I may update this from time to time, as I think of or encounter more.

In this respect, WW and DP closely resemble the pre-Earth2 Silver Age at DC (and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Marvel).

You seem to have missed the rather important point that my response indicated roughly the same percentage of fans and pros use the improper terms for various elements of what we do -- but that percentage does not approach a balance. It is not that roughly half say "balloon" and half say "bubble". It is that some say "bubble" and they are wrong.

JB, the "splash page" can only be the first full page of a comic, is that correct? For example, if there's a full page panel in the middle of a story, it technically isn't the splash page, right?

Regarding retcons:

A friend and I were discussing Star Wars and I referred to Darth Vader being Luke's father as a retcon. My friend disagreed, as while in the real world, it's safe to say that Lucas did not intend this to be the case when he wrote the original Star Wars, as far as the actual film goes, the information that Vader and Anakin are separate people comes from one source and is not presented objectively.

In other words, an "everything you know is wrong" is not a retcon if it's simply revealing that what someone said was not correct. Superboy is a retcon because Clark having a career as a superhero in Smallville contradicts the objective reality of the stories that showed Superman debuting as an adult in Metropolis.

JB is often accused of retconning things but I think this is an example of people using the term incorrectly. JB has revealed that -- shock! -- a VILLAIN might have lied about something, but that's not a retcon. Nor is revealing that the reason a character behaved a certain way was because of something about which we were unaware (why the Demon spoke in rhyme for a while).

I will argue that a revelation counts as a retcon if it contradicts simple dialogue (rather than objective reality) if there's no logical reason for the person to have lied (or if it's not in character for that person to have lied, which is why the Star Wars/Obi-Wan lie is a contentious one).

The fifth season ANGEL episode, "Why We Fight," is a retcon in that it reveals that Angel sired someone when he had a soul. In "The Trial," Angel is desperate enough to almost consider turning the dying Darla into a vampire to save her life. He says, "We don't know what would happen because I have a soul now." This simply doesn't make sense when he *did* know what would happen (he would still wind up creating a soulless monster, as the guy was in "Why We Fight").

Eric Kleefeld wrote: JB is often accused of retconning things but I think this is an example of people using the term incorrectly. JB has revealed that -- shock! -- a VILLAIN might have lied about something, but that's not a retcon. ************ Nope, that's still a retcon, as it's retroactively altering what was once established as past continuity of what happened.  Sure, it's a plausible retcon, and I'm not arguing that.  But it's still a retcon.

I see this argued a lot and this is an example, I think, of how some fans view continuity. Visit any ANGEL or BATMAN site and you'll see every detail of the character's history mapped out, often based on offhand lines of dialogue in episodes or issues. Of course, that's not how things work in real life. If I tell you that my college girlfriend died and then you bump into her next month, that's not a retcon. I lied when I told she was deceased. I hadn't "established past continuity about what happened."

Yet, Dr. Doom or Ultron says "this is what happened" and despite having no reason to believe them, fans will view this as the gospel and if we're shown something different, they claim it's a retcon.

Another example: Frasier's dad still being alive, despite what was said on CHEERS, is not a retcon. We never saw a body on CHEERS. We just got what Frasier had said. His never mentioning a brother might seem odd but it doesn't discount that one might have existed.

A retcon erases or contradicts the objective reality of what was depicted in a story. Doctor Octopus as part of Spider-Man's origin clearly is a retcon. As much as I hate it, though, the revelation about Gwen Stacy and the Green Goblin isn't -- it's just bad writing.

But something someone says is never objective.