now this gonna keep me up all night?   : )  
We might want to do something with this, though I'm not sure what. A new Wiki Category? Or is it too broad? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
"Visual storytelling" was my term—like I said, I can't remember the terminology. I think we'd need to see this theory become more widely adopted before thinking of new categories, etc. If I can ever remember where I read this, I'll let you know (I think it may have been a French theory). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Observation: the graphic novel isn't a type of comic book, right this, please![edit]

Comic book (tebeo el Spanish and gibi en Portuguese): comic magazine, with one or more complete histories or miniseries compiled or isolated or comic strips, charges or cartoons compiled. Etymology (comic book): from the American English, comic book, name given to the first comic magazines in English to be very similar to books, where comic is the alternative spelling of comics and book is tome. Etymology (tebeo): from the Hispanic Spanish, TBO, name of an old infantile comic magazine, whose name was a phonetic adaptation of the expression Te Veo, I see you in English and Eu vejo você in Portuguese. Etymology (gibi): from the Brazilian Portuguese, Gibi, name of an old infantile comic magazine, whose name was a folklore slang, brat or little black.

Graphic novel: comic tome with one or more complete stories or miniseries compiled or isolated or comic strips, cartoons or cartoons compiled.

Fanzine (fanzine even in Spanish and Portuguese): magazine made by amateurs, containing several themes, among them, the comics themselves, science fiction texts, music, poetry and other things. Etymology: from the American English, fanzine, fanatic + magazine, fanatic + revue.

Saviochristi (talk)

At enwiki, we really are not interested in the definitions and translations in Spanish or Portuguese to decide what is or isn't a comic book or type of comic book. Do you have eny evidence, from reliable sources, that graphic novels are not a type of comic book (according to your own statement above, they are the same, but you miss the fact that graphic novels are indeed comic books, but with a specific, more complex and adult type of content and audience intended). Please remember that what may be different terms in Portuguese may be one term in English and vice versa, just like with your endless attempts to get "Charge" recognised as some type of comic in English. Fram (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing about content or target audience that differentiates a "comic book" from a "graphic novel". They're different publishing formats. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
You're partially right. It is not really straightforward though, as Graphic novel distinguisehs it from Comic book which it describes as periodicals, but Comic book makes it clear that this only applies to American comic books. The graphic novel article also states "European use of "graphic novel" was from the start intended to differentiate between comics intended for a younger and/or general readership, and those that featured more adult, mature and literary themes," which is the definition I used (being an European). So in a European context, my reply was correct. In a US context, your reply was correct. Fram (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This is the English-language Wikipedia. The context is the language in which the term is used, not geography. Regardless of location, "graphic novel" in English does not imply anything about content or target audieence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Still a mess after all these years[edit]

The reasoning behind keeping this article separate from Comics–that the one is a medium whereas the other is a publishing format–is particularly untenable in the digital age. My field of expertise is manga, which I have no problem referring to as "Japanese comics," but "comic books" are not published in Japan. A comic book is a stapled floppy. Anyone involved in the global sequential art world knows this. So either: 1) forget about it this whole article and merge it with Comics; or 2) make it exclusively about American style, stapled, floppy-style comic books and make that definition clear in the first paragraph. Floppy comic books are published in some other countries beside the U.S., but that format is modeled on American comic books. I would be satisfied with either solution, but I believe American-style floppies merit their own article, since they have a unique "preserving & collecting" culture and also a unique system of distribution that makes the format utterly different from those used in East Asian, most of Europe, and many other areas of the world.Matt Thorn (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree, since the term "comic book" is known and used globally except for some places like Japan. Moreover, they're not stapled and floppy when they're digital, and many comic books are not published in physical format at all. "Comic book" is the WP:COMMONNAME term. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Merging is out of the question. This article indeed should be refocused—and probably rewritten top-to-bottom. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comic book. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)