Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics

Comic strips remain in present tense even after they are no longer produced, right?

Funky Winkerbean - Immigrant laborer (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Events in the real world - no. Events inside the fictional world of a creative work - yes. - jc37 22:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Let me rephrase: Should a comic strip as a whole continue to be in present tense ("Funky Winkerbean is a comic strip") or past tense ("Funky Winkerbean was a comic strip") after it is no longer produced? Random samples of other strips (Calvin and Hobbes, Peanuts, Pogo (comic strip)) are all over the place. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Real world event - "Funky Winkerbean was a comic strip"

Fictional world event - "Funky Winkerbean is a character in a comic strip"

Does that make more sense? - jc37 22:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

No. "Funky Winkerbean" is not an event, it's a thing. I'll just move on. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just for clarity, though - Funky Winkerbean is a created work, the creation of which is an event.

Another way to put it is to say that the comic strip was printed (past tense), but the character does exist (present tense).

Anyway, happy editing. - jc37 21:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Immigrant laborer: While not part of this MOS, you should look at MOS:TVNOW. The correct wording, per that and in my opinion, would be "Funky Winkerbean is an American comic strip that was created by Tom Batiuk." The comic existed, even if it is not currently published, and older strip in theory can still be accessed today. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

That is my understanding as well. The creative work was created, but now currently exists. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. - jc37 00:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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