Talk:Comics/Archive 2

Sound effects
Perhaps something about sound effects? They say that in a lot of strips sound effects are an important part of the mood and story. Shinobu 18:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, at least as a portion of the medium's unique devices. IIRC, Scott McCloud writes some things that could be sourced, and Eisner? M URGH   disc.  19:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't know what could be written, though, since sound effects are more visually part of the medium, than might be assumed. The art style of the sound effect is just as useful in conveying sensations, as the particular letters used... (That's one reason I don't like computer fonts being used for sound effects. It looks too mechanical. I'm more tolerant to computer lettering, except for Cerebus and a few other comics, it's rarely used as an artistical device.) 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (&lt; \) (2 /) /)/ * 22:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons template
Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the template to link to Comics instead of Cartoons? Or perhaps a second template (or link within the template?) should be added? B7T (talk) 06:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Hiding Talk 15:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Campbell deletions
An observation: There is no way whatsoever to ascertain whether anonymous IP 58.174.37.27. who claimed to be writer-artist Eddie Campbell and removed the Campbell references from this and Graphic novel just now, is really Campbell. See Essjay controversy.

However, it is true that the both the direct link and the web-archive link to the cited Campbell comments are both dead links, and don't appear to be available independently, at least online, so that material would have to have been removed at some point anyway.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

i like it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.238.185.157 (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

", under the category "Comics". But there is a large set of specific topics related to this subject, that don't fit the standard Comic article:
 * Web comics and web strips (I think there are articles for them, too)
 * The emerging culture of printed comic scanning
 * Techniques and processes for enhancement of the scanned comics
 * Standards for archiving of these images
 * Softwares for reading and organizing these archives
 * Emerging communities all over the world dedicated to exchange (usually via peer-to-peer) and translate these "eComics" to foreign languageocllcoolere is the debate on royalties and piracy versus "free initiative", "out-of-market" and other "arguments". But this can be debated later.

I thought about this initiative after the deletion of the article "ComicRack" which talks about a freeware software to organize and "read" eComics. Most arguments pro-deletion talked about "low visibilty", and, after a research, I found many eComic-related articles (most of them stubs) without this "main" article to mend them (perhaps even as a category).

Please, suggestions and opinions preferrably at my talk page. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayton.Aguiar (talk • contribs) 01:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Low art?"
The article states: "Comics are seen as a low art," as if it's a fact. Isn't that an opninion?PatrickWB (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is a referance to stating they are seen as a low art, it should be removed. However, I remember seeing them reffered to as a low art, but the articles have often stated that they were gaining in acceptance as an art in their own right. Corrupt one (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Do art critics or scholars actually refer to anything as "low art" these days?
 * Peter Isotalo 07:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Added references which show that comics are typically seen as being a low art. Also, it is a fact that that opinion is held, as shown in the works cited.  The changing of that opinion is certainly something which can be discussed within the article, but I would suggest not within the lede itself which acts as a summary of the article and also as a standalone by itself. The distinctions between and the terms "high and low art" are still used and discussed by scholars and critics, certainly within the last three years, and I would suspect they will still find some usage within scholarly discussion within some context of framing debate for the next decade or two. The 2005 The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics contains an essay discussing the concept, so it still has some cultural value. 84.92.54.229 (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required
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 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)


 * Done. We could do with some more references in "Publication formats" but isn't a deal breaker. (Emperor (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC))

Heavily Western Article
This article takes the "Western" perspective of "Comics" when many world cultures have comic traditions. This article does mention others, but it still sounds like an after thought, which is surprising being Egyptian Hieroglyphs have been around a lot longer than Trajan's Column.

--Vehgah (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's arguable whether hieroglyphs really are comics, or just a "sequential art form". I'd say modern comics emerged around the 19th-20th century in European/American traditions. (Early manga was heavily inspired by American Comics. Fans of manga often stress Toba scrolls and such material, but I think they're just a "sequential art form", as well.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not even a sequential art form, any more than "our" literature is a sequential art form. Hieroglyphs are a writing system where the words are written in recognizable symbols. Writing a text in Wingdings wouldn't turn it into a comic either... Fram (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought about that after I wrote my reply, but I believe there possibly might be sequential art found in connection to the hieroglyphs in one or some of the pyramids. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A glib way of looking at it. Japan has had stories told in "sequential" pictures for years, like Japanese picture scrolls. Then there is cave art, and not only that, but even Hieroglyphics could have told much like comics...We can't really know for sure. They even have pictures in addition to the hieroglyphs, which acted as the caption, or have you forgotten? Hieroglyphs are sequential, and is often cited as an ancient example of such. Check the Internet please. So you can add the pictures of Osiris with those "Windings". So to assume that what we call "comics" started in the west is as ridiculous as saying that fire started in Indonesia. It's impossible to know. Sequential art is probably as old as human beings are.

You can make a case for "modern comics", but you can't pretend that non western culture never told stories in the form of pictures.

And there is why making the article "west" centered is problematic. Everyone has made comics, even before they were called as such. And the Trajan reference has to go, if you insist on calling it one of the earliest.

Rome's Trajan's Column, dedicated in 113 AD, is one of the earliest surviving examples of a narrative told through the use of sequential pictures, while Egyptian heiroglyphics, Greek friezes, mediaeval tapestries such as the Bayeaux Tapestry and illustrated manuscripts also demonstrate the use of images and words combined to convey a narrative.

The fact that this pillar is highlighted when Hieroglyphs and Cave Paintings are much much older is like saying:

"Spiderman is one of the earliest superheroes, there is also Superman, Batman, and the Green Lantern."

If you know your history, this sentence makes no sense.

Comics are "Sequential Art". So that means if these forms are sequential they are essentially the forerunners of comics, if not comics themselves, then that means the sentence: "...Toba scrolls and such material, but I think they're just a "sequential art form", as well. " makes no sense either, especially when the phrase "Sequential Art" links you to the COMICS page.

You can't have it both ways.

--Vehgah (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Depends on if you'd consider "sequential art" and "comics" identical, or if you'd consider comics a particular form on sequential art. I don't think the redirect proves that the concepts are identical, per se.


 * Anyway, I agree we should probably include some more cases of sequential art forms, although I'd disagree they are a direct ancestor to modern comics. (Maybe more of an embryo or something.) The Toba scrolls might be sequential, but I think that pre-WWII imports of US and (some) European comic books, cartoons and animation had a bigger role in the creation of manga. Opinions differ, though.

惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And yes, of course, the statement about the Trajan column could be rewritten. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In Scott Mccloud's book Understanding Comics, he looks into the question of just what is a comic. There are a lot of factors to look at. However, he agrees that these ancient drawings, should count. he even specifically looks at some hyroglyphs. Corrupt one (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was hieroglyphs, per se, just Egyptian art. (?) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Language
I have some trouble with this phrasing: As noted above, two distinct definitions have been used to define comics as an art form: the combination of both word and image; and the placement of images in sequential order. Both definitions are lacking, in that the first excludes any sequence of wordless images; and the second excludes single panel cartoons such as editorial cartoons. I don't think "lacking" is a good choice of word, since by this definition, the exclusion of single-panel cartoons is a basic point in the definition. However, I think McCloud's definition is lacking, since it completely ignores the issue on layout, and the impact the layout has on the reader. I don't know the English name for the theory, but theoretically you read the whole page/spread and each single panel separately, simultaneously. I think this is a key point for a theoretical discussion on the medium, but it's quite complicated to explain it verbally. (Interestingly, discussing layout, the time/space equivalence isn't a necessary factor, but several panels could take place nearly simultaneously etc.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

African comics
Surely I should start an article about that. I found www.univie.ac.at/ecco/stichproben/Nr5_Beez_Kolbusa.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah. Go ahead and write it. Although it doesn't appear to me that Africa has such a long and rich comics tradition as USA, France/Belgium or Japan, it would be interesting to read it. My impression is that African comics are mostly done in old French and English colonies, to a great del inspired by their Western counterparts. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Definitely go for it - by the very nature of the English language Wikipedia it will naturally be strong on American and other English-language comics and we should try and improve the coverage of other areas. Here is the category which is a little thin: Category:African comics. If you start sections on the different countries as information comes in we can see what needs starting and also it may be the sections get large enough to warrant being split off to their own articles.
 * Also:
 * Africa Comics.net
 * New York Times
 * 
 * looks like the PDF is freely available
 * Looks like there have been a couple of recent exhibitions which have made the news and raised the profile.
 * As there is enough material to be going on with we can also work on the "if you build it they will come" principle, because once there is a place for the information other knowledgeable editors will drop by and add what they know. (Emperor (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC))


 * And if you'r interested, you could start checking out the books "The Essential Guide to World Comics", by Tim Pilcher and Brad Brooks (ISBN: 1-84340-300-5), as well as John Anthony Lent's "Comic Art in Africa, Asia, Australia, and Latin America through 2000: An International Bibliography" and "Cartooning in Africa". (I don't know their ISBN, but I think they're fairly easy to find on Amazon etc.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sequential art
I've never heard of the term "sequential art" being used to describe comics. I was wondering about turning the current sequential art redirect to this page into the main page for Sequential Art (webcomic), and started a discussion here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The term "sequential art" has been used in theoretical circles since at least 1985, when Will Eisner's influential "Comics and Sequential Art" first came out. It's a term tha's not entirely related to comics, but to art where images in a sequence are used narratively to tell a story, or in a (more or less) fixed order are juxtaposed to each other to create a sensation etc. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for disambiguated name "Comics (print media)"
To disambiguate from the 'comedians' meaning of 'comics'.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The hatnote seems adequate for heading off any confusion and the other article is called comedians (as opposed to something like "comics (performers)") so there isn't any crossover in the naming either - of articles named "comics" this clearly is the one that should have the top slot. So on both counts this seems fine. (Emperor (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Webcomics is not a print media, anyway. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Public
There are different types of comics depending on the reader, as baby comics (comics for people under 3 years old with low text. generally onomatopoeias) and other infant comics (including ones to teach to read). And example Muppet Babies(comic book),, Jack and the Box.... --Nopetro (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't know, writing and drawing your own comics books is a sport. Along with other activities most people don't think are sports such as singing, playing music, and dancing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.127.86 (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Indian Comics
Paul Gravett --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

R.C. Harvey's definition
We're given R.C. Harvey's definiton of comics -- "... comics consist of pictorial narratives or expositions in which words (often lettered into the picture area within speech balloons) usually contribute to the meaning of the pictures and vice versa." -- and then told "This, however, ignores the existence of pantomime comics."

I think his saying "usually" would only indicate a tendency in, and would still include pantomime comics.

Is this someone's opinion? A citation is needed if this is actually a widespread interpretation of the quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acidtoyman (talk • contribs) 02:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Asterix
Asterix is not mentioned though it's one of the most popular comics. I think it introduced a combination of humoristic approach and detailed drawing style... --128.214.20.122 (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Greek derivation of word "Comics" in the lead?
The word may have come from Greek once upon a time, but it came into the English language in the 16th Century (according to the Concise Oxford) and thus was a well established word long before it was applied to any kind of sequential art. Is it really appropriate to have the derivation of the word right in the lead, given that the word "comic" as applied to sequential art was not derived directly from the Greek? I mean, why don't we include the original Proto-Indo-European word while we're at it? It would make sense if someone, looking for a word for this new art form, went thumbing through their Greek lexicon and chose "comic" as the apropos word, but that's clearly nothing like the case.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 13:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The word "comic", meaning "funny", derives from the Greek word (via Latin), but the term "comics" derives from the English usage of the word, not directly from the Greek or Latin. Stating in the first sentence of the lede that "comics" is from the Greek, or via Latin, is simply misleading.   C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 06:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I basically agree. "Comics" as a term specifically denoting the medium originated in English, and actually later was borrowed back to Greek. Greek article states "κόμικς (αγγλ. comics)", as a borrowing from English. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Title
Why is this article currently on the plural title comics? There is a firm Wikipedia policy that titles are singular. The articles on newspaper and magazine are on singular titles so why must this be plural? &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Like "economics" and "politics", "comics" is not plural when referring to the medium ("sequential art" or what have you). "Comic", in the singular, is sometimes used to refer to floppy periodicals filled with "sequential art".  This is especially true in the UK.  You'll find information on that at the comic book article.   The "comics" article talks about all forms of "sequential art", including comic strips, graphic novels, webcomics, and eveything else in between.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 09:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Lang templates
Why all the "lang templates" for Japanese loanwords in the text? The font change disrupts the flow of the text and it seems unnecessary? Is this really a Wikipedia guideline? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was told that they apparently were useful for screen readers. Oh, well. I guess the trouble is how the font is rendered, then. It looks disruptive in running text. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's because browsers may render it with a Japanese font—Japanese fonts include Roman characters. I wonder if there's some way to have the lang information for screen readers while retaining the default font?  Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that'd look better. The font might be better suitable in Japanese running text. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

changes
Taken from User talk:Noodleki. It's one thing to add content to push a POV, but it's another thing entirely to remove sourced content along the way to help push it.

No content was, in fact, removed. (Some was rearranged). By 'push POV', read 'add sourced, relevant information.

Let's not play this game again, okay? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Haven't you been blocked enough times? Read WP:DUE.  Your expansions are extraordinarily unbalanced and fantastically out of the approriate context.

I think content on the first comics is not 'extraordinarily unbalanced and fantastically out of the approriate context'. Maybe that's just me.

and you keep distorting content (deemphasizing Japanese and European contributions).

Incorrect. I actually added 2 paragraphs on Topffer and Butsch.

And seriously—The Dandy, The Beano, and Comic Cuts are all so important that they must be in the lead, but the Lascaux caves and 13th-century Japanese origins are not? You can actually defend this? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the dandy and so on from the lede. Lascaux caves can stay in the precursor section. Anyway, well done, as this is your first point with any merit. Incidentally I responded point-by-point before already, which leads me to wonder if you are taking anything in.


 * Firstly, I am getting tired with your extreme levels of aggression. Try to have a civil discussion. You've also quietly dropped your earlier (false) charges. Now, about that civil discussion. dandy and beano can be removed if you object, although I don't think Lascaux caves or medieval Japanese work should be there either, as they are not comics at all (they go in a section called 'precursors'). Do you find it extraordinarily unbalanced that I'm adding content on English comics, where before there was literally nothing? Despite the sources I have given demonstrating that the medium in fact developed there? You accuse me of deemphasizing European contributions. Now for some of those beastly facts. I actually added two paras on Topffer and Busch. This isn't 'pushing a POV' - its adding sourced facts.Noodleki (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And what POV, pray, am I pushing? In case you hadn't noticed, the entire first paragraph of the "English-language comics" was about British comics.  "Despite the sources I have given demonstrating that the medium in fact developed [in England]" only proves you're POV pushing.

No, it proves that I am adding important, balanced and sourced facts.


 * "During the 1950s and 1960s the most popular comic magazine for older age-group boys was the Eagle published by Hulton Press. The Eagle was published in a more expensive format, and was a gravure-printed weekly. This format was one used originally by Mickey Mouse Weekly during the 1930s.": what business does this have in an article that is an overview of the medium? This kind of thing belongs in a history of British comics, not in the Comics article.

Well done! And that is why, I have removed that text.

—and is pretty much the only kind of thing you've added to the article, paragraph after diluted paragraph.

Incorrect. The rest is of importance.

Sentences such as "The first modern weekly comic was Ally Sloper's Half Holiday, which debuted in the British humour magazine Judy in 1867 and was created by Charles H. Ross and illustrated by his French wife Emilie de Tessier." are filled with trivial details that are amazingly beyond irrelevant to the scope of the article.

. Errrr. No. This is not trivial. It was the first modern weekly comic. This is important, not trivial. Mentioning who wrote and illustrated is also important.
 * Ally Sloper is important, and that's why it's in the article already. The rest is trivia, and ridiculously out of scope. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The "sources" you added are ridiculously poor quality—an article from a Scottish newspaper proudly proclaiming the importance of the Glasgow Looking Glass? What on earth was wrong with the book source I had added, one that talks about the Looking Glass in the context of the development of comics (and which you removed?!?  Seriously?!?)?

I have added 3 high - quality sources.


 * "as they are not comics at all": The fact that you don't think the Lascaux caves are important is less than irrelevant—reliable sources, and plenty of them, talk about the Lascaux caves, either to support the claim or to refute it, and what you or I think is beside the point.

They are a precursor. No one is suggesting they are modern comics.


 * Bottom line: a five-paragraph section proclaiming the undeniable importance of British comics is mindbogglingly over the top—and the five paragraphs you added did a remarkably poor, tangent-laden job of doing it.

As it is an independent tradition, it is only fair that it is granted some space. This is not mindbogglingly over the top.

The images you added also violate MOS:IMAGELOCATION and are unjustified "Fair Use" images (no rationale would be sufficient to keep them), and the Old Bumblehead is dumped into the article entirely without any supporting context.

I have moved the images, added fair use and given contenxt for the picture.


 * Oh, and even after being told to take it to the talk page, you've opted instead to continue edit warring. Over poorly-sourced, poorly-written, poorly-organized, meandering garbage content.  I'm flabbergasted. Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You're rudeness and aggressiveness is on display for all.


 * On top of that, we get this garbage: "The first British comic strip was The Glasgow Looking Glass, published in 1826". The Looking Glass was not a comic strip, it was an illustrated humour magazine (like Punch).  So now you're not only bollocksing up the article with UNDUE and POV pushing, you're actually spreading misinformation in a particularly prominent place.  Of course, if I raised a finger to fix up your mess I'd be accused of editwarring, so I'll have to stay my hand. Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

As pointed out by me, it is called a comic in the source. So you are wrong, as well as being offensive and rude.

You are an unbelievably rude individual.Noodleki (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Meaning you refuse to address the mountain if issues your edits have wrought, and you intend to hold tenaciously to your POV and have no intention of discussing it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you take a few deep breaths and calm down, then I would be happy to. It is the Season of good cheer, so try to be cheerful.Noodleki (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Then prove your good faith by undoing your changes and bringing your concerns to the talk page. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How about you cool off in the shower for a bit. An apology would be nice as well. The Looking Glass is actually called a comic in the sources provided, by the way. I would respectfully suggest examining your own bollocks. You can do that in the shower, if you want, and kill two birds with one stone. Or you can "Stay your hand", instead. Excelllent biblical ring to that. Nice.  :)   Noodleki (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As I've already pointed out to you, the Looking Glass was already in the article, and with a high-quality source that puts it in its proper context—not some fluff newspaper article making boisterous claims to garner clicks—and you've inexplicably removed the source! Anyways, you've made it crystal clear that you have no intention of discussing this on the talk page, only pushing your POV and making lame wisecracks. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I added 3 good sources, as before.

Okay, you've now made a series of false accusations, which I have rebutted. This, though, does not deter you in your onslaught. So, again, deep breath, count to ten. Now go to the comics page, and notice that an august selection of sources has in fact been provided. I have also rearranged the piccies and added a Fair use rationale - I've even removed the info that had you tearing your hair out all over the keyboard. I would have to tentatively disagree on one issue; the identity of the author and illustrator of the first modern comic is not "amazingly beyond irrelevant" - I think it is quite germane. Although it may be difficult for you, try to be constructive, balanced and objective. Peace.Noodleki (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "The identity of the author and illustrator of the first modern comic" is a source of heated debate impossible to determine, as the definition of "comics" has never been determined—as the article itself goes into. You think it's "germane" for an article to contradict itself?  It would be extraordinarily easy to find another candidate for "first comics"—there are plenty of claims, including the Lascaux caves, Bayeux tapestry, Hogarth's works, etc etc etc, and plenty of far stricter counterclaims that would deny that Cruikshank's works were comics at all.  Everyone's got an opinion, and everyone is sure that their own opinion is the only valid one, which is why at Wikipedia we only report the conflicting claims, we don't take sides with any of them, as you are doing.

The sources explicitly determine the origin of the modern comic. Unless you can provide sources to the contrary, then that is what we go with.
 * Guffaw. Fluff article is fluff, and no international overview of comics history backs it up.  I can find any number of reliable sources—literally hundreds, if not thousands—that claim comics is a native American artform.  I rightly reject that garbage as well.  Writing a Wikipedia article is not a game where you simply find a source somewhere, anywhere, and POOF it's done!  If the major sources fail to call it a comic at all (let alone the first!) then the fluff article looks awful suspect.  This will never happen until the experts finally agree on what comics is, which clearly is not going to happen any time soon. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ever read WP:BRD? You made a BOLD edit, I reverted it—the next step is to discuss, not to editwar.  You still refuse to take it to the talk page, and instead choose to push your POV and refuse to explain why you've removed reliable sources and content. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Paleolithic cavemen wrote the first modern comic, did they. Look 'modern' up in a dictionary. The sources are explicit. Looking Glass predates topffer et al. There 'are' no other alternatives. I have removed no content. It's interesting how you lurch from one accusation to another like an out-of-control locomotive barreling down the hill. I try to patiently correct you, but this just enrages you further. I really don't know if I'm getting through to you at all. Cheerio.Noodleki (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What part of "stricter counterclaims that would deny that Cruikshank's works were comics at all" is giving you comprehension difficulties? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Cruikshank is in the precursor section.


 * Let's take this to the talk page.Noodleki (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There's an idea that never would have crossed my mind! Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Text on Cruikshank is in the precursor section, okay? No-one is claiming he wrote comics. His cartoons and caricatures were an important precursor to the medium. I have tried to meet you half-way. I have added sources, rearranged pictures, and taken out text that can be trimmed.Noodleki (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As you haven't responded, I will assume that you acquiesce.Noodleki (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the Christmas Holidays—give it a rest! I'll take this straight to ANI if you pull this again. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have constructive criticism, then please make it. As it is, you haven't responded for two days, despite my invitation. Please try to be civil in your response.Noodleki (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You have no consensus for your changes. Stop editwarring. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're serious about wanting constructive criticism, you can begin with that mountain you've posted above (most of which you have yet even to acknowledge). Then I'll give you some more (I've got plenty—it'll be a challenge to enumerate it all). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of basic things about this article and its subject that you don't understand:

Scope

This article is about the medium of comics. There are brief capsule histories of comics in the Anglo-American, Franco-Belgian, and Japanese traditions because these have been the recognized main comics traditions to the present. It skips over other histories—other European, Canadian, Korean, Chinese, etc etc etc because they seen as peripheral main branches—Swiss comics, for example, is not given a subsection even though its history starts with Töpffer and continues to this day with Zep because no overview of comics at an international level recognizes Swiss comics as a main branch of comics history. Similarly with English-language comics—there have been important contributions from other English-speaking countries (especially Britain and Canada), but they are seen as either peripheral to or part of the American tradition. I tired to recognize this by titling the section "American and English-language comics", which I then shortened to "English-language comics". BUT the fact is that reliable sources surveying comics at an international level recognize the American branch as the main one. You will not find sources that claim the Japanese, Franco-Belgian, American, and British traditions are the main ones. You simply will not, and I challenge you to prove me wrong—the closest I've found is one (one!) that calls the Enlgish-language tradition "Anglo-American"—one tradition, not two, aat this scope, which is appropriate if you do have an international perspective (and aren't just marginally aware that there are other comics traditions out there—lots of them).

As this article is about the medium of comics, these histories are, appropriately, brief. In the history of American comics there is not a long list of important works—no Little Nemo, Krazy Kat, Thimble Theatre, Walt Disney's Comics and Stories, Mad, Zap, Raw, Love and Rockets, etc etc etc. Why? They are out of scope, and there are plenty of links to the articles in which these these are in the appropriate scope. Maybe more could be added to these brief histories, and maybe some could be taken away, but adding paragraph after paragraph and an entire new subsection on British comics is comically out of scope—especially when those paragraphs are little more than an enumeration of popular titles with no attempt at showing how they were significant to the development of the medium—the subject of the article. Any scholar of American comics will tell you that Little Nemo and Krazy Kat are far superior comics to Mutt and Jeff, but this isn't an article about that—it's about hitting those important milestones in the development of the medium.

The main topic of this comics is what they are and how they came to be. The popular examples and critical favourites are best dealt with in any of the myriad subarticles, as are the detailed histories (check out Canadian comics for a fully-detailed history that (rightly) gets the short shrift in the main "Comics" article).

Sourcing has to be chosen much, much more carefully that you have. There are many issues involved—one is that comics traditions until very recently have tended to be isolated from each other, and sources often don't recognize the accomplishments of other tradtions—how many American sources have you seen that claim comics as a native American artform? I can think of sources that have maintain this claim as late as 2013. Yes, that's right, I've seen more than one source this very year that keeps that horseshit up, so you'll have to forgive me if I refuse to accept as a quality source a fluff newspaper article's inflated claims about a home-grown publication, especially, as I've already made clear to you, there is no agreed-upon definition of comics, which makes it impossible to claim any one publication as the one. As I've said, some definitions are as loose as to include the Lascaux caves, and others are stirct enough to reject everything prior to The Yellow Kid—Scott McCloud's definition famously excludes single-panel comics such as Family Circus entirely.

Further, sources hav to reflect an international perspective—this is an article about the medium, and cannot come from the viewpoint of any particular tradition, which is why you don't see this article plastered with superheroes.

I've added a paragraph on 19th-century British comics (which you inexplicably removed), using sources that do put these things in an international perspective. I'd meant to do so for a while, but I've been working on other articles and hadn't gotten around to it. Something I haven't added is the bit about Cruikshank, which I do agree is significant, as long as there are no claims that he invented the speech ballon (the precede his work by centuries), or that it became common following his example (it's not clear they did—it seems to have appeared in the work of many cartoonists who were not aware of Cruikshank). If you can find a non-fluff source, go ahead and add it in; otherwise I'll do it myself one of these days.

That's enough for now. If you really want more, I could seriously go on and on and on about what was wrong with your edit—it really was broadly, widely, and deeply flawed on so many levels. I strongly urge you to read through some of the better sources and gain some perspective on the medium outside of the insular notions you seem to have about it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

None of this explains why you removed the origins section.Noodleki (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the 7000kb that you added in one go was removed in one go—that's an argument right there against massive, format-restructuring cut & paste edits. If you think there's still something good to add from that 7000kb, why not throw it up here on the talk page so we can take a look at it? Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The origins section from here.Noodleki (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "It was also during this period that the speech bubble was developed as a means of attributing dialogue." The speech ballon far predates the 18th century—check out Bois Protat for a 14th-century example.
 * "One of the first creators of comics was William Hogarth": Whether Hogarth created comics or not is disputed, and there are those who argue that such claims are made only to make comics look older and of hogher-brow origins than they really are.  The article as it was already mentioned his sequential engravings amongst the list of disputed proto-comics, along with the Lascaux caves and whatnot.
 * Entire paragraphs on Töpffer, Busch, Ally Sloper, and The Yellow Kid are over the top—what's to stop us from doing the same thing with McCay, Herriman, Superman, Barks, Kurtzman, Crumb, Spiegelman, Love and Rockets, Ware ... and then the same for important examples from every other tradition? Hergé, Asterix, Mœbius, Tardi ... Tezuka, gekiga, Tsuge, the Year 24 Group ... Remember, this isn't the "History of comics" article, it's the article on the comics medium, and the history is just one section, with many ,many subarticles and subarticles of subarticles to handle the details.
 * "By the end of the 20th century, there were three dominant trends: the comics album in Europe, the tankōbon in Japan, and the graphic novel in the English-speaking countries." makes total gibberish of the original "Towards the close of the 20th century, these three traditions have converged in a trend towards book-length comics: the comics album in Europe, the tankōbon in Japan, and the graphic novel in the English-speaking countries."
 * I think early uses of word ballons (Cruikshank) and stuff about advances in printing technology would be good to add, but should be condensed and referenced (the good stuff in there is as yet unreferenced). The references will have to be in context, though: just picking up a source about printing technology and dumping it into the article would be WP:SYNTHESIS. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So you wouldn't object to it in the history of comics article.Noodleki (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That would depend on how it was added---tone, balance, quality references, due weight. Some of it, I think, might be more appropriate to more specific articles---British comics, European comics, or whatever---but it's hard to say. The History of comics article is pretty underdeveloped overall as it is, so it's hard to judge how much detail would be overdoing it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

world encyclopedia of comics
how come it's not mentioned even once? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.72.49 (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why should it? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
No, "comics" is not an uncountable noun; it bears no relation to any of the examples in the article "mass noun". You can count one, two, seventy-six or any number of comics (ie comic books). You can say "mathematics is ... ", but you cannot say "comics is ...". 11:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Is that so?
 * Your (totally unresearched) "argument" totally misses the point that English nouns often (very often) have countable and uncountable versions ("food" versus "foods"; "faith" versus "faiths"; "gas" versus "gases"), so the fact that you can count "comic" only reiterates the point I already made on your talk page: that uncountable "comics" refers to the medium, and countable "comic" refers to individual instances or publications.
 * Lay off already—you're in way over you're head and your next disruptive edit will be reported. Unless you think you can win an arguemnt on terminology against the likes of Will Eisner, Art Spiegelman, and Scott McCloud. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)::
 * Your examples of "food", "faith", and "gas" are of course correct, but they are not at all comparable to "comics". In any case, it's always "food is" and "foods are", never "foods is", so similarly you can't say "comics is". I have no idea who the gentlemen you mention are, but I am sure they do not claim to have the authority to rewrite the English language! Ehrenkater (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You have no idea who Will Eisner, Art Spiegelman, and Scott McCloud are, and can't be bothered to find out? I see.  Your ignorant ramblings thus carry no weight.  I'd love to see the looks on people's faces when you go around saying, "Economics are the social science that studies ..." or "Politics are the practice and theory of ..."  Seriously, why don't you just take your proposal to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics?  They could use a good laff once in a while. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I realize I'm coming off as a prick. Please understand that not only have I explained this to you over and over, I've also provided you links to demonstrate the point. If you don't know who Eisner, Speigelman, and McCloud are, that's surprising, and suggests you don't know nearly enough about the subject to productively edit the article; the fact that you can't even be bothered to find out who they are calls into question your motivation for being here. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Forms and formats
The forms and formats section is well-written, quite accurate but I just have some trouble with the image and the comparison it implies. It's interesting and didactic but it gives a rather skewed image of the three largest comics traditions (Japanese, Franco-Belgian/European, North-American). I cannot speak for the Japanese formats, but the European format is limited to the album format, while place against North-American 'graphic novels'. The big problem is that it compares apples and pears, so to speak. The author writes "English-speaking countries, where there is no standard format," which is true for the graphic novels in the picture, but not for the broader comics field, where the comics industry does work with standard formats (floppies, trade paperbacks, and so on). By contrast, it presents Franco-Beligan comics in the A4-size comic album format: it is true that it is the dominant format in the Franco-Belgian comics field, but it works as the industry format equivalent to the floppies and trade paperbacks of mainstream comics publishers in the US. 'A1ternative' comics publishers such as L'Association, FRMK, Les requins marteaux, etc. also put out comics in highly unconventional formats; plus one should not forget of the rather international small-press, which heavily works with personalized, unconventional formats. Of course, one photo could not account for all formats published all over the place, but I think this specific image makes a comparison between comics traditions that is (probably involuntarily) skewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elcerlic (talk • contribs) 14:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * which is true for the graphic novels in the picture, but not for the broader comics field: which is discussed in the paragraph immediately preceding this one. The paragraph this is from discusses book formats specifically.  We should remember that Marvel and DC do not have the dominance in graphic novels that they have in floppies (check out a best sellers list).
 * one should not forget of the rather international small-press: one doesn't, but it's out of scope for an article that is meant to provide a general overview of the medium and trends within the medium. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Sources?

 * What's in a Name?: The Academic Study of Comics and the "Graphic Novel"
 * It Ain't Easy Studying Comics
 * Why Comics Studies?
 * Surveying the World of Contemporary Comics Scholarship: A Conversation