Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics

	Comics portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would 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.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
	This page has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Manual of Style

	This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles
	This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
	For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Updating {{comic strip reference}} soon and eventually {{cite comic}}

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Comic strip reference § Pending update. Rjjiii (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Is "no." or "#" meant to be used on comic issues?

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Is "no." or "#" meant to be used on comic issues?. Rjjiii (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plot size

A common problem in articles about comics is with their giant plot sections, detailing every minutae of the stories. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film solved this by placing a hard limit, 400 to 700 words. I propose a similar limit for comics with a story with begining and end (limited series, crossover events, once-shots, etc.). And a bit less, 400 or 500, for ongoing series: those should be limited to the general premise, the lead characters and other global stuff, not to each specific story arc. Cambalachero (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Story arcs and plot development can be important for ongoing series, but they should covered from an out-of-universe perspective in a "publication history" section with secondary sources deciding what's appropriate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to consider is that we shouldn't be prescriptive with this. The best way to decide is to write a few articles and see what works. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe instead of including a plot section, why not have a "Premise," "Content and Themes," or "Overview" section? This section could generally discuss the overall plot and its themes. For example, we could look at Adventure Time or The Simpsons. While these aren’t comics, their style could apply, especially for long-running comic series with over 30 issues. Lililolol (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a page like The New Golden Age, it feels a bit more of a struggle to have a decent plot summary without either going too far or too brief; would perhaps separating the major series that make up the Golden Age (i.e Stargirl, Alan Scott, etc.) into separate articles, or would that be too wide a project for something (in the grand scheme of things) as minute as The New Golden Age. As I feel Stargirl deserved having it's own 700~ word summary but with all the series in Golden Age, none of them have room to properly be described. AdmantCrow (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For major ongoings with a bevy of notable story arcs, I could see the creation of a page listing them being relevant, but I think I agree otherwise. I've been trying to edit pages like The New Golden Age which just has entire walls of text but honestly a total rewrite is needed to bring it down to anything approaching a manageable size. AdmantCrow (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and review sources

One of the things that irks me is that I frequently see a wide variety of sources used to aggregate revies and reception regarding comics without consistancy; sure, major titles like V for Vendetta or Watchmen or The Dark Knight Returns will have more bespoke reviews, but for events and whatnot? Some use comicscores, whilst others use ComicBookRoundup. Could we have some kind of specified sources we could use regarding reception, both from fans and critics alike? AdmantCrow (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't fan reviews user-based, which isn't okay in Wikipedia? Lililolol (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ongoing?

basically copy-paste from Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (comic book)#ongoing?

The article started with, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is an ongoing digital comic book...

The word ongoing has two meanings:

ongoing series, which describes this series, and
hasn't ended yet, which contradicts the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (comic book)#Publication history: The series has 10 issues and ended in February 2017.

New fans and casual fans like me may not know (or remember) that first definition, so that kind of intro seems like an error.

Can we rephrase that first sentence? (i gave it a try.)

How many other Wikipedia pages have this problem?

--173.67.42.107 (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comics tend to be divided between "ongoing series" or "limited series" (ignoring things like graphic novels or one-shots because that's not important for this distinction) which is the standard terminology for comics - for a comic to be ongoing, it just means the publisher hasn't ordered a limited number of issues from the start. It's like the difference between a limited-run series TV series and TV show that gets cancelled after 1 season; readers understand the distinction because we're using the standard terminology. So if a comic is ordered by the publisher as an ongoing series and then is cancelled by the publisher after 10 issues, the series is still considered ongoing because that's how it was initially ordered. It doesn't become a limited series after it was cancelled. Hope that explanation makes sense. Sariel Xilo (talk) 07:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. i think i understand. However, i think the correct usage (the first definition i listed) is easy to mistake for the second definition i listed, and we should find ways to rephrase to reduce the risk of confusion. If you're driving in the left lane and that lane is correct, you don't say the left lane is the right lane. If Jack Black has an African American co-star, you might find a different way to refer to the Black character.

i can't remember where, but i think Wikipedia's Manual of Style says something like, "Do not make assumptions about what readers already know, because what is common knowledge for people in one region/career/area of interest is not always common knowledge for people in other regions/careers/areas of interest." Experienced comics fans may know what an ongoing series is, but new fans may think it means something else. The ongoing series page even mentions The term may also informally refer to a current or incomplete series. Articles about comics should be clear about both meanings of ongoing: if the story was meant to end or continue indefinitely and if readers can reasonably expect upcoming issues. --173.67.42.107 (talk) 08:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]