Talk:American comic book tropes

message: I disagree that the German Interwiki is incorrect. The articles do largely contain the same topic. The titles are different but this srticle isn't a description of glosses. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: German Interwiki

message: I would think that a "vocabulary"/glossary of comics should at least mention terms and concepts like "Silver Age", "Golden Age" and some of the genres (not least to note that "Superheroes" isn't it), but would someone like to suggest whether it would be appropriate to include a (very) brief "History of (Modern) Comics" (i.e. 1933, 1938-Superman; 1947-Romance; EC; 1954-Wertham&Code; 1961-Marvel; 1960s-Underground; 1970s-Direct market&Shops; 1980s-Maus/Watchmen/DKR; 1988&1992-Dark Horse&Image; 1990s-Bust) which could then interlink ages, genres and key people without detailing them in an encyclopedic fashion...? ntnon (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Golden Age and Silver Age should be included (with the main entries lined in) but I suspect a history is best done at Comics and American comic books. (Emperor (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I added some example illustration, one of which includes sound effects. There is no section for this. Perhaps an expert could add some information on this topic (BAM! BAM! SPANG! SPLAT! WANG! KAWUNNGG!) - Leonard G. (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples added 

message: I see a split has been suggested. As I said above and on the Comics Project talk page, I'd suggest assembling sources and expanding the section and then we can look at splitting it. As it stands, the section doesn't demonstrate enough content or sources to support an article. What I want to avoid is this just coming back to us as a merge. (Emperor (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I also have my doubt "motion comics" are even comics, they just appear as the kind of limited animation common on american TV in the 60's. (Captain America etc., not really Hanna-Barbera and the stuff people remember.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: It may not be notable, but the Bleed from the DC/Wildstorm comics is named after the structural element; in the comics, it is the space between universes, literally what's off the page. I saw this confirmed by Warren Ellis somewhere; if it's considered notable, I'll try to track down the quote. Kelvingreen (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bleed 

message: Why is "Cartoonist" in quotes? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 05:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cartoonist" in quotes 

message: Why is this article restricted to comic books? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 05:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restricted to comic books? 

message: This article has a lot of serious issues.  It's definitely written almost entirely from an American perspective, and not only that, but from an American comic book perspective.  Just look at how many times the word mainstream is used as a synonym for Marvel/DC comics, as if Marvel/DC were somehow more "mainstream" than Peanuts or Calvin and Hobbes, and as if superheroes mattered in the least in the international market (they don't---they're strictly fringe in European and Japanese comics).  Its usage is an insulated recentism, and should be barred entirely from being used on the page.
I've gone and started a Glossary of comics terminology as an article to contain comics terms that aren't restricted to one culture, form or genre.  I suggest this article be renamed to something like Glossary of American comic book terminology, and stripped down to focus on that.  The page is so long and unfocused, not to mention severely lacking in references. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 08:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs to be reworked 

message: I'd like to source some of the original research here, but it's difficult to find reliable sources that really care about splitting hairs over whether Watchmen was a comic book collected into a trade paperback or a graphic novel.  I did find a few newsblogs that discussed the issue, but they looked very much to be written by irritable fanboys.  I guess I can dig up those articles again if someone wants to see them, but it was mostly just a matter of trying different variations of Google searches like  and .  As such, I'm really not sure that we should spend spend such time splitting hairs over definitions, either.  If I remember, I might come back and clean up a bit of the fanpov and original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Thus, ''Watchmen'' is not a graphic novel" 

message: As discussed, changed the scope of the article.  I know that the lead is too short, but I'll work on expanding it later.  I dislike writing leads, and most of the articles upon which I work labor under a frankly inadequate one until I'm done messing with the actual content.  Or someone else can write a better lead.  Here's a summary of the major changes I made:
* I removed a lot of content from the article.  The technical details are better handled in glossary of comics terminology (GoCT).  This article is now focused on plot elements, such as retcons and crossovers.  I did summarize some of the elements under a new heading, but this could (and maybe should) be moved to American comic book.
* Better layout and structure.  In my opinion, the original structure was haphazard, and it seemed to be written in as a stream-of-consciousness essay.  I logically connected the major concepts under proper subheadings.  Some of them got moved around as a result.  The "storylines" section seems a bit arbitrary to me, and I think it could probably be moved into "continuity" without much trouble.  However, the original structure seemed to indicate that it was separate from continuity, and I maintained this division.
* I added extremely brief sections on superheroes and the Duck universe.  They can be expanded, but I'm not sure that I'm going to do it.  I don't know much about Disney, and I'm not terribly interested in the topic.  However, I wanted to include at least some mention of a major publisher besides Marvel and DC.  There are many other publishers, franchises, and genres that could be discussed.  Some major publishers include Dark Horse Comics, Malibu Comics, EC Comics, Archie Comics, Charlton Comics, IDW Publishing, Fawcett Comics, etc.
* I streamlined a few sections.  In particular, the Earth 616 section was a bit sketchy.  I found better sources for that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New scope 

message: Would someone have the time and energy to go through the links and redirects linking to this article. I believe a lot of them would be better linked to Glossary of comics terminology. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: * Alright. Thanks. I think the change of scope, and the moves and new article names caused some confusion. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: * I can't really find enough sources to create more than a micro-stub; it would almost certainly be deleted as a dictionary definition.  I added back a description of the term and pointed the redirect to the appropriate section.  One option is to create the page as a soft redirect to Wiktionary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

text: ** If the article is now being refocused on "tropes", one could argue that formats aren't tropes.  How about starting a List of comics formats?  Having said that, is "prestige format" really a term that's set in stone, or can it refer to anything published in a format that has the air of "prestige"?  Is "prestige format" even comics vocabulary?  Googling around, I see "prestige format" DVDs, resin statues, paper... Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

text: *** Yes, scope is a definite problem here.  I think your idea is probably the best solution.  Maybe the removed sections from this article could be restored to that new article, but it seems like maybe it'd be better to just start off from scratch without the original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Links and redirects