Talk:Comic book collecting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Comics (Rated Start-class, High-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as requiring an image. Please add one in accordance with guidance.

Comic Book Discussion Boards[edit]

Is it just me, or does this seem like an advertisement for a shoddily made website? (Page History)Millennium Cowboy (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You're entirely correct. I removed it. — Gwalla | Talk 21:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, I do not know how to properly edit wikipedia. There is an inaccuracy regarding the 'related collecting' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_book_collecting#Related_collecting) section. It states that "there is only one piece of original art for each individual comic book page or cover." This is not necessarily correct. Many publishers use 'blue-lines', basically the penciled pages are scanned ( or sometimes penciled digitally),then the image is printed onto another sheet of bristol or cardstock in blue, non-photo ink. This blue-lined page is then inked to produce the final work for the printing. Point is, there very well could be two legitimate pages to collect...the original pencils AND the original inks. Sorry again for not knowing how to edit correctly, please forgive me.24.117.75.98 (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Panelology?[edit]

Has anyone even heard this term used before? I would like to think that I'd have at least seen this somewhere before if it's at all common. -Humble Fool

A google search on "panelology" reveals 23 hits. Not a massive number but, still, seems frequent enough to be worthy of inclusion. Also, the usages are pretty legitimate. On balance, I believe this term should be described in Wikipedia; plus, for me, the tagging as "informal" seems to strike the right note. WpZurp 03:24, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
After a discussion at [WikiProject Comics] it was decided to redirect this article to Comics. If you are interested in an article on Panelology or anything else related to comics articles in Wikipedia, please come participate in the project. ike9898 20:13, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
I don't know how you guys searched, but I get over a 1,000 hits when Googling for this term and it's used in books about comics as well. As far as I can tell, it's recognized by comic collectors themselves as the technical term for their hobby and we certainly need information on it in a proper article, not just in WikiProject talkpages. I've made a good start of it and I've referenced it as well.
Peter Isotalo 21:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
The term is a neologism that nets 61 unique hits on Google (up from 23 a year ago, when the article was redirected). A bunch of people using the term on their blogs does not make this the primary term for comics scholarship or collecting. -Sean Curtin 04:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
So how old can a neologism be, then? Sabin, who's book is referenced in the article, uses the term way back in 1993 and I'm betting it's much older than that. And since when do amount of Google hits dictate whether or not a term is enough to merit an article? For example, there are linguistic terms like assibilation that have their own articles without barely having any Google hits.
Peter Isotalo 08:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
It dates back to the sixties, but I'm not even sold on the Sabin reference, even he disassociates somewhat, the exact quote being comics collecting (or 'panelology' to give it its technical name) and uses it once more in the work referenced. It doesn't appear in The Language of Comics, by various authors, published 2001. Anyone got any more cites beyond the sole Sabin? Hiding talk 11:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if there is an exact limit of how many sources need to be used to establish a term, but if it's been around for something like 40 years, is refered to in comics literature and is used in running text (even if it's just blogs), then it has to be considered reasonably established. And Sabin doesn't disassociate it. He just calls it "technical". I don't see this as any different from calling the study of language(s) "linguistics".
Are there any alternative terms besides just "comics collecting", btw?

Peter Isotalo 15:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I meant that the placing of the term in brackets read to me as somewhat of a disassociation. However, I'm not opposed to the term, as long as we consider whether the common usage practice of wikipedia outweighs the technical values of other encyclopedia, and clearly delineate what it means. Is it merely limited to comic book collecting, or does it cover comic strip collecting, i.e. snipping strips from the paper to paste into scrap books? That does occur too. If it is just comic book collecting, we need to be clear on our terminology, and define it as comic book and comic magazine collecting. You have to remember Sabin's book is aimed at a British market, where "comics collecting" translates in the United States to "comic book collecting", where the article is currently located.
As to how many sources are needed, I'd remind you only of a similar argument over the terms Silver Age of comic books and Golden Age of comic books. You certainly argued there for more than one citation. It'd be nice to have a level playing field. ;P Hiding talk 13:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Hiding, you keep returning to this "comic" vs "comic book"-argument of yours, yet you have still not explained why it should be considered anything but a POV. Please respond to the last post I made at talk:British comic#Page move before we resume discussion on any other comics-related topic.
Peter Isotalo 21:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm puzzled as to why we can't discuss issues concurrently. I also feel I have iterated time and time again why it is not POV, and have asked you to source your own arguments repeatedly, something you fail to do. If, as you argue, one cite is acceptable here, it must follow that one cite is acceptable elsewhere. Please also note that my argument above makes no distinction between the comic and the comic book, but rather the comic book and the newspaper comic strip. Perhaps you can address that argument, and source your answer. Sabin uses the term in reference only to "comics" collecting, here using "comics" as shorthand for the British comic and the American comic book, and not the McCloudian definition which post dates Sabin's work. I am asking you if you can source whether it applies to newspaper strips. If not then the word comics in the sentence Panelology (from panel and -logy) is the common term for the collecting of comics. should not be linked to the article at comics, which is defining the McCloudian term, and not the shorthand term Sabin uses, and does not describe a publication format but an artform, which takes more forms than just the comic book. Hiding talk 15:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I'm pleased to see this article getting the fleshed-out treatment it deserves. Has anyone else come across the 'panelology' term in the Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide? I don't have one handy, but that is where I first heard the term. Of course, that was back in the 80's, so I have no idea how well the term has actually caught on.--Metron4 23:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Nobody uses the term "panelology" in reference to comic book collecting except for a handful of blogs, LiveJournals, and fanzine editorial columns. Going through the Google hits for the terms "panelology" and "panelologist", there doesn't even seem to be consensus for whether the term refers to comic book collecting or comic book scholarship. There's no consensus for what the term means, and there's certainly no consensus for using it as the primary name for the collecting and/or scholarship of comic books. A reference to the term and to usage in print in the article on comic book collecting would be somewhat useful, but treating this obscure term as the primary name for the topic is counterproductive. -Sean Curtin 05:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

Resolved Resolvedthe merging of the page histories of the two articles has been performed. Hiding Talk 18:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

In the time since the above debate ended, a separate article called comic book collecting was created, only to have its contents merged with and become a redirect to this article. I brought this up with WikiProject Comics and the consensus was that panelology is far more obscure term and the redirect ought to be the other way around. Since both pages have history, a move is not simple in this case, so I have initiated a formal move request process. If you disagree (or agree, for that matter), please add your comments here. --GentlemanGhost 17:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support To be frank, prior to this discussion I've never even heard of Panelology despite my 30 year love affair with Archie Comics. Panelology sounds like a neologism but I know it's not. However comic book collecting is faaaaaaaaarrrr more common. 205.157.110.11 22:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per reason above. --Maestro25 02:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support of the move since this covers nothing that Comic Book Collecting doesn't. Fragments that article unnecessarily. --Edwin Herdman 03:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I support. I have collected for over 30 years and have only come across a couple very esoteric references to panelology. Any search should be redirected to the collecting topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.242.141 (talkcontribs) 18:23, 2 July 2007

Merge[edit]

It came up on Talk:Comic collector years ago and nothing came of it so I'm starting the ball rolling now. (Emperor 20:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

  • Support. This is a logical combination. Both articles need better referencing, though. --GentlemanGhost 03:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. They are too similar for there to be a need for both articles. A merge is entirely logical.--James52 22:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Illustration[edit]

I think it would be helpful and hopefully acceptable under WP:Fair use if the section on the 90s boom could include a picture or two, e.g. of glow-in-the-dark or embossed covers. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Contributions and References[edit]

Its fine and encouraged to contribute to an article as long as your doing such from a Neutral Point of View and without a Conflict of Interest. Also note this article has 3 tags that have been here for years. Namely it needs reliable 3rd party references. So it's good etiiquette to work on some of the cleanups as well.--0pen$0urce (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In that vein, let me also comment on the recent addition about Comic Guaranty LLC. It's entirely unsourced, goes into way too much detail about their processes, & reads like a PR release. I called it spam & removed it, & my opinion hasn't changed. I'm also beginning to think the editor adding it is in COI. I'm of the firm opinion this is junk that doesn't belong. A passing mention of the company in the XL section may be warranted, & even that might fail the spamlink test. Otherwise, leave it out. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I stumbled across this on RCP and I just wanted to say that I agree – the addition was a hideously long block of text in the middle of the article; poorly-written and was blatantly promotional. Basalisk inspect damageberate 00:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You guys obviously have a reading comprehension problem. If anything, the CGC part should be tagged as anti-CGC, that would make sense. How you guys think it's spam is beyond me. Oh well, I can do this all day... 172.162.57.248 (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not spam, it's just overkill, a way, way , waaaay too long section for this article. If the problem is that the CGC article is protected, you can ask for unprotection there, but don't edit disruptively here because of problems there. Fram (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I consider it spam because it's so obviously promotional & excessively detailed about the company's work. Even if not spam, it's unwarranted. Do us a favor. Stop. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
To be brutally honest, I don't think this point needs further discussion. The proposed section on CGC which the IP keeps trying to push is inappropriate for a plethora of reasons. I find it pretty hard to accept the argument of "it just isn't spam...because it isn't" when vast swathes of it are blatantly advertising. Even besides that, the section is bloody huge! It accounts for roughly half the article, which is ridiculous. I'm not sure it would even be appropriate for inclusion on the CGC article (poor formatting, promotion etc.) but even if it is, spamming here simply because you're desperate to have the information included somewhere, anywhere on wikipedia isn't the answer. Basalisk inspect damageberate 16:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Tough shit. Anyone who thinks this is spam is retarded. You might as well clean up the article yourself to make it acceptable - like you said, this info will be posted "somewhere/anywhere". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.176.2 (talkcontribs) 14:56, 22 October 2011‎

Just because I don't agree with you does not make me retarded. I can't be bothered to trawl through pages of text sorting out what's blatant promotion and what's not, all the while re-writing the whole passage so it actually makes grammatical sense. Perhaps that's something the original poster could do. Please do not make personal attacks. I'm a person in the real world! Basalisk inspect damageberate 19:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Do yourself a favor. Don't feed the trolls. There's too many of them. (I learned this the hard way.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Point taken. Basalisk inspect damageberate 00:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

The article Subscription crease has been an unsourced orphan for years. It's content is small and directly related to comic book collecting. I propose Subscription crease be redirected to comic book collecting and merged into the article somewhere. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. Not notable on its own IMO. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Support. Unlikely to develop into a larger article. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Support that's a very short stub unlikely to become an actual article. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

PETA comic book[edit]

Why does it appear beside the "History" section? It's completely unrelated to any topic discussed on the page... Wannabe rockstar (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted as OT & POV. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 August 2013[edit]

The article looks basically sound (in my opinion). I have been a comic book collector since circa 1967. I was just going to add some more citations (footnotes). Bearcreekkid (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You can edit this article when your account becomes autoconfirmed. RudolfRed (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2016[edit]

I suggest references are added immediately or else the unreferenced material removed. In particular I object to the unreferenced sentence about "true collectors". This reads like subjective opinion rather than verifiable fact.

I suggest the mention of an "upcoming sequel to Man of Steel" is changed to the reflect the fact the Superman vs Batman film has been released now.

81.106.12.27 (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: I did the updation of sequel. Content isnt deleted on basis of referances VarunFEB2003 I am Offline 13:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit. However, according to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Removal_of_Uncited_Material#When_not_to_remove_content

"A statement or claim that seems to be patently ridiculous (in its context) should be considered for immediate deletion, since leaving it in, even with a "citation needed" tag, potentially damages the credibility of the article and Wikipedia in general."

I would argue that an unsourced statement about "true collectors" is ridiculous. How can one even define a "true collector"? A better, sourced phrase might read more like: "the majority of large, well-known collections...".

This is the last I will say on the matter though as I don't really care that much - I just like making Wikipedia a better Encyclopaedia when and where I can!

81.106.12.27 (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comic book collecting. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comic book collecting. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)