Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

I'm upgrading {{Infobox comic book title}} for automatic image sizing and potential categorizations.

Since there are 960+ articles using this template, I've set up a work list and would appreciate any and all help working through this.

If you are going to help, I ask that you strike through the links on the work list instead of deleting them, thanks.

- J Greb (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned this before but can't we task a robot to do this? (Emperor (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

I'm just doing all of them, going down the related links list. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

When you resize and reupload images, how to you keep the comment from turning into this mess? It's driving me crazy! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 07:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well... two things... maybe three

I tend to just use — Reduced size as per [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright#Resolution]]. — which covers the bases. The uploading only puts this into the "Comments" box and does not append it to or overwrite the existing page text.

The guide line is set up so the image isn't supposed to be much bigger than its final use. There was some talk in other places that an image size of ,1megapixe is also a good top point. This though seems to have fallen by the wayside.

The infobox image is set to default to a max of 250x450px, and at 250px width, most comic covers are short of the 450 point. Scaling an image down to 200px when it's for the 'box is a little overkill.

- J Greb (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, I understand the why of it. I've been doing this on my own anyway, reducing gigantic images down, but...I must not be doing it right because when I resize the image and reupload, I have to redo the fair use rationale, redo the copyright tag, and the comment, over which I have no control, becomes that huge ugly run-on mess that you see in the example I gave. What am I doing wrong?  :( The help pages related to this are just...awful. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 07:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

First question then: Are you accessing the upload screen from "Upload file" (toolbox on the left hand menus) or "Upload a new version of this file" (under "File history" on the image page)?

The tool bar link opens up with a blank FUR set up and no destination filename.

The image page one has the comment field blank and the destination file already there.

- J Greb (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm using "Upload a new version of this file" from the file history at the bottom of the image page. So you're saying if, in the summary file, I just put a brief statement like the example you gave me, it won't wipe out the existing fair use rationale and copyright tag? I can just browse for the new file and put a small summary of why I replaced it, nothing else? --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 19:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right, you're right! I figured it out! I thought I had to re-enter all the rationales and tags and whatnot or else I'd wipe it out, and I was too afraid to try not doing it but your comment put me on the right path! Thank you! (btw, wp help documentation for this = not the best I've seen. :)) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 20:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

We have articles for individual Buffy comic trades, collecting 3-4 issues. Some examples:

• Out of the Woodwork (Buffy comic)
• Ugly Little Monsters (Buffy comic)
• False Memories
• Oz (Buffy comic)
• Angel: The Hollower
• Pale Reflections (Buffy comic)
• Crash Test Demons (Buffy comic)

Do we want to do anything about this? These articles are pretty awful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah the wonders of the crossover between projects. For starters the disambiguating is poor - some are over disambiguated and those that need it don't conform to WP:NCC.

Also while I don't have a problem with this in theory (see for example, The Sandman (Vertigo)) they still have to meet certain standards, like WP:N, and some of them are failing WP:V (although that can be addressed). While they still need work we have Hellboy: Seed of Destruction and The Conqueror Worm (comics), which have both won Eisners and the former was the basis for the first film. So we do have some but they are only the very notable ones and they are still not that great, although an order of magnitude better than those examples.

There are also things that set my Spidey senses tingling (or even give me The Fear) like issue by issue plot breakdowns (which only seem to serve to bulk the page out) and attempts to slot them into timelines and canon (see my comments on the problems with trying to define and use canons here at Talk: Canon (fiction)) as this can be the kind of thing that is better off on fansites unless it is ruthlessly referenced and as we have seen they are almost lacking in any kind of references at all.

If you look down Buffy comics or Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight then the articles on individual comics are adding virtually nothing to the information already presented on those two pages, beyond "padding" and an infobox. You could turn them into redirects with no major loss of information.

That isn't to say they can't be kept - there must be interviews with creators and reviews which could flesh things out but the dozens of articles there strike me as being better off transwikied to a Buffy Wiki (and a quick Google shows there is one).

Even if largely being run by another project we have to hold them up to the same standard we'd use elsewhere and we see nothing like that automatically being created for any other (potentially more notable) title - in fact there have been two attempts to delete List of Ultimate Spider-Man story arcs (possibly as its higher profile has got it more scrutiny) which is really the kind of article all those Buffy comics should be merged into.

That said I think you might have a fight on your hands trying to fix all that, although the fact that nearly everyone I have seen is failing all sorts of guidelines should make it easier. We could raise it at WT:FICT but if you read WP:FICT they are pretty obviously against this and the recommendation is to merge into some kind of list article.

Anyway my two cents. (Emperor (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC))

There's also the image usage. The Buffy articles tend to have all the covers added — trade (arcs) or standard (Season 8 issues) in the box and then the variant (issue) at the top of the plot or the individual issues (arc) at each section break. I think a few have been hit with the WP:NFCC stick, but... And last I looked the Star Wars comics have a similar image issue, though they use galleries.

Come to think of it I think the SW ones also have an article per series/arc.

That isn't to say that Comics proper is spotless... thumb through the "Name" subs under Category:Comic book storylines.

One last random thought... at least regarding the Buffy articles. Keep in mind that the primary focus of that Project is television based, so there is going to be an "episode need articles" bent.

- J Greb (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh I know there are quite a few similar articles - the big problem is when these are created automatically. Important stories arcs that have important impact on events should be covered - it is just where you draw the line.

A lot of those Buffy trades are only 3 issues long and the bulk of the article is filler which doesn't tell us anything more than a shorter listing would. I know there is a TV episode mindset but there was a big shake-up and a lot of episodes bit the dust if they were just an article for the sake of an article as these are. If you look at a Buffy episode (e.g. Welcome to the Hellmouth) they have things like references, out-of-universe material, no timelines or canons (although that said: Help (Buffy episode)). You use it or lose it and you can't just hammer out thin articles for th sake of just having the article.

The Star Wars comics were also really bad - at one point having an article per issues of things like Star Wars Tales but they picked their act up and did some major merging (with any extra information going to Wookiepedia - which already had more comprehensive and in-depth coverage.

The problem with all this is big crossovers like that work in their own bubble (there is no attempt to add new articles to the noticeboard or keep us updated of goings on so it is difficult to keep an eye on things and make sure they conform with the broader ways of doing things in the project. (Emperor (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC))

Additionally, we have articles on individual issues of the WITCH comic (an example. Same problem, essentially. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you've PRODed some (e.g. Halloween (W.I.T.C.H. issue)) - we'll see how that goes. You could put them all up for AfD is the house isn't put in order although a merge would be preferable. (Emperor (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC))

Which is why I'd love some help here - Lowlife (comics) --Allemandtando (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

create an article for Black Mask the prestige series, when the name is already taken by the unconnected character? --Allemandtando (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OK you seeme dot have solved the problem - I'll add a hatnote to keep thing straight. (Emperor (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC))

This has come up in world comics work group chats, and I thought I'd throw it out here for discussion. Presently, we have Category:Original English-language manga which is being used to house comics written in the "manga style" but in English. It refers to comics Western in origin, and not to, say, an English-language Singaporean comic. Think Tokyopop. This term, as part of our ever-changing language, no longer remains adequate to describe the category. There are "manga style" comics being developed and marketed as "manga" in other languages, too, notably German. While all these comics undoubtedly can and should be categorized by their national origin, classification via this "manga-like" category is also useful for a Wikipedia end user. Terms bandied about in the past include Amerimanga (NO), World Manga/Global Manga, and Manga-influenced comics. There are problems with each of these, as well. Opinions? --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 19:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This might be better addressed here: Talk:Original English-language manga#German manga. I tend to favour something like "World manga" with suitable redirects to pick up variations but I think getting a consensus on the OEL manga talk page is the way forward as the name itself doesn't matter, as long as it is broad enough, the important thing if consensus. (Emperor (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC))

Ah okay. I didn't know if anyone was monitoring that page, since the discussion is a few months old. And honestly I don't really care what the article is called, as there are already an enormous amount of redirects for every conceivable name created, I'm more concerned about the category name as I need to know what all it can/should include. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 21:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The name should probably be the same as the article so it'd be wise to decide that first and the renaming of the category will go smoothly. If you feel that discussion is too old start a new one - regular editors over there are probably the best ones to decide on this (with input from the project, of course ;) ) and the ones who will have to use it. (Emperor (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC))

Does this apply for comic book sorcerers, like Doctor Strange and Baron Mordo, who call worth powers from supernatural entities or conjure malignant spirits? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think an unambiguous "no". The criterion for "shaman" should be a use of what would probably anthropologically be termed "aboriginal magic". Ford MF (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Although it's probably worth pointing out that "shaman" is a problematic term with unclear parameters. Ford MF (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I tend to agree with Ford MF above. Both of the characters Sesshomaru mentioned can more directly be called "wizards" or "sorcerers" or whatever. I would myself limit the category's contents to those characters whose supernatural abilities extend only so far as "shamanism", or communication with the spirit world, which seems to be the primary definition on the Shamanism page. Basically, it'd be like placing someone in the Category:People from Montana and the Category:People from Butte, Montana. Yeah, it's accurate, but not really helpful, and more than a bit redundant. It might help to interrelate all the various "Fictional Foos" categories and add criteria for inclusion to the category pages, though. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ford MF, when you said "aboriginal magic" the character Shaman came to mind. Perhaps there is a difference between nature manipulation and the psyche? Since the category is indeed vague, someone with a little expertise could place a description for it. Clarity would surely sort things out. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Someone with a little expertise" might mean me, I dunno. Are you asking to have terms for inclusion added to the category page, indicating exactly what should qualify here? John Carter (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) - Yes, a clear explanation at the category is profoundly necessary. Question is, can you write it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

While anthropologically a "shaman" is someone who communicates with spirits and uses them to accomplish magical feats, we all know comics aren't exactly college textbooks. I think the usage of "shaman" is in practice more taken to mean "magicians of a tradition emerging from those of the aboriginal people of the world" e.g. Native American, Inuit, Ainu, Australian Aborigine, &c. Ford MF (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The only difference would arise for those, admittedly rare, individual characters who are not from one of those aboriginal traditions. Does anyone know of any individuals whose magical powers are limited to communicating with spirits who do not also tie to aboriginal traditions? John Carter (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the Alpha Flight guy I wouldn't know. Mayber the characters from Shaman King? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Alpha Flight's Shaman is tied to Amerinds, so he is tied to the aboriginal traditions. And I think most people would accept the characters from something called Shaman King as shamans. The question is asked to determine if there are any grounds to differentiate between the two definitions in the category page text or not. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - There appears to be a difference indeed. It isn't like differentiating wizard, sorcerer, mage, warlock, magician, etc., it's all the same thing, really, they're magic users. Except I don't quite know what a shaman is. It could be the same as a psychic or medium. Actually, how (or why) is Forge classified as one? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if such an example were to be brought forth, I'd say that the proper (if such a word can even be used here) term for that person would be "medium", rather than "shaman", which necessarily has an ethnic connotation I think. Ford MF (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Is the current text here acceptable to everyone? John Carter (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat. Wish I understood the concept more though. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable enough approximation under the circumstances. Ford MF (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Unfortunately, Shamanism, as per that page, isn't exactly real easy to define beyond stating that it deals with communicating with spirits, either embodied or disembodied, and either using those spirits directly to influence change or using information from those spirits to execute changes. The tradition seems to go back around 30000 years and has gone through various changes per regions and periods over that time, making a specific definition kind of difficult. Maybe the easiest way to define it is by what it isn't. A medium could be described as being more "limited" than a shaman, because the spirits mediums invoke don't tend to actually do what the mediums request very much, other than maybe talk, dance, and whatever, and the standard definition of "shaman" includes, to a degree, the shaman themselves being able to either conciously act on the information from the spirit or use the spirit to achieve the shaman's own ends. Anyone who does more than communicate with spirits would probably better be included in a broader category which more accurately reflects the abilities of the character. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Again. Any interested parties should feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Marvel (2nd nomination). John Carter (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just found the page List of objects in the DC Universe and it worries me. I'm not sure it needs to be deleted... however there's something wrong with it, IMHO.

It certainly needs work. Citing and, I think, sorting into magic, ultra high tech, alien tech, etc... unique items, etc. Duggy 1138 (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Such lists are handy and the solution to WP:FICT but that is pretty bad. Going on what I've seen elsewhere:

• Get rid of the tables - this certainly one where WP:WTUT applies and the table seems to be inhibiting improvement
• Create sections for the different items (these allow us to use redirects to link to specific sections which makes linking in simpler and easier to update).
• Expand to a paragraph or two each (or more if needed)
• Source it

As you say it should be kept but what is there is not doing anything to help such an line of reasoning. (Emperor (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC))

I've done a restructure that solves some of the problems and sets it up to work better once if it starts growing. However, the restructure itself creates a problem... that is that the categorising of the items becomes OR. Any ideas? Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering what the categories for "(Country) comics characters" are for, exactly? I had assumed they were for characters appearing in that country's comics, regardless of the character's nationality/species/etc. I was in Category:Mexican comics characters today and it has comics characters who are Mexican, not necessarily from Mexican comics. Is that type of category to house one or the other? Both? Thanks! :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is one of those tricky issues. My understanding is that it is specifically for characters who have appeared in Mexican comics rather than comic characters who are Mexican. Given the nature of comics the stroke of a pen can change someone's nationality, skin colour or sex. The problem is that they tend to also be under categories like "Fictional Mexicans" which can be misleading. That is my understanding anyway. We could have two separate categories "Characters from Mexican comics" and "Comics characters who are Mexicans" but I suspect the latter might get deleted putting us back to square one (wasn't there a deletion of something like "Fictional American comics characters" or some such? (Emperor (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC))

Few ¢...

A lot of characters bypass "American (country of publication) comics characters" and "British (country of publication) comics characters" by being listed as something like "DC Comics superhero" or "2000 AD character". Since the publisher/publication is denoting the nationality.

I'd prefer that "Nationality comics characters" not branch under "Fictional foo". One denotes a real world aspect, the other an in-universe aspect.

- J Greb (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr. Robot.  ;) I think that's a great idea. BOZ (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Added a note on template talk. (Emperor (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC))

Hiding has made the relevant changes to the Comics project header and this can now be used. (Emperor (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

We don't have a Truth: Red, White and Black article? --Allemandtando (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of it. Why should we? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A major series drawn by Kyle Baker, that caused inches of page columns and real world discussion and commentary because of it's portrayal of black soldiers being experimented on to create the super-solider serum. Lead to The crew and to the one of the main characters of the New Avengers. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer to any question along the lines of "Why don't we have X?" is because no one has started it yet. The solution? Start it.

That isn't a flippant answer - I've found that we have no shortage of people dying to start and contribute the next big high profile event but filling in articles that aren't getting a lot of "heat" at the moment is where the Comics Project really comes into its own - we can target missing articles and make sure newly created ones get up to spec. I have found that if you start an article it will get input from people who might not have started it, but who have information they can drop into an existing one (if you build it they will come). You could add it to the requested comics list (the one linked to via "more" would allow you to add any links to news coverage), but the simplest thing would just to start it while you are all fired up and enthusiastic about it. (Emperor (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC))

Truth: Red, White & Black. I've got to be honest, it's *not* a series I'm particular interested in but it's an *important* one and one that has far more real world commentary than most of the mini-series articles we have. --Allemandtando (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OK great - thanks for that. (Emperor (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC))

• Nice job. I added a redirect to it, from the version of the title you first mentioned.
  --Jerzy•t 01:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  

Hi y'all,

There's a guy/girl who keeps adding spurious barefoot wikilinks to the comics pages; his/her original userID was (I believe) User:Creepy Crawler. He's been warned about spaming barefoot crap and is now using throw-away accounts to continue vandalising. The lastest is Gurat on Kong the Untamed; for this action I've put up a Vand4im warning and placed Gurat in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Creepy Crawler. The activity comes in waves, and it's been more so in the past couple days. Accordingly, would anyone monitoring the comics pages keep an eye out for spurious links to the barefoot article? Thanks, WLU (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Will do - I've seen that before. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently s/he is now famous (on wikipedia anyway), adding a new dimension to wiki-based voyeurism. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Obsessive_linking_to_Barefoot. Hopefully a centralized solution will arise and this won't be an issue anymore. WLU (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

At least three accounts are doing this in comics articles:

• DCWS (talk · contribs)
• MadmX (talk · contribs)
• Necrom (talk · contribs)

The accounts change so quickly just spotting them is tricky but look out for the summary "minor copyedit". At least one person seems to be on the case and is removing them but some of the edits did stand for nearly a week so keep watching... your watchlists. (Emperor (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

Just to let you know, all 87 socks (including the three above) have been blocked. They apparently have the same domestic IP address, which has also been hardblocked. Hopefully that will put an end to this weirdness, but it won't hurt to keep an eye out. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 20:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just when I thought I had seen everything on Wikipedia... I suppose every aberration, kink, and quirk you can find in the real world will eventually find a way to be reflected here. Postdlf (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

87 socks to achieve bare feet. :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 22:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Good deal! I've seen this stuff on articles from Shanna the She-Devil to She-Hulk to Marrina Smallwood to Namorita to Tigra, etc... anyone that goes barefoot, particularly females. 67.162.108.96 (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why this one is thought to be Creepy Crawler. And, believe me, I'm familiar with Creepy's "work". Doczilla _STOMP! 02:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Basically because it's the exact same stuff. It's posible that more than one person has just done the exact same thing though. 67.162.108.96 (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Got a question. The ClanDestine article is now at 46 kilobytes. I'd like the split it, and I think the Cast section is the best place to do so, since all that detail would make a good article, and I'd hate to see it all deleted from the main one without it being replaced somewhere. Thing is, I don't want to create another article, and then have that work deleted, so I'd like to know what everyone else thinks. Would that be a legit topic for its own article? I'm thinking of Characters from the Incredibles as a model/precedent. Nightscream (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I, too, am interested in how this project views "List of Characters from Whatever Series" articles, as a whole. I've seen tons of them in other projects and there are actually a couple in World Comics (they need work).  :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 07:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A few issues there:

• Yes it is fine to have such lists, see List of Justice League members or for the rest: Category: Lists of comics characters.
• Does it need it? 46 kb isn't vast and the real problem usually comes from long running and popular characters who have a lot of alternate versions and appearances in other media (those sections also being easy to split off) but this is quite a self-contained series. I think the first thing one should do before looking to split an article is to ask if there is anyway to trim the article down - does, for example, any plot got repeated in the character section? That is are we telling the same story two different ways? It may be worth a split but it is usually wise to look hard at the article first - possibly aim to get it up to an A or above first, which will mean they have been gone over with reasonable rigour and there may not be a lot of fat to trim.

Hope that helps. (Emperor (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

I tend to agree, lets see if the article can be moved towards "A" without splitting. After that... I'd have to ask "What is the character list being moved to make room for?" - J Greb (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought of a trim, but I couldn't find anywhere in the article where it could be done without sacrificing crucial details. As for redundant plot iterations, the only places I noticed any reiterations were in Adam and Elalyth's bios in the Cast section, in which a tiny amount of info from the History section is repeated for content/relevance. Other than that, nada. Nightscream (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain to Cosmos Keeper why his version of the article isn't suitable for Wikipedia? --DrBat (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What I don't quite understand is why this issue hasn't been raised on the article's talk page and a note sent to the editor in question pointing them to the relevant policies. There are ways to try and head off an edit war and I don't see anyone trying those avenues. Try and reach a consensus on the talk page and see if this can be sorted out. (Emperor (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC))

I reverted it a couple of times, but there seem to be a number of "users" and IP addresses taking it back to Cosmos Keeper's version. 67.162.108.96 (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that no attempts to explain the relevant policies and reach a consensus have been tried. All that is going to happen is the revert warring will get the page protected so people are forced to take it to the talk page and thrash out a solution. It would be better to try and avoid the page protection and start discussing this on the talk page. Remember the D in WP:BRD as people aren't supposed to get into a cycle of BR. (Emperor (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

I have to concur with Emperor on this — post why there are problems with his version civilly on CK's talk. That includes pointing to the relevant guidelines, policies, and consensuses ("consensi"?). Note that you've done that in your edit summaries. And, since it's become a bone of contention, start a discussion on the article's talk page, even if it is to restate the problems you point out to CK to the general editorship.

Yes, there is an additional option, and I'm tempted to pursue it, but I'd rather see the editors directly involved at least approach the talk page first. - J Greb (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think its the same guy I had previously talked to on Juggernaut's discussion page. He's this Juggernaut fan who hates the fact that Juggernaut got redeemed and thinks he's essentially an evil sociopath; he runs this website you can see here, if you want to understand his POV. --DrBat (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And just like last time, I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall. --DrBat (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that. :) 67.162.108.96 (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Bah. Both versions are too long. I've cut 17k from the article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Make that 20. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Massive plot detail, plus numerous bulleted lists (many of which probably could just go) are the major problems I see. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's surely largely required, though. Probably the plot could be condensed somewhat - certainly the middle section - but this is a high-profile and extremely important miniseries/story, quite deserving of a full plot summary.

I don't have many strong feelings on the bulleted lists, but they serve a potentially valid purpose (albeit one hampered somewhat by the "partial" disclaimor - although it looks fairly comprehensive to me). There's certainly a possible "need" for an encyclopedic description of the new 'legacy' characters, which can all be well-sourced by the Comicology companion, the Absolute Edition and the Graphitti Revelations volume (or any combination thereof).

Surely the majority of the traffic to the page will be for two reasons:

• Having heard it mentioned in the same breath as Watchmen and DKR but not having read it: Plot summary
• Having read it and been flummoxed by all the "new" half-recognisable characters: Character descriptions/explanations

...which broadly equates, of course, to the two potential "problem areas"..! ntnon (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have this series on their watch list? It's on mine since I stuck a project tag on it a few days ago, and there seems to be a decent amount of activity that's popped up recently. It deals with race issues, and I can't tell if what's happening is appropriate or...what. I'm having trouble following what's going on (it may be nothing). Once the huge talk page entry in Spanish and a new external link right at the top of the page showed up, I feel it may be worth keeping an eye on. Does anyone mind giving it a second set of eyes? Thanks! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 23:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Doczilla _STOMP! 02:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been on my watchlist for a while but the talk page switching between English and Spanish with horizontal lines thrown in willy-nilly has made it difficult to keep track (not helped by my not knowing anything about the topic). So I keep an eye on it for anything major but it would need someone more knowledgeable/skilled that I am in the area. (Emperor (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

Yeah the huge Spanish paragraph...Woe. I noticed signs of "trouble brewing" (very charged subject matter, strongly worded talk page comments, strange external linking, all editors are now anon IPs) and didn't want to be the only one with my eye on it in case it turned ugly. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Blackface character + American CNN report on some Mexican national stamps = trainwreck. For those who aren't up to speed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a big deal on be big news right now [1] so well worth keeping an eye on it as we all know how these things can spiral out of control. (Emperor (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

Weird. On just my last trip to Mexico I picked up a whole pile of Mimin Pinguin comics. I had no idea any of this was going down. Ford MF (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we get some more eyes on this. Various single use and anon accounts (including such give always as "John Byrne fan" have been vandalising the page and violating WP:BLP and it seems Pollack isn't happy and is seeking legal recourse. I have made some suggestions but without permanent protection the answer is probably going to rely more on having lots of eyes on the article. also ideas and suggestions are welcome on the talk page if you have anything to add. (Emperor (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

I've added it to my watchlist. Ford MF (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Good sources exist for this subject. I'll work up a respectful, sourced treatment. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That is all that is required (at least as far as I'm concerned). (Emperor (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

Ok, here's a challenge. We often suggest that we should get/use WP:NFC whenever possible. But I have to tell you that searching the commons for some things is a challenge, to say the least. I'm looking for the classic comics icon of a "jug" with the three Xs on the front. (Indicating moonshine, cider, or alcohol in general.) So far the best I have found (after several hours of searching, and neither is quite what I'm looking for):

• Image:LittleBrownJugCover1869.jpeg
• Image:Moonshine-blackwhite.jpg

Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 03:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what do you need it for? Nightscream (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Does it need to have been already uploaded to Wikipedia, or is any link good enough..? ntnon (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a go at cleaning up Rip Hunter last night, can someone have a look and alter as needed. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A quick run through shows it is OK. I'll give it a more in-depth read later.

One thing - I never did like the paragraph about "the major flaw" which seems overly long for what it needs to say but I am at least glad it has been removed from the lead. I would recommend slicing it back to a sentence or two and also having at least another paragraph in the lead which gives a quick outline of his story (as you should be able to get a rough grasp of the topic from the lead). We'd also need a publication history before the FCB. Coming along nicely though. (Emperor (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for looking - I'm a terrible writer but I'm try to make the articles I come across at least vaguely written from a real world perspective. That article was particular bad in that it had title that were things like "post crisis pre-crisis version" - DC has so many crisis events that even I (as a long term reader) gets confused about which is which. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Having a problem with some guy reverting to the in-universe version - I cannot make any sense of his edit summaries or actions. --Allemandtando (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 24 hours. No reason to tolerate his repeat edit warring, when he's removing what are objective improvements to the article, without (coherent) explanation or possible justification. Postdlf (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I found this in that IP's contributions; definitely very strange. Postdlf (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I added some background info from a book I got at the library.[2] It has some more info about him, but that page is ripped out of my copy (page 98). It made me realize we need to make a page for Jack Schiff. Apparently he was a DC editor in the late 50s/early 60s. Maybe kind of like DC's early silver age version of Stan Lee even. Anyways, if anyone knows about him, there are quite a few pages that want to link to him.[3] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Jack Schiff is "next" (whatever that really means..) on my list of things to get to, but I thought I'd wait until I have more referencable materials on him. He is vital though - edited the Bat-books before Schwartz, and (purportedly) a big liberal force in DC Comics with particular reference to in-story tolerance and equality issues from pretty early on. ntnon (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What's with the huge image? The powers and abilities aren't that clear also. Can he fly? Does he possess super-strength? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I anyone resizes that image, they might also do the ones at The Night Gwen Stacy Died which are huge. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. In the first case it was a period in the image size "250.px" and in the latter it was a rogue "|frame" stopping the "|thumb" command from kicking in. (Emperor (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

And of my other concern? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got the issues here somewhere and will take a punt at it later - but let's be clear on the face of it, that article should be a stub or redirected. --Allemandtando (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've not read Ghost Rider in a long time so I can't help on that front. (Emperor (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

Now might be the case to remind people to keep an eye out for infoboxes going wonky as they get updated - it wasn't the case here but I have seen the sizing going funny (as you only need the number without the "px") and sometimes the image code shows as text. So if you spot it update it or flag it here and one of us will fix it. (Emperor (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

I just noticed that this article was moved. There didn't seem to be a consensus for the move and it seems to break the comics naming conventions. I tried to move it back, but was unsuccessful. Stephen Day (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be at the correct location now. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Its at DMZ (comic book) where it was moved. Shouldn't it be at DMZ (DC Comics)? Stephen Day (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Not unless another publisher has a comic with the same title. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Stephen Day (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be at DMZ (comics) - I did leave a note to this effect on the talk page. The only other DMZ appeared in issue 21 0f Static [4] and is currently not notable. (Emperor (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC))

The other comics related DMZ is a little more notable than that. He was featured as a member of the Blood Syndicate for almost all of that series' 35 issues. It could be argued that a redirect page at DMZ (Milestone Comics), going to the Blood Syndicate article, could be warranted. Stephen Day (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Right I see. This would then suggest either:

• DMZ (comics) should be a set index and DMZ (comic book) should be at DMZ (DC Comics).
• Or we leave it as it is with DMZ (comic book) at DMZ (comics) with a hatnote to the Blood Syndicate.

I know nothing of the character but would imagine that the DC comic book is significantly more notable so it makes sense to have the top slot (so I am fine with leaving it as it is). If another DMZ emerged then we might need to re-evaluate things. And yes that redirect makes sense. (Emperor (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC))

Now that an administrator has moved it to DMZ (comics), I'd say leave it there. The Blood Syndicate DMZ doesn't have a solo article dedicated to him at this point -- I'm not sure he really needs one anyway. The dab paragraph at the top of the page directing to the info on him in the Blood Syndicate article seems like the right way to go. Stephen Day (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep that is my preferred option. Obviously we can always revisit this if there are developments but I think this works best for now. (Emperor (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

rm my comments - I found the relevant discussion! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 05:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

On the Action Comics & Superman (volume 1) pages there were very large sections devoted to the current creators plans to unite Superman/Action Comics/Supergirl storylines. I've deleted them because I think they focus too much on the current creative line-ups for something that's happened with the titles before. Honestly, though I think a much smaller section of the topic may work fine. Anyone want to have a look... to see what the best option is? Duggy 1138 (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel confident that you're correct. This merits a sentence. Maybe. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If a place could be found for it, I think a sentence mentioning the 90s triangle numbers and maybe the current set-up may be worthwhile... but you'd have to find the right place and the right phrasing, but I'm not interested enough in having the line in there to be the one to come up with it. Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant information but my main problem is that if you included that information in one article you'd have to include it on all the others. I think the best bet is to include information here: List of Superman comics, it'd make the article more interesting and informative and you could then drop a brief mention into the relevant articles and link through to it. (Emperor (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

Sorry for the eye catching dramatics, but I was doing my normal meanderings thru comicproj, and I was noticing the proliferation of articles w/ 'controversy' sections. I wanted to pose a quick general discussion to get a feel for the topic. In my opinion, these sections are little more than trivia sections, with pertinent informaton that should be incorporated into the publication history or into the greater article as character development. Controversy, implies a NPOV tone, as what one person sees as controversial... (quick examples would be John Stewart, Cassie Cain). Thoughts? -66.109.248.114 (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC).

The term falls into 2 categories:

1. Articles or sections that have editing problems. Generally these get tagged as such. examples would be Keith Giffen or John Byrne.
2. Sections of an article dealing with controversies relating to the topic and covered in secondary sources. Spoiler's "death", Cap's "death", "Women in freezers", etc. These generally aren't tagged.

Are you seeing #2 treated as #1? - J Greb (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Got any examples?

I think such a section can have its place but editors should see if it can be fitted into publication history or reception (the latter of course is more neutral).

It goes without saying that something called "controversy" that isn't properly sourced and/or uses the word "fan" should be treated with suspicion. (Emperor (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

What's up with his moves? He tried to get the current Trinity comic merged with some DC villain with the same name. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And he forced a lot of moves/edits in the Trinity set of comics articles that have made move reverts all but impossible. - J Greb (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a discussion now in two separate threads above.

I think we should politely ask the user in question to stop boldly moving pages, until consensus of their interpretation of WP:NCC can be determined. (Since several editors now have shown issue with the moves.)

(I'll note that this has a familiar ring to it. Thinking about BBiA...) - jc37 22:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

They seem to have stopped now they realised there was an ongoing discussion about this.

I had a check through the Trinity comics and they seem to be pretty in the right places. Is there anything specific that needs looking at? (Emperor (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

OK, let's get the facts. The initial move from Trinity (comic book) to Trinity (comics) that Duggy 1138 mentioned was a mistake on my part, which I apologise for and was quickly reverted. The subsequent pair of moves from Trinity (comics) to Trinity (comics character) and from Trinity (DC Comics) to the newly vacant Trinity (comics) are what J Greb is referring to, and were made as a result of a discussion on my talk page which followed on from Duggy 1138 pointing out the previous erroneous move.

Further, I've just gone through and fixed all the links that were pointing to Trinity (comics) but should have been pointing to Trinity (comics character). Like Emperor and Duggy 1138, I think the articles are now in the right places.

If anyone wants to dispute this further, please go ahead, but I'm tired of some of you guys saying "he's not following WP:NCC" without actually showing examples of where I'm not following it. No, jc37, several editors have not shown issues with my moves, the ONLY thing that anybody has shown that went against WP:NCC was the erroneous move pointed to by Duggy 1138. The rest is all people like you saying "his moves are wrong" without actually showing how they're wrong - rst20xx (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it standard to have separate articles for alternate universe versions a la Alternate versions of the Human Torch and Alternate versions of the Thing? My instinct is to redirect both to The Thing and Human Torch, but comics pages are not my strength. WLU (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty standard practice for popular or well known characters if there's enough of a difference between them and their counterpart in the mainstream Marvel Universe. I personally think that some characters, such as those from the Ultimate Marvel Universe like Spider-Man, the FF, The X-Men, and a few others should have their own articles because they're involved in an ongoing monthly series. Most alternate versions of characters, however, usually appear in one or two special issues or a mini-series and that's it and overall aren't really all that notable. In my opinion anyway.Odin's Beard (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

They've almost always come about when the main article needs splitting and "alternate versions" and "in other media" are the most obvious sections to be split off. All this is in line with the guidelines as long as they are created as a solution to a genuine need and aren't there "because everyone else has one" - they still need to be long enough to form a solid and well-rounded article of their own (otherwise there is no real need to split it off). Some were recently put up for deletion and they were all kept (a few speedily I believe) so jut redirecting isn't going to work. If you have concerns you can raise it on the talk page and if it looks like it can be put back without bloating the main article then a merge discussion could be started. However, most are OK. (Emperor (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

That satisfies me, but now they all need infoboxes (dusts the responsibility off his hands, walks away). WLU (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This raises a good point - there are some articles (like the "alternate versions" and "in other media" ones) which don't have infoboxes. Do they need one? If so what? If so feel free to flag this in the talk page header "|infobox=yes" so they will get the attention it deserves, eventually. (Emperor (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

Unless they have got major 3rd party coverage - my first thought is to redirect them to either a) the parent article or b) an article about the series the alternative appeared in. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take the lists of names from Silver Age_of_Comic Books#Noted Silver_Age_talents and put them on their own page. I'm not super happy with "Noted Silver Age talents". Maybe List of Silver Age of Comics professionals? Any better ideas? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• List of Silver Age Comics creators might be acceptable as well, I dunno. John Carter (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. It can always be moved later. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • List of Silver Age comics creators‎ - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Despite WP:NCC#Disambiguation being pretty clear, the first level of comics disambiguation should be to "(comics)" there is still a tendency to a more descriptive approach (I know the problem as it took my a while for it to click). The problem is that you then get all sorts of red links and the lack of a proper structure can lead to all sorts of problems which have cropped up in the last few days:

• I just put in a merge suggest for Frank Tieri (comic book writer), despite it being older and longer than Frank Tieri (comics) that is not only the correct name but it highlights the problems that can occur - if the article doesn't occupy the top slot people should be able to link to "X (comics)" which either takes you to the article or to an article which hatnotes to the right one or set index which outlines all the possible variation (for the last one see discussion above).
• A number of articles in the form of 52 (comic book) have been moved to the "(comic)" which is clearly not the right disambiguation so they were moved back. However, in all the circumstances I saw "(comic book)" isn't correct either - they should all be at the "(comics)" equivalent.

It is sometimes necessary to have more descriptive disambiguation but these cases are rare (see e.g. (Trinity (DC Comics) which recently had some of the articles moved to even less standard disambiguation before rightly being moved back.

There are a lot of articles incorrectly named and it might be wise to aim to fix some of the most glaring problems as it'd not only reduce confusion and mess but would help head off future problems (as people would be likely to take their cue from existing articles). I flagged one here: Talk: Ronin (comic) but there are plenty of others that have awkward, overcomplicated disambigutation (like David Lloyd (comic artist) (if there was another David Lloyd in comics it might make sense to have this at "(comics artist)" but there isn't), trickier are things like John Stokes (artist) but as they are mainly a comics artist then the disambiguation isn't right (it does work for people like Alan Barnes (writer), but I am less sure about Alan Grant (writer), but that probably makes sense too as he is doing a lot more non-comics work).

Anyway just a few thoughts. I do think it would be worthwhile fixing the glaring/high profile errors and then possibly addressing others when we have time. (Emperor (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC))

Here are my thoughts...

"(comics)" is a very, very good generic suffix, but there are times where it will fall short, or create confusion. Some that I can think of off the top:

• Batman (comic book) — There is no "(comics)" level article or dab, nor could there be. The generic would tend towards the character which is also the most likely search.
• Superman (comic book) — Same situation.
• The Man of Steel (comic book) — The term, with regard to comics, would point to the character, so having a "(comics" version point to the book would be awkward.
• The Amazing Spider-Man (comic book) — Based on the set index, the newspaper strip shares the name. Using "comics" in this case would be confusing since it could be used as a likely search for either format. (Side note, there is a move discussion on this page for those that are interested.)

As for real people... I don't agree with using "(comics)" as a primary dab, "(comics <job>)" yes, but not just "(comics)". For me, the lone term reflects product or content, something I don't associate with people — they aren't property, nor are they fictional. Alan Grant is a good example of the other problem, people shift in and out of the medium. I'd rather dab by profession, or most notable profession, first then add medium as clarification if needed. - J Greb (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are cases when "(comic book)" can be useful but there are many more when it is just poor disambiguation (the exceptions should be dealt with on a case by case basis but most of those examples are right in those cases "X (comics)" would either be a set index, redirect to the main page or the disambiguation page, so they probably aren't exceptions).

I think you might be right on the person front. WP:D#Biographies:

"For biographies, it is generally preferred to use a formal disambiguating noun that describes the person, rather than an activity, profession, genre, or affiliation.:
For example, Sam Biguation (guitarist), not Sam Biguation (rocker), Sam Biguation (music), Sam Biguation (rock music), Sam Biguation (the Southwest Spice Band), Sam Biguation (1974–2006), nor (per the simplicity principle above) Sam Biguation (rock guitarist), unless Sam Biguation (guitarist) itself needs to be disambiguated between Sam Biguation (classical guitarist) and Sam Biguation (rock guitarist)."

Which means David Lloyd (comic artist) should really be at David Lloyd (artist) and it presents a handy solution to Frank Tieri (comic book writer) as it can be moved to Frank Tieri (writer) and the other article made into a redirect (which might be a good idea in general to snag any links). Either way some will need renaming so things are consistent and it looks like WP:NCC#Disambiguation needs rewording. Not sure how we'd deal with artist/writers but we'll deal with those when they crop up. (Emperor (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC))

Seems fairly reasonable and obvious that all published comic book titles could be appended with "(comic book)" either as standard, of just when disambiguation is needed. Presumably the latter is the policy, even though the former might help things be better standardized overall.

However, I would take some considerable issue with also note the inherent problems with trying to differentiate articles about real people. J Greb is of course quite right to note that "(comics)" implies "product or content," but surely differentiating further is both (mildly) anti the policy of differentiation (which stresses simplicity, I think?) and brings in all manner of additional difficulties on adjudicating "primary" role, "primary" medium, etc., etc.

Surely, although "Comics writer" crosses over with "writer," the two are very different disciplines. Screenwriters are not "writers," songwriters are not "writers" - should comics writers be? Are individuals such as (to pick names at random) Greg Land and Picasso both simply "artist" when disambiguation is needed? Is a "writer/artist" to be listed that way, or a judgement call made over which is more noteable - see also the very large number of editors who wind up becoming writers and vice versa. (Not that they'll all require disambiguating, but they all could...)

I'd suggest this issue is a) low priority and b) in need of a serious and tailored debate on the pros and cons of wholesale changes. Certainly, in reference to Emperor's quote, I think that the COMICS PROJECT may well require slightly different guidelines, albeit there is definitely a need for standardized ones! ntnon (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A few things:

First, the dab suffixes are only supposed to be used when there is a potential for confusion. That means that is there is only one article using a title, a dab suffix is not to be added.

Then, the dab suffix, if present, are supposed to be as general as possible. The consensus has been that the most general term comic books, strips, characters, settings, etc is "(comics)".

There are specific cases where a dab suffix isn't applied when there are multiple articles of the same name. If there is a primary "most likely search target", that article is left unsuffixed, other wise that is reserved for a dab page. An example of this is Batman.

Last, with real people there is going to be a point where a choice has to be made, and it generally should be by what the most likely search would be. By way of example:

• Josepf Smith — dab page
• Josepf Smith (politician) — State senator
• Josepf Smith (doctor) — physician
• Josepf Smith (writer) — writes novels
• Josepf Smith (comics writer) — writes lots of things but is most known for Capt Cabbage
• Josepf Smith (screenwriter) — writes for television
• Josepf Smith (actor)
• Josepf Smith (artist) — works in multiple media, from painting to sculpture
• Josepf Smith (comics artist) — draws a lot but is best known for his work with Marbel Comics
• Josepf Smith (inker) — unrelated to the above, but only works at inking art for comics
• Josepf Smith (editor) — notable works are as an editor of various newspapers and magazines
• Josepf Smith (comics editor) — only notable for editing minor title at DF Comics

This is a fictitious grouping of people with the same name. Note that clarifies, comics in this case, or atypical (inker) dabs are used where multiple articles would use the same broad dab. - J Greb (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That is sort of it it - the first level of disambiguation for comic objects should be "(comics)" not "(comic book)", "(graphic novel)", "(comic)", etc. and all disambiguation has to be kept as simple as possible - so, for example, we use "(writer)" unless there are two writers. None of this implies any kind of value judgment - it is assigning the article to a specific class, and if there is more than one article that fits in that class then we work refine it be a level (for comics that would then be by company, e.g. "(Marbel Comics)" or "(DF Comics)"), with an eye to making sure the "c" is a capital letter. For people that would be "(comics writer)") and beyond that we have to get more specific, as with Trinity (DC Comics). Obviously there are exceptions, as detailed above, but they are few and we can deal with them on a case-by-case basis. As I say the principle is not to be comprehensively descriptive but to use the disambiguation to a specific class of things. So it'd basically break down like this::

• (comics)
  • (Marvel Comics), {DC Comics), etc.
    • (comic book), (graphic novel)
• (writer), (artist)
  • (comics writer), (comics artist)

We don't need special rules for comics, the Disambiguation guidelines are pretty straightforward for good reasons - most of the disambiguation will be fairly simple stuff and keeping it uniform avoids confusion. As you work down the list they get rarer and we'd really only need to get very specific in rare circumstances where we get popular names (even then looking at John Smith it seems John Smith (comics) would only need to be called John Smith (writer)). I can really only think of a few examples where we'd need to get that specific and it'd be easy enough to work out the right solution when they crop up. 99% of the time it looks like we can work with the more general classes. (Emperor (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC))

Looks to me like the initial point was about a move away from using plain "(comics)" for people, but that now it's morphed into a discussion about simply the most sensible primary differentiation for all comics-related things, parties and people - all well and good.

However, on that fictitious example, I think a plain "(inker)" is inaccurate/misleading. In addition to requiring a differentiation between SMITH (writer) and SMITH (comics writer) there needs to be a similar differentiation structure for SMITH (comics artist), SMITH (comics writer) and SMITH (comics inker). All three work in the field of comics, and any one aone would be SMITH (comics); ergo when there are two SMITH (comics)es, then BOTH need the extra description - not a retrograde removal of the comics for each/one.

If that's not explained too well, then to put it another way, the comics writer is COMICS first; writer second. So if (comics) can't be used alone, then it should still be there as the operative term.

For example, if you have

• Smith (banker)
• Smith (baker)
• Smith (butcher)
• Smith (comics) - writes The Adventures of Simon, the Magnificent Trout

...and then a new article on SMITH - the artist on 1493 - Discovery II pops up - I don't think you should shift the existing Smith to Smith (writer), but to Smith (comics writer), just as New Smith has to be (comics artist). (All still ignoring the - hopefully unlikely - situation of having two individuals who do more than just one job...)

This follows naturally from J Greb's point about "likely search" terms - the likely search for all Smiths would be "comics," hence the need for a comics operative term. (Unless of course, in the miniscule number of cases this will ever apply in, Emperor's companion point about indices - in which case the Smith (comics) page would then link through to a separate set page of Inker, Colorist, Writer and Artist...)

This all seems like an incredible amount of over-thinking on a very minor - and mostly hypothetical - issue! Since (to my reading, correct me if I've missed something) J Greb's come full circle for arguing against (comics) for the primary differentiation for people, to seeing it as the neccessary evil in primary differentiation for ALL comics-related matters including people, it seems that John Smith (comics) is rightly titled, and that it's similarly sensible to just get John Bolton (comic book artist), Frank Tieri (comic book writer) and David Lloyd (comic artist) (et al.) shifted to (comics) until identically named individuals turn up and need further debate..! ;o) ntnon (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

To specifically comment on Emperor's "steps," I think the second part is slightly wrong. Not:

• (writer), (artist)
  • (comics writer), (comics artist). Rather:

• (comics)
  • (comics writer), (comics artist)

"Comics" is the primary point (if not, they wouldn't be being debated in the comics project..!) and the primary search term, first disambiguatory step, etc. If someone is primarily known as a writer, and happens to write comics: (writer). Otherwise, they're known as a COMICS writer, so: (comics). And if there are two: (comics X) and (comics Y). That seems both more starightforward, and less misleading. ntnon (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was always about the right way to disambiguate the top level of comics-related articles (people and... things). My outline is correct going by the WP:D guidelines. Again all I can say is that the disambiguation term is not descriptive it is a classification and it should be kept as simple as possible for the circumstances. So someone who is a comics writer is in the class "(writer)" unless there are two people who could be defined as such in which case we'd need a more refined class. All outlined in the quote I gave form WP:D#Biographies - the top level disambiguation for a person will be "(writer)", "(artists)", etc. and for a comic book or graphic novel or character it would be "(comics)". If there is more than one thing in that class you work down becoming more specific. So from my examples I gave at the start:

52 (comic book) becomes 52 (comics)

Frank Tieri (comic book writer) and Frank Tieri (comics) become Frank Tieri (writer)

This seems in line with the general principles at WP:D as applied to comics and is pretty much what WP:NCC says, although it will need tweaking where it applies to people (I have taken my lead from that when in fact it is wrong according the disambiguation guidelines).

The irony was that I was really just restating policy to make sure we were all on the same page (as there had been a lot of tinkering with naming that had been addressed but I thought we could head off problems with a more uniform application of the guidelines) but it is clear we seem to have different ideas about this (although at one point I did think I was on the same page as J Greb, once I'd checked WP:D#Biography and found he was right and WP:NCC was wrong as it applied to people, now I am less sure ;) ) - although our own guidelines and the main disambiguations ones are pretty clear. (Emperor (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC))

I still respectfully disagree - both with your reading of the guidelines (more below), and ultimately (slightly) with the guidelines themselves. I do tend to agree with the initial sentiments of J Greb that it might be better to disambiguate people in a less "objectifying" manner, as well as tending to think that "(comic book)" is a better differential term than "(comics)" for titles, so that it allows an instant understanding of what the article is about. That would aid navigation and editing, if it allowed people to easily know whether the page is strictly about the title or about a character or concept.
But, the "(comics)" is the primary disambiguatory appendation at the moment, so my personal thoughts are largely irrelevant..! ;o)
I see your quote from WP:D, and raise you two:

"If in doubt, use the existing convention for disambiguated biographical articles of the same general type as the article you are disambiguating (even if you disagree with it)." and

"If there is a choice between disambiguating with a generic class or with a context, choose whichever is simpler. Use the same disambiguating phrase for other topics within the same context.

For example, "(mythology)" rather than "(mythological figure)"."

Those really make it clear (to me, at least!) that:

1. The accepted disambiguation term for ALL comics-related topics, comics and people is "(comics)", and that applies to writers and artists of comics, too;
2. Simplicity rules, so my preference for an expanded description "(comics writer)" is frowned upon.
   

Ultimately, if "(writer)" were widely used, surely the articles would fall under the purview of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment#Writers and critics, rather than this Comics Project...? And that would plainly be inaccurate and unhelpful.
(Not to mention that attempts to effectively rebrand all "People (comics)" articles and fix the links would be an enormous, time-consuming and largely pointless headache, AND likely to then be retroactively challenged for many of the reasons discussed above..! ;o))

So should this not just be standardized almost 'as-is':

• Unique names stay undifferentiated
• People become (comics) unless there are more than one, in which case it should be (comics writer)/(comics artist) or maybe even (DC Comics artist)/(EC Comics artist) after their primary, best-known work if two similarly-jobbed individuals share a name.
• Comics themselves become (comics), unless there are articles on characters (unappended) or (alias) AND their titular comic (comic book) - OGNs and 'other' might get (limited series)/(maxiseries)/(miniseries) and/or (graphic novel)/(OGN). Identically named comics - and maybe some merely 'similarly' named ones, within reason - from different companies head to (XX Comics) and (YY Comics) with potential caveats for largely unforeseen other possibilities - maybe (comics event) or (comics company)(?)
• Characters from the same company get their (name) or possibly (imprint); from different companies they get the (XX Comics) company.

Is that right...?! :o) ntnon (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'd be fine with using "(comics)" for all comics works but when J Greb questioned this I checked the guidelines and WP:D#Specific topic (Biographies section) is pretty clear:

For biographies, it is generally preferred to use a formal disambiguating noun that describes the person, rather than an activity, profession, genre, or affiliation.:
For example, Sam Biguation (guitarist), not Sam Biguation (rocker), Sam Biguation (music)

Which is what we have here:

Sam Biguation (guitarist) not Sam Biguation (music)

Sam Biguation (writer) not Sam Biguation (comics)

We basically follow the broader guidelines and then adjust them to fit the specific circumstances here. I might be misreading WP:D#Specific topic (Biographies) but it is straightforward (and is the most relevant bit of the guidelines to the subject at hand). I'd be happy to ask for clarification on the talk page there if that'd help. (Emperor (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC))

Yes, I read that as well, but I think the caveats underneath that statement (that I quote above) moderate it to such a point that it is almost rendered widely impotent, and certainly (to my eyes) doesn't apply in this context:

• Precedence and existing convention
• Simplicity and "generic class" - "(mythology)" over "(mythological figure)" surely implies "(comics)" over "(comics writer)", but further implicitly says that the class trumps the role. (Maybe!)

In any case, that Biguation example is surely undermined by a logical semi-flaw ("use a formal disambiguating noun that describes the person, rather than an activity, profession..." surely talks against "guitarist" as both activity and profession, doesn't it..?) and the preceding qualifier "generally preferred," which is where the further guidelines I've tried to interpret come into their own...

I'm looking for comparable examples, but comics is a fairly unique field in this regard, however, it does appear that - in some cases, although not all - "(radio)" is used for occasionaly articles on radio personalities/presenters; conversely "(film critic)" trumps "(film)" or "(critic)"... which makes considerably sense, of course, but might point to the sense of "(comics artist)" and "(comics writer)".

"(comics)" seems to be working for the most part, so it seems sensible to standardise those which don't currently conform to "(comics)"... ntnon (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the best bet is to ask at WT:D and see how that pans out - if it is "either will do" then I would say (as I did in my first post before being thrown by the biographies guidelines) that we would then default everything to "(comics)" - it makes sense from all sorts of different angles and would make creating red links a no brainer, because at the root of it the actual term is less important than having an agreed upon standard that is applied properly across the project (given that we do have pretty clear guidelines that aren't being properly applied) - it needn't be descriptive as long as it is a reasonable classification, with the lead clarifying what they do and why. (Emperor (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC))

Precisely. I think that "makes sense from all sorts of angles" point is the operative one here, so I'm not even sure there needs to be an outside WT:D comment asked for. :o) ntnon (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem is we work within the guidelines and give advice on what needs to be done within comics to apply those guidelines - if our interpretation of those guidelines is wrong, then we'll just up right back here again. Best to make sure it is right now so we can work accordingly (or argue our case and possibly get things tweaked). Going against the guidelines because we prefer our approach is not going to fly. (Emperor (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC))

True... it needs to be accurately known. But then the guideline does still say "If in doubt, use the existing convention for disambiguated biographical articles of the same general type as the article you are disambiguating (even if you disagree with it)" which suggests that it might be in line with the guideline to possibly bend the guideline..! ;o)

On a related note, can someone move (and redirect) David W. Mack to David Mack (comics)...? I've never seen him credited with the "W" (which is not to suggest it's wrong, just that it's unnecessary), so the "(comics)" seems the more preferable page. ntnon (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In reading the above, I think it comes down to a question of "works" vs. "individuals/groups".

I would presume that we would agree that:

• parenthetical dab phrases should only be used "when necessary". This is something that I personally didn't understand when I first came to Wikipedia. I thought that every name should be "as specific as possible", while now it seems that the goal is to have the "main article name" be as "intuitive" as possible, with parentheticals kept to a minimum, and with redirects, dab pages, etc., utilised to aid in further navigation.

• The non-parenthetical article name should be used for the "most common" usage, with a "top hat" link to the dab/setindex page. If one or more usages are of similar commonality, then the dab/setindex page receives the non-parenthetical article name, and all articles of the same name would have parentheticals.

• What those parentheticals should be, is laid out in WP:NCC. Though I will note that the usage of the generic "(comics)" has gone through a lot of discussion, and we really should find a consensus here before moving away from that if this discussion determines that we should.

And that leads ot this question (which I alluded to at the top): if we agree that "comics" applies to "creative works" (which, to clarify a potentially confusing point, includes fictional characters and fictional groups), then what parenthetical should be used for "actual" individuals or groups?

In reading the above, I think I'm currently leaning towards using the "creative works" parenthetical of "comics" as an adjective to modify whatever the parenthetical would be due to WP:DAB.

So, if we have a writer of comics, then we have Some Name (comics writer).

That seems the most "intuitive" to me, and allows us to closely follow whatever the DAB convention is for "real" individuals and groups. As the convention can change at any time (BLP policies seem to be semi-constantly in flux), it allows us an easy way to "keep up with the Joneses".

So:

• (comics writer)
• (comics artist)
• (comics inker)
• (comics editor)
• (comics publisher) - publishing company?

etc.

In addition, there is no reason that redirects of "Some Name (comics)" shouldn't/couldn't be created. (In the words of Hiding, who, I'm sure, was quoting someone else: "Redirects are cheap" : )

Incidentally, comic books, comics strips, video games, etc are all still "creative works", even though they may be considered "actual" (as compared to their fictional comtent) and so they would still use (comics) or further disambiguation, as necessary, per WP:NCC.

I'd like to see if we could find consensus on this (or whatever the resultant format is), since the use of "(comics)" has been such a long standing usage in our dab/setindex/NCC guidelines.

As such, further discussion is most welcome. : ) - jc37 20:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much where I'm at, with a caveat though.

With the "Some Name (comics job)" I look at the adjective as an "as needed" also. That is, if there are 5 articles on people named "Some Name", and only one of them is a writer, then "(writer)" is all that's needed, even if all that person is comic books. If 2 or more of the people are writers, then using "(comics writer)" for the one that only writes comics is in order. - J Greb (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about that while writing this, and intentionally left that out (for more discussion). I'm rather hazy on that. (Likely to be swayed.)

Is the dab phrase for such individuals "writer", or "author"? If author, then while "comics writer" might be appropriate (as the term "writer" is used within that medium), it might not be appropriate for us to defer to "writer" without some adjective addition. (Same seems to go for screen writer, for example.) Clarification would be welcome. - jc37 22:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

IIUC what is used by Bio the most general terms would be:

• author — which would split into "novelist", "comics writer", "screenwriter", etc
• artist — which would split, for us, into penciller, inker, colo(u)rist, comics artist, and comics illustrator
• editor
• publisher

We could likely add "letterer" to the list as its own category and "cartoonist" for cases like Schultz. - J Greb (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, though I'm thinking that we should defer to the more specific term (such as comics writer), unless the broader term applies (such as author). What do you think? - jc37 23:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That should work. - J Greb (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that there are two takes on this:

Where "(comics)" is the first level of disambiguation for things and people:

• (comics)
  • (Marvel Comics), (DC Comics)
    • (comic book), (story arc)
  • (writer), (artist)
    • (comics writer), (comics artist)

Where "(comics)" is the first level for things and profession (e.g. "(writer)", "(artist)", etc.) is the first level for people:

• (comics)
  • (Marvel Comics), (DC Comics)
    • (comic book), (story arc)
• (writer), (artist)
  • (comics writer), (comics artist)

My reading of WP:D suggests the latter is the one that follows the guidelines most exactly although personally I'd prefer the former (which mainly seems to be the way it is implemented, although there is a mix). There are obviously exceptions to this (like The Man of Steel (comic book) (because Superman is clearly the Man of Steel and there is also Superman: Man of Steel, so it is far from clear what would get The Man of Steel (comics)) and those at Trinity (DC Comics), but these seems rare and those final levels of disambiguation are ones we come to a consensus on when they occur (for example I agree with the way the Trinity ones are dealt with and a recent attempt to rename them was unwise and needs discussing before doing - it was all reverted quickly).

As I said above I think it would be best to ask at WT:D before setting in concrete one of the disambiguation tress, because if the first does going against the WP:D guidelines all that will happen is we'll end up back here again at some point in the future (as we are just applying the guidelines to the specifics of the comics world and can't just go off and do our own thing if it suits us, as everything we do links in with everything else). Soooo tomorrow I'll ask and if either is fine I'd vote for the first one (as "(comics)" isn't a description it is a classification). We can then take it from there and finetune things. (Emperor (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC))

Here is what the page currently says concerning the choice of word or words in the parenthesis (WP:D#Biographies):

If anything, it would appear to me that the use of only "(comics)" for biography disambiguation is quite contrary to the guideline. And same goes for "profession" of writer or comics writer.

So I don't think I'm seeing what you're seeing.

That said, it seems rather clear from WP:D that whatever convention we consensually decide upon here at the WikiProject for comics-related articles will likely become the convention regardless of WP:D's general guidelines and examples.

The more I think about this, and the more I read further into naming conventions, and the more I look over such articles, the more I think that:

a.) WP:D doesn't address fiction very well (much at all, really except to suggest that stubs are a bad idea (!?)

b.) While (comics), as a dab phrase, is rather useful as a dab phrase for comics-related creative works (and its usage also seems to deal directly with some concerns of varieties of English naming conventions issues), it would appear to not be as good for "real-life" individuals or groups. I think a good NC for comparison would be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). Nothing there about actors/writers/producers. Instead, we have to go back to WP:NC in order to find: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people).

And this page seems to have the dab conventions we may be looking for. (Specifically: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Qualifier between bracketing parentheses.)

So this is where the profession-based dabs are apparently sourced from.

Honestly, what I'm seeing in reading both these pages is that they don't seem to be "in sync" with each other. And that apparently (in general) WikiProjects set their own conventions for disambiguation.

Soooo...

Let's leave the straight-jacket of the text behind and decide based on the "spirit" of the rules in order to attempt to do the right thing.

(Of course, I suppose I could paste a few more sections from at least a dozen other places - For example, you might be amazed at how many fiction-wannabe-policies there are, and several at least "touch" upon naming conventions : )

Anyway, joking aside, what I'd like is for us to split this discussion into two sections:

• creative works
• people and groups of people

If, after determining how to dab each individually, we want to then work to merge the two types, fair enough. But until then, I think we're just creating more confusion than we need to.

(I'm rather glad that this wasn't a speech, I think I'd rather be out of breath by now : )

Anyway, I'd like to know what everyone else thinks. - jc37 09:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any disconnect between the two quotes you give there (although I suspect the wording around the "noun" business is confusing) as the examples are clear:

• "For example, Sam Biguation (guitarist), not Sam Biguation (rocker), Sam Biguation (music)"

• "William Henry (delegate), William Henry (chemist), William Henry (congressman), William Henry (actor)"

Which both suggest "(comics)" isn't right for people and "(writer)"/"(artist)" is, with "(comics writer)" and "(comics artist)" being the next level if needed (and I haven't yet seen an example where it is, but there must be one or two).

Which gives the general structure I posted above, the being the one I came up with based on the guidelines I read:

Things:

• (comics)
  • (Marvel Comics), (DC Comics)
    • (comic book), (story arc)

People:

• (writer), (artist)
  • (comics writer), (comics artist)

I'd be fine with that if we get consensus and if I'm not reading the guidelines wrong - to make sure I have asked at WT:D here.

As has been said if we go with this then it is worth making redirects from "Sam Biguation (comics)" to e.g. "Sam Biguation (writer)" as that will sweep up any links using the other system. There doesn't seem to be a "reason" that we can add for this kind of redirect although check list at WP:REDIRECT#reasons, as I may be missing something.

The one area I am unsure about is how to disambiguate artists and writers (like, for example, Alan Davis - it might be rare to find one who also needs disambiguating and we can deal with them on a case-by-case basis but we might as well try and address it now - I don't see "(artist/writer)" being too outrageous. Then again we aren't trying to comprehensively describe people in the disambiguation so perhaps if an artist has also done some writing we go for "artist" (for example John Higgins (comics) who is best known as an artist but he has also written stories - we can leave the more detail description for the text) and vice versa. (Emperor (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC))

On the reason point I just came across this being used which seems the best one: {{R from alternative name}}, for future reference. (Emperor (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC))

I still think we're reading (or at least interpreting) this differently. However, I have no problem with the idea that perhaps it's my mis-read of either your comments or the "rules" page. I'm going to take a day to re-read and come back to this. - jc37 22:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

These debates - while ostensibly helpful - are surely in danger (if they aren't already) of sucking up time and effort that could be better spent revising and better-ing the actual pages themselves, rather than worrying about whether they're called the "right thing"...

From jc37 summation, I take the following point as the major one: "apparently (in general) WikiProjects set their own conventions for disambiguation." Moreover, the one standard seems to be that the disambiguatory terms are succinct (one word preferable) and tailored so as not to ASSIST in confusing individuals.

For that last reason - making sure things aren't confused further - it seems reasonable to assume that WRITER and ARTIST are not the appropriate/obvious terms for comics writers and artists.

If the solution would be to set up redirects from (comics) to (other), then... why not leave them as (comics)..?! That seems very counter-productive, and likely to confuse things.

Separating people from things makes a considerable amount of sense, but I would counsel keeping (comics) for people, and shifting the rest:

• Wolverine (character)/(Marvel Comics character)
• The Sandman (comic book) AND (DC Comics/Vertigo character)/(Marvel Comics character)
• Superman (comic book), etc.
• People (comics)

To do otherwise could open a considerable can of worms - not least for naming & finding people (is he better known as an artist or a writer; an inker or a penciler?). Would pencilers and inkers both be "artists"? Is that more accurate than both being "comics"? (I would say not.) Would Bendis - if disambiguation were needed - be a writer (best known as) a penciler/artist (started as) or both?

(comics) works. I'm looking for the [character/person/thing] that works/features in the comics field - hence THING/PERSON (comics) as a search term and page name. ntnon (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

At this point (except to continue the "status quo"), I would oppose the usage of the single word "comics" as the dab phrase of "real life" people or groups of people. I think more than anything, that seems to "jump out" when reading the various guidelines and policies. Though you may have to read more of the pages than the sectioned quotes i've posted here to get more of a "feel" for that. However, as I noted above in response to Emperor, I think I'm going to take a day off from this to let it "digest", and possibly to read up some more. So I guess, BBL : ) - jc37 22:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If I read that correctly you are suggesting "(comics)" for people and something more descriptive for things (e.g. Wolverine (comics) to "Wolverine (character)") which is the opposite way round to my reading of WP:D and is contrary to WP:NCC and the way we currently disambiguate the majority of comics articles that need it. I think this would be a bad move and would lead to a non-standard first level of disambiguation that would lead to a mess. If I've read it properly.

As far as I was aware the debate was whether "(comics)" should be the top level disambiguation for things and people or whether (as far as my reading of WP:D suggest) we should use "(writer)"/"(artist)" for people. While I'd marginally lean towards the former if there is an option if the latter is the right way according to the disambiguation guidelines then I'd be fine with going for that. (Emperor (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC))

I'm presuming that this is a response to ntnon, and not to my comments directly above? (Presumed, since my statement/opinion was/is that the singular dab phrase (comics) should not be used for people or groups of people. And I'm hoping that I clarified at least that much : ) - jc37 23:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep - I made sure I double checked my indenting ;) Again, if I understood correctly, you favour the second of the two different 'tress' I gave above (post timestamped: 03:09, 25 June 2008) and that seems to be the one supported my reading of the policies (i.e. we use "(comics)" for things, e.g. titles, characters, etc., and "(writer)"/"(artist)" for people).

As I say I marginally prefer the first 'tree' (i.e. where "(comics)" is the first level of disambiguation for everything) because it makes sense to have a 'default' disambiguation (bearing in mind again, that this isn't an attempt to describe the focus of the article just the classify them) and that it is essentially 'neutral' (i.e. it doesn't impose any interpretations on the subject) - which means it is simple to make/redlink any comics article and it avoids the kind of debate about whether they are artists or writers (or whether inkers and pencilers should be looked at separately), as down that road lies the solution of using "(comics creator)" which under the WP:D idea of keeping it simple could easily come down to being "(comics)" ;)

However, as I say, if the folks at WT:D say we have to go with the second 'tree' then I'm OK with that (as long as we can come to consensus about what to do in the less clear cut cases) - the important thing is to pick one 'tree' and stick to it. (Emperor (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC))

Yes, I was (perhaps) being mildly fascetious in suggesting the contrary option of sending characters to (character) and the like, if only to try and highlight just how seemingly random the GUIDELINES are in these instances... I don't think however, that it would conflict with any guidelines: Naming (precision): "Article titles give the reader an idea of what they can expect within an article" which is an argument that can be used to support most positions put forward here, but particularly:

• Wolverine (character) AND Wolverine (comics) - both disambiguations point to what the article is about;
• Superman (comic book) - extremely helpful, since the article is on the comic, not the (character)
• David Lloyd (comics) - who would have thought that the vast majority of the article was about his comics work, rather than his art, artistic inspirations and exhibits, etc., etc.

Comics conventions(!): "the agreed general disambiguation phrase used for articles related to comic books, graphic novels, comic strips, and comics creators is "(comics)"." - i.e. this has been under discussion - although I can't see the discussion itself - and been agreed upon: for creators also.

W:D says a lot without really settling anything. One reading of this:

“

For example, the word "Mercury" can refer to several different things, including: an element, a planet, an automobile brand, a record label, a NASA manned-spaceflight project, a plant, and a Roman god. Since only one Wikipedia page can have the generic name "Mercury", unambiguous article titles must be used for each of these topics: Mercury (element), Mercury (planet), Mercury (automobile), Mercury Records, Project Mercury, Mercury (plant), Mercury (mythology). There must then be a way to direct the reader to the correct specific article when an ambiguous term is referenced by linking, browsing or searching; this is what is known as disambiguation, thus Mercury is a disambiguation page.

”

as pertaining to comics might read:

"For example, the word "Wolverine" can refer to several different things, including: a carnivorous mammal, a Marvel Comics character, a Marvel Comics comic book (and several spin-offs), an up-coming film starring Hugh Jackman, an in-the-works TV series, a Swedish band, a leather company, and an Amtrak service. Since only one Wikipedia page can have the generic name "Wolverine", unambiguous article titles must be used for each of those topics..."

Now, unambiguous might reasonably imply that is there is a POTENTIAL confusion, clarity should win through. Particular potential comics confusions exist between:

• Wolverine the character and Wolverine the comic
• Wolverine the comic and Wolverine spin-off titles
• Wolverine the film and the Wolverin TV series

Since the Wolverine character page deals almost entirely with comics Wolverine and not film Wolverine, then (comics) might work, although (character) would be as good as a disambiguation - more so when set against the (potential) "(comic book)" label for his signature comic. The spin-off titles are easily differentiable becase they have different titles, and (film) is fine for the film, while the TV series could be (TV) if it doesn't have another name, which it does.
I'm not pushing for (character), just suggesting that it is AS good a disambiguation term - and arguably a better one than a blanket (comics). Especially if creators are to be sequestered off individually - which is surely another reason why they shouldn't be... ntnon (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Consider, for example - Englebert Humberdinck (singer) and Prince (musician) - surely they should have the same parenthetical disambiguatory term, being in the same field...? If Mercury (element) and not Mercury (science), then surely Wolverine (character) follows more logically than Wolverine (comics). Moreover WP:PIPING talks of Mega Man (character) from a videogame, why then not comics characters following that line of logic...?
Standardisation and ease of finding - and naming - pages is surely key: hence (comics) for everything. Consider the confusion of Category:Radio and television announcers, where you have (broadcaster), (broadcasting), (announcer), (radio) and (presenter) all being used as - ostensibly - the same disambiguation term.
jc37 suggests above that both (comics) and (writer) go against the guidelines - and clearly also (comics writer) is analogous to (rock guitarist), and so also anti-guidelines.
The key point of the biographical guidelines (as well as simplicity and aiding searching for/finding the "right" article is surely "a formal disambiguating noun that describes the person" - i.e. the PRIMARY descriptive term. And that's "comics," not "writer" or "artist." I'm looking for the David Lloyd who drew V for Vendetta; the Jeff Smith who created Bone. Comics creators.
"Writer" and "artist" imply completely different individuals - here are (some of) the Category:Modern_artists|(artist)s, and most "writers" are called Category:American_novelists|(author)s. (Author) won't cut it as a comics term, clearly. Indeed, the precedence of, say, Rob Thomas (writer) strongly implies that (writer) is ONLY used if somebody has written for more than one medium - Thomas (not ROY Thomas) is (screenwriter)+(author). Which is the next reiterated point: (writer) presumably isn't widely acceptable because the medium IS be included - hence you have (screenwriter)s and (Category:Songwriters|songwriter)s rather than lumping them all together. So (writer) and (artist) won't cut it; (comics writer) and (comics artist) are slippery terms, particularly for writer-artists and inkers AND overlong. The only logical term that is both descriptive, disambiguatory, likely to be searchable, standardisable, etc., etc. therefore is (comics).
Not ideal, of course, but it is both in keeping with the spirit of - and most "letters of" - the laws, as well as 'the right/easiest/most sensible thing'. ntnon (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(New break, since I'm probably responding to several various posts, and as an attempt to minimise confusion.)

It looks to me that we're all mostly agreed comcerning the usage of (comics) for creative works (comics publications, and the content thereof).

Comics-related "things" such as films and toys have their own disambiguation already, and I don't think that anyone's currently disputing those.

So (AFAICT), that leaves us with "real-life" people and groups of people.

Our choices seem to be:

• a.) retain the current status quo, which means having a "grab bag" of dab phrases, which would also include "(comics)".

• b.) drop all profession-based dabs to be replaced by the genre-based "(comics)", with further modification only when "necessary".

• c.) Accept the usage of the word "writer" to imply "scriptwriter" (for a visual or auditory media), which allows it to be inclusive of the various media for writing such as for radio, television, film, video games, comics, etc. This (possibly or possibly not) having a different semantic connotations than "playwright"

• c1.) Presuming "c", generally follow the current guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Qualifier between bracketing parentheses.

• c2.) Presuming "c1", to use "comics" only as an adjective, and not as the "stand-alone" parenthistical dab phrase. (comics)

• c3.) presuming "c2", attempt to create some semblance of a guideline regarding the more commonly to be used dab phrases for people and groups of people.

Since some of seem to have a tendency to be slightly verbose (looks at the ceiling and whistles for a moment) I've attempted to group the perspectives to make commenting easier.

Which of the above to each of you agree upon? - jc37 08:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Although i am half-tempted to create another arbitrary break and yack on for hours - my preference is for (b) which is also how things are currently in WP:NCC - "(comics)" for everything.

If this is a transferable vote system then my second choice would be (c1) - "(comics)" for things and "(writer)", "(artist)", etc. for everything else but this has plenty of complications and I would argue that in the world of comics given the fact people float between editing, writing and art more than say in the world of novels or fine art, we need to have something more general - a class to put the first level of all disambiguation in. Which is (b). I think it keeps our lives simple and makes the first level of disambiguation automatic and simple without any need to thrash out a solution (which could in theory change over time - writers or artists can drift into full-time editing for example). So I think even if there are major objections outside the project we have a case for special pleading.

So my second choice is a long way second and is the only alternative I'd be even mildly happy with and I think it has a lot of problems. But now I am yacking on. So I'll end here (b). (Emperor (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC))

(B). :o) ntnon (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(And if not (B), then likely even further second than Emperor, a modified (C), but with "comics" - (comics writer), (comics artist), etc. - but it's clumsy, confused and unnecessary. (B) is far preferable to me, and ticks all the boxes of ease, guideline-interpretation and findability.) ntnon (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd much prefere (C), mainly for the reason I originaly stated. - J Greb (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree (mostly) with J Greb in this, if I must give a preference. But while I suppose I could tolerate "a"; and rather weakly accept "b"; "c", or at least the discussion of "c", to bring about a more full understanding of dabbing such articles, would seem to be, to me, the best course. That said, it looks like the 4 of us are at a "No consensus" impasse, in which "a" may "win" by default. Any suggestions? - jc37 07:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm incorrect but to summarise the preferences:

• Emperor: B but could live with C (as "(writer)" and "(artists)" - bear in mind comic writers often do screenplays, novels, etc. and artists often do illustration work, storyborading, etc.)
• ntnon: B but could live with C (so you'd use "(comics writer)" and "(comics artists(")
• J Greb: C
• Jc37: C but could live with A and could accept B

If we consider this a "transferable vote system" and not just "first past the post" then it seems everyone would OK using C (we can always redirect from a "(comics)" variation, so even if people always default to "(comics)" we'll get the link to the right article). Personally, either is fine and the important thing is to have one system that is easy to understand (as this is) and is applied across the Project based on a consensus (which this would be).

This would then mean a general structure like this (with people working down the tree if the first "slot" is taken):

Things:

• (comics)
  • (Marvel Comics), (DC Comics) - publisher
    • (comic book), (story arc) - type

People:

• (writer), (artist)
  • (comics writer), (comics artist)

There is some fine tuning (over character names which are covered in the body of the guidelines) but that would be a rough outline people can keep in mind with separate trees for people and things. (Emperor (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

(Emperor, when speaking of verbosity, I was speaking of myself (Though I'll note that ntnon was no slouch in this regard either : ) - My apologies if this came across in any way untoward.) - jc37 07:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No apologies needed. Brevity isn't house guest a Château Emperor and I was trying to keep my answer short and sweet and failed so was just commenting on it. (Emperor (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

Well I see the moving has commenced already (as my watchlist has lit up like a Xmas tree) but I would question some:

• Richard Moore (comic book creator) -> Richard Moore (comics)
• John Bolton (comic book artist) -> John Bolton (comics)

And some more along similar lines. I am unsure we have completely finalised that one and the tide seemed to be going against this. That said the "comic book" formulation isn't going to be kept and if we go for C then the "(comics)" link is one we said needed to be a redirect. So whatever happens it might as well be there for now (if you have opinions on this then say so in the section above).

Also these were moved from the "(comic)" version but none of them are comic books and technically as "(comics)" couldn't be used then the type is actually "(comic)":

• Trident (comic book)
• Eagle (comic book)
• Crisis (comic book)
• Comet (comic book)‎

So just some fine tuning - the bulk of the moves seem OK but give the number of moves being done I am unsure if everyone is being checked for double redirects so it is worth keeping an eye out for them. There is a robot that checks such things but we shouldn't rely on it to pick up everything. (Emperor (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

Well, I'm glad to see John Bolton moved to the more common, easier to type/remember (comics)..! I agree that there wasn't a full consensus reached on it, however, and that I might still be in the minority. But they are at least now in line with comparable individuals, which is a step forward of some kind.

I do agree that, particularly Eagle and Crisis seem like wrong moves, however. "Comic book" implies (rightly or wrongly) a certain type of pamphlet, not least size-wise and length-wise that could be misleading in these contexts. Superman is a comic book, the Beano really isn't. Similarly Crisis and Eagle. Complex..! ntnon (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes "(comic)" seems the best one there - "(comic magazine)" might be strictly correct but really everyone just calls Eagle a "comic". There are some "(comic)" articles that do need moving - 2000 AD (comic) is one (as there is nothing else occupying that top slot). The main problem is the vast amount of redirects generated but if it is seen as a problem then we can always task a robot to it 9and one may do a sweep anyway as part of broader link repairs). (Emperor (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

Some of those moves are right though - another tricky one is Anarky (comic book), which was moved from "(comics)" and rightly so - it is the equivalent of Superman and Superman (comic book) where Superman (comics) could refer to either. (Emperor (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

Plus I now see that some (comic strip)s are being switched to (comics), and that's even more - potentially - misleading. ntnon (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking they are all in the class "comics". I wouldn't lose sleep over them being kept as "(comic strip)" but strictly that is a type and should be reserved for further disambiguating. (Emperor (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

Ugh. The above still had no consensus.

Expecially in removing dab phrases the usage of which have had consensus, like comic book and comic strip (though used in specifically defined ways).

The US/UK naming issues being a major concern by many, and one that shouldn't be boldly ignored.

I would strongly support reverting the moves until there is consensus for this. - jc37 21:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who carried out these moves, and was going off Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics), specifically:

"Following extensive discussion of naming conventions for comic book characters at Talk:List of Marvel Comics characters and Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Comics, the agreed general disambiguation phrase used for articles related to comic books, graphic novels, comic strips, and comics creators is "(comics)".

In general, when naming an article, use the name itself, without further disambiguation (e.g. Jack Kirby) unless that leads to ambiguity, in which case, follow with "(comics)" (e.g. Ralph Macchio (comics))."

I would further note that the use of "(comic book)" and "(comic strip)" is only advised quote:

"When disambiguating between a proper name (a character name, a group name, a location, etc.), and another related eponymous work"

...So I interpreted this as that everything should be at "(comics)" except when there's ambiguity, in which case be sensible. And I stuck to this throughout, only moving things when there was no ambiguity. I certainly didn't move everything to "(comics)". For example, I in fact initially moved Anarky (comic book) to Anarky (comics), only to realise my (pretty stupid actually) mistake and moved it back.

Note there is no mention of "(comic)" in the rules anywhere.

I would agree that in terms of what makes the most sense, logically, for the page name, some of the "(comic strip)" articles may have been better off left at "(comic strip)" but once again was only following the guideline and would be willing to move those back myself, if that's consensus, so as not to create extra work for other editors.

I wasn't aware of this discussion, for which I apologise, but would still say that (apart from the above noted "(comic strip)") I thought all the moves were completely sensible, and would further say that I still think all my edits kept with WP:NCC as it is at the moment. Finally, I think it would have been sensible to put a note on WP:NCC or its talk page saying the current rules are under review and that users should be aware of this - rst20xx (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I don't think we need to revert the moves - they are in line with WP:NCC and the change that seems to have the consensus (although the debate isn't closed) is only a tweak of this in relation to creator and, as I said, we would want the "(comics)" variant to redirect there anywhere so there is no real harm if they are moved there in between. If we reversed the moves we'd only have to put the majority of them back again.

It may not say "(comic)" in there but we should consider it a type (at least as the common usage shortening of either comic magazine or comic anthology. I agree that where there is no "(comics)" equivalent (as with 2000 AD) the moves were obvious but in the ones I flagged the actual type was unclear (they aren't comic books) so it would have been better to leave them be and leave a note on the talk page and/or here. We don't have to sort the lot of them out in an afternoon and there are always going to be tricky cases given the comic industries penchant for reusing the same words.

Anyway I don't see any harm has seen done and moving them now only to move them again (possibly back to where we just moved them from) seems like a waste of effort and would just confuse folks (it might be best to hold off any major batches of moves until we have sorted this out). I think our time would be better served bringing this discussion to a close - as I say there seems to be a broad consensus emerging (with one option being either the first pick of those that have expressed an interest, or an acceptable alternative). (Emperor (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC))

No, actually, several dab phrases were determined to not be helpful/useful. "(comic)" and "(comic books)" and "(comic book series)" are just a few which were disallowed. The two words that were settled on were "(comics)", and (when appropriate) "(comic book)". That and dabbing to "(comics)" from "(comic strip)" is also contrary.

But to take this a step further, per WP:BRD, the proper thing to do in response to a bold action in this case, would be to revert, then discuss. I'm a fan of m:The Wrong Version, but when it comes to article naming, these can be a bane to navigation, and so yes, I do see a harm.

I'd revert right now (immediately), but I'd like to hear a couple more voices (and especially from Emperor, who, I think, may not have looked at all the moves when saying "all" followed WP:NCC.) So anyway, though I cringe at even giving it a single day, a day should give enough time for clarification/response. - jc37 04:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

jc37, I repeat: "Following extensive discussion of naming conventions for comic book characters at Talk:List of Marvel Comics characters and Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Comics, the agreed general disambiguation phrase used for articles related to comic books, graphic novels, comic strips, and comics creators is "(comics)"." Now I see this doesn't mention comic magazines/anthologies but the fact that they're not mentioned anywhere in the article implies there is no policy for them! If you could point out any individual instances where I got this wrong, I'd really like to see them and would be happy to revert - rst20xx (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(Rst20xx):

• "Now I see this doesn't mention comic magazines/anthologies but the fact that they're not mentioned anywhere in the article implies there is no policy for them! "

No, it just means that you didn't take the time to read the archives here regarding them (which is understandable), and ignored (or didn't understand)WP:NCC. Also (and this is truly an aside), you may or may not know this, (and while I will not take "full credit", as a fair amount is a result of lengthy discussions), the actual wording, especially regarding dabs, is a result of work I started. Hiding (I love institutional memory, and he and others are resources we should never ignore, even should we disagree) helped a fair amount, and a few subsequent discussion here helped refine even further. I only mention this, because you seem to be under some idea that I have "no clue" as to WP:NCC, that my interpretation of it is "wrong". Well. My "interpretation" of it is as a result of writing the text of a fair portion of it, as a result of consensual discussions here. So you may wish to re-think your allegation(s). I believe I've been polite and respectful in my interactions with you. But please don't mis-interpret my civility. I simply want a clear "structure" to the system, following what we all agree upon. And while I welcome boldness in editing, recklessness, not so much. Hence why your edits may be reverted shortly, in order to foment/foster further discussion.

So, to summarise, while I welcome further discussion (as always), I think at this point, I'm going to go through, and evaluate every move, and revert as necessary, posting on this page, for evaluation for transparency. (per WP:BRD.) You are welcome (as is anyone) to comment here concerning your thoughts/proposals/interpretations/etc. - jc37 22:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Rules discussed on a talk page are not rules! And I asked you to point to where I went against the rules, and you basically replied by just saying you wrote the rules - well that may be the case but STILL doesn't point out where I broke them!!! - rst20xx (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. We come to the crux of it.

• "Rules discussed on a talk page are not rules!"

Why yes, yes they are.

Consensus does not require that someone codify the consensus on a page somewhere and call it "policy". In general, (other than copyright/legal policies, for example) policy and guideline pages are merely a convenience. Though a nice convenience, yes, of course. Especially when dealing with "standards" in style ond convention. And it for that reason I originally proposed the "upgrade" to the WP:NCC several years ago.

And I should note that that's what's been going on in this discussion page. that's why Emperor, J Greb, ntnon, et al. all are discussing the dabs. In order that we all might achieve a consensus concerning it.

As for "pointing" to where you may have "broke them". I've been general. because I have (as yet) not gone to list (and revert), as I was hoping for a bit more discussion here. Yes, I am well within "the rules" (as you say) to have immediately reverted your moves. (The James Bond one is a good example of lack of forethought, or actual understanding of the naming convention standard, in my opinion.)

But all of that aside, Rst... There are a great set of editors here, if you'd only take a moment and talk with them. You might be surprised at how educated, how knowledgable, and how driven about comics that they are : )

Don't want to contribute with the team? That's fine. But realise that any editor as an individual can also revert your WP:BOLD edits. Which means following the reversion it will still be up to you to discuss and explain your edits.

So whether you discuss here, or discuss on each individual talk page, it's likely that you're going to be discussing your edits. It's the way of Wikipedia.

Anyway, if no one else has anything further, I'll go over the moves later (as requested by Emperor, directly below). - jc37 08:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, well, with the James Bond comic books example, I would say that as there is James Bond (comic strip), then following WP:NCC it would most logically be at James Bond (comic book), but as it's not one book but several this doesn't quite fit, hence I put it at James Bond (comic books). OK, yes, this doesn't strictly follow WP:NCC, so you're right, but the point I'm trying to make is that we can't have discussions like this unless you point out where you disagree with my moves, and up til now you've basically just been saying "you're wrong" with no indication (unless I missed something) that any more justification as to why I'm wrong is coming. Which I hope you can appreciate is very frustrating for me.

My second point is regarding rules discussions, which I will break into two; firstly looking at the archived discussions you alluded to, and secondly looking at the discussions going on now.

If rules discussed on talk pages and now lost in the archives of time are still rules, then OK I guess I was wrong to say that such rules don't matter, but I would say that firstly letting rules get buried like this is very inconsiderate to other editors, as do you really expect them to check all the archives before making changes? And further it would have been helpful to not leave contradictory rules in place at WP:NCC. I think that if the rules are going to be codified at WP:NCC, they should probably be maintained as well.

As for discussions taking place now, that's all very well but firstly as these discussions are still ongoing that suggests these discussions aren't rules yet, and secondly as I said in my very first post here, it might be helpful to put a note over at WP:NCC to say "discussions are taking place on revising this, there's no point moving things now as they may just be moved back", so other editors would be more aware. This is something which still hasn't happened.

And lastly, you misspelt knowledgeable :P rst20xx (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are waiting for comments from me on the moves that didn't conform to WP:NCC then you are going to give me a clue or two. I didn't say they were "all" right (and flagged some of the ones I saw that needed fine-tuning) but the ones I looked over on my watchlist seemed OK and would either be in line with the tweak to WP:NCC that seemed to be getting consensus or a not unreasonable half-way house (as, if we are going to redirect "Joe Bloggs (comics)" to "Joe Bloggs (writer)" then moving it there from the former is going to leave the desired redirect - granted it would have been simpler to move it from where it was to where it will be but it hasn't been a disaster). So if there are ones you've spotted that are problematic then it would save time if you flagged them here so we don't have to plough through hundreds of moves. So, as I say, it is probably not worth reverting all the moves, if we draw this discussion to a close and find we'd only have to move most right back to where they are now. It isn't ideal but I'd rather work with the current state of play. I think we should focus our efforts on winding up this discussion, which I thought was going to be a simple discussion and has gone on for quite a while. As I say above the general consensus seems to be that most people either want C or have it has a second option which suggests we could wind this up quite quickly and then focus on fine-tuning things looking at the articles that have been wrongly moved or that need some further discussion on disambiguating properly.

On "(comic)" as a type - we might need to revisit this in that light or go with "(comics anthology)" (which is commonly called just a comic though) - my point is they aren't comic books so we need to do... something with them.

Dabbing straight to "(comic strip)" made some sense when there was a comic strip project, but now it is a work group it should meet WP:NCC which says we should use "(comics)" as the first level of disambiguation - as they are, after all, comics. Again this is a 'class' not a 'description'. (Emperor (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC))

Looks like RussBot has started going through and fixing the double redirects - looks like a dozen at least. It should get most of them but it would be well worth checking incoming links on pages on your watchlist that were recently moved just in case it misses any. (Emperor (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

(de-dent) The first thing I'd like to do is note that "fait accompli" is contrary to the "wiki-way" (as has been noted by many, including arbcom, several times). So there is no edit, no move which should be considered "set in stone", and any of these moves can be reverted. (As I note above to Rst20xx.)

(Emperor) thank you for clarifying. I didn't think that you were mass-approving these move choices, and appreciate you clarifying that.

And, as far as I can tell from the discussion above, the only real point that currently had "no consensus" was how to dab comics-related WP:BLP articles. Other than that, I believe we were all mostly in agreement.

I also think that we should re-determine consensus regarding "comic strip". Though I'll have to say that I'm not thrilled with the "preferencial" dabbing due to it being a "work group" now rather than a Wikiproject. It just seems somewhat of a "fuzzy" determination to me. This especially since there is a current discussion at the WikiProject council concerning who (WikiProject-wise) has "control" over aspects of an article. So to make that determination in relation to comic strips seems "unjust" to say the least.

Related to that, While there has been agreement that we shouldn't use "graphic novel" as a dab, we may need to (re-)discuss so-called "trade paperbacks" (See also: Trade paperback (comics).)

Overall, my understanding is that, when dealing with articles of fictional nature (presons/places/things/concepts), that "comics" is the dab, unless futher disambiguation is necessary. (And only if disambiguation is necessary in the first place.)

And when dealing with publications, "comics" is the dab, though "comic book" may be used (among other media presentation dabs) when further disambiguation is necessary.

So the only thing that I see really under discussion is the BLP dabs. (Which, as I noted above, currently seems to have "no consensus".) - jc37 22:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is WP:BLP that is the main issue but both ntnon and I have said we could live with option C (disambiguating by profession) so there is no actually opposition to the option and since this was never likely to be unanimous I suspect that is the best we can hope for.

Has there been consensus that we shouldn't use "graphic novel" as a type? It seems reasonable if actually applied to graphic novels (I moved one recently that had never even been collected in a trade so I don't know where the person got the idea from) and it might be "trade paperback" could be used but I haven't seen any circumstances where this might apply so perhaps we might want to cross that bridge when we come to it (I haven't seen many that actually require "graphic novel" either - types are pretty rare that far down the tree). One thing I'd like to raise though on the type front is "story arc" or "storyline"? Story arc has the longer entry than storyline and is used at Trinity (comics) - again it is going to be rare (all the incidents of "Trinity" at DC Comics is a real outlier) but might be worth pinning down now while we are talking about it. I'd also like to resolve the "comic"/"comics anthology" business - the latter seems a bit long for a disambiguation but if people don't want "comic" (as it is a little vague and easily confused with "comics") I can live with that.

So overall I think we are nearly there. 50% of people who have expressed a preference go for C, I prefer B but if not then C will be fine (as long as we make sure that the "(comics)" equivalent redirects there so we can catch any issues), C is ntnon's second choice (although a slightly different C to mine preferring "comics writers" and "comics artists") and no one has actively opposed it. So the rest seems to be down to fine-tuning.

And now I'm not approving the blanket moves but I am suggesting we work with what we've got rather than moving them back to where they were and then moving most back to where we just moved them from (as I've seen there are a lot of redirects and they'd also need updating both time too). As they were in line with WP:NCC and the emerging consensus seems to be an adjustment of that, it means it isn't a complete disaster and I think we can work with what we have. (Emperor (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

Yes, there was consensus (several times). The reasoning was that there are just too many words for various "comics".

And with that in mind, maybe "comic book" shouldn't be used either. To mix dabs, "comics publication" is a possibility.

Another possibility would be to reverse something we currently have had as a convention: Not to use "character" as a dab phrase. I've noticed that other fiction WikiProjects use "character". If we do that, then when faced with a dab between "comic book" and "character, the publication gets "comics", and the character would get "character". I am hesitant to do this, however just due to considering the several messes we have already concerning naming. If this is to be determined appropriate, I'd like to ask Hiding, or anyone else here who has a bot, to request a rename/move permission (presuming such a permission is required), and do the moves en masse. So, presuming that this had consensus, when the bot finds an article dabbed with "comic book", it should look to see if there is a page of the same name, dabbed with "comics". Move the "comics" page to a new appropriate dab (if appropriate - some are overview pages - in which case, these should be tagged for non-bot splits/merges as appropriate), and then move the "comic book" page to "comics".

The above options aside, I'd rather strongly oppose the removal of "comic strip" as a dab phrase. I think that it's far more useful and specific than "comics" in nearly every case.

To address your other concern, I don't intend on "blanket reverting" either, so no worries : ) - jc37 01:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with "comic book" as it has its own entry (two if you count American comic book), the problem with "comic" is that it is probably a little too close to "comics" (comic and comics go to the same article after all). I think the solution to those that are comics not comic books and need further dabbing (those I flag above) is "comics anthology" as we also have a comics anthology article.

I don't have a problem with "character" but I suspect it will be rare as we have a lot of stages to go through before we get there, e.g. Sandman (comics) -> Sandman (DC Comics) -> Sandman (Wesley Dodds). I think the guidelines we have for dabbing a character is fine as it stands) but there are places to comes in useful (again I go back to Trinity (comics) where we have to have Trinity (comics character) - although I prefer the simpler "(character)" as so many comics character appear in other media). So again a rare case but something I'd like on the table for when it is needed, but the main character dabbing (and using "(comics)" as the first level) work fine and I don't think it needs changing.

I don't see anyone arguing for 'the removal of "comic strip" as a dab phrase' as it has its uses as a "type" (e.g. Superman (comic strip)), all I'm saying is that as comic strips are a type of comic along with comics anthologies, comic books and graphic novels (and with an eye to manga, fumetti, etc. - see e.g. Ares (comics), where we need to have Ares (manhwa)) and so we should disambiguate to the class "(comics)" first but with comic strips it is probably best to have "(comic strip)" as the second level of disambiguation.

So as a quick summary I think the types works fine but there are always exceptions (usually where you need to skip a stage and move to type):

• Superman (to which Superman (comics) and Superman (DC Comics) point) - when the character occupies the top slot, leaving us to move straight to the type as the next level:
  • Superman (comic book)
  • Superman (comic strip)

• Trinity (comics) - where one company (in this case DC, hence the redirect Trinity (DC Comics)) has a range of characters and series:
  • Trinity (comic book)
  • Trinity (story arc)
  • Trinity (comics character) - although as I say above we may want to start with "(character)" and only dab to "(comics character)" if we need to differentiate between a TV/film character and a comics character of the same name (and I can think of no example of this that isn't dealt with with more general dabbing)

The second case is rare but the first one might be typical for a handful of the Big Names (e.g. Batman - Batman (comics)/Batman (DC Comics), Batman (comic strip) and Batman (comic book)).

Hope that helps explain my thinking. (Emperor (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

Yes, thank you : )

I think having as the only criteria for a dab phrase be that the phrase has an article is probably not the greatest idea. As noted above, there are just too many word for comics.

That and we have the US/UK naming issue if we go that route.

I'll be happy to discuss "comics anthology", but it seems a rather vague term. While I currently understand the intent of the phrase, it's not a "precise" phrase. Indeed, technically, Action Comics, Detective Comics, even Famous Funnies all started as anthologies. Is there an example of dabbing where you see this a necessary?

The difference with comic strips, AFAICT, is that they are typically published in newpapers/journals, in the "strip format", rather than published in a "bound" format (book/magazine/etc.) like the other formats listed. Where the "type" is vague, we always have "(comics)". But for something specific to a comic strip, I think they should be dabbed that way.

You're probably right about the "big names". And I agree that "comics character" should almost never exist.

"Trinity (story arc)"? I'm not positive, but I thought that the dab "(story arc)" was opposed? Besides, in looking over the article, that looks like it should be "Trinity (publication)", or, if necessary, "Trinity (DC Comics publication)".

We may also wish to consider using "Trinity (DC Comics)" rather than just "(comics)". The latter may be needed as a dab page. (Totally as an aside, but I immediately thought of Marvel's Living Tribunal : ) - jc37 08:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A few points with Trinity:

• When the DC/comics level dab was "shuffled", a link was added to a minor independent comics characters. This link also exists on the main dab. Since then additional non-DC items have been added. "(DC Comics)" doesn't fit at that point since the dab contains material outside of that scope.
• "(character)" would be dicey to use at best. Aside from the DC character, there's the Team Tejas character (also comics but exceedingly minor), Ben Dunn's "Sister Trinity", the character for The Matrix (the most likely "(character)" hit), and a character from a series of Westerns. This may be a second case with "Trinity" where a secondary dab is needed — "(character)" listing the 4 and the Teen Titans villain getting moved to "(DC Comics character)".
• "(story arc)" is more apt for the GL/Darkstar/L.E.G.I.O.N. article since it wasn't a self contained series. Yes, there was a 2 issue "bookend" mini, but it also ran through 2 dedicated issues each of the ongoing monthlies.
• Side issue (since I'm on a roll...) the entry for "Blue Trinity" is misleading. That, along with "Red Trinity" was a Russian super speedster team created for Flash. The Comic Book DB has this one wrong. The entry needs to be cleaned up a bit.

That aside...

With the publications, I like sticking with "(comics)" when it won't create confusion. Where it could, it would be best to use the closest "proper" phrase: "comic book", "comic strip", "comics series", or "comics magazine".

- J Greb (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

So when mass renaming is done, will there be some kind of advance notice? A lot of World Comics articles are covered by multiple wikiprojects, and I'd like to know what's going to be changed before it happens. Some articles will require discussion before making any changes, out of respect for other involved projects. For instance, Anime & Manga uses series' names to dab character articles; blanket renaming of any shared articles to "Character (comics)" without prior discussion would be rude to them and honestly not worth the resulting World War III. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 23:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that where the move is in any way controversial that this would be flagged on the talk page - I often do this even when it isn't just in case there is an angle that I might be missing. The problem when someone moves hundreds of articles in a day that things that don't quite fit get jammed into a naming structure that it might not quite fit. Hopefully, we'll be able to take things slower in future and make sure that it doesn't just get done, but that it gets done right. (Emperor (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

I know we have WP:EL but often things turn up that might be OK sometimes - I'm thinking of when people add a link to the DC Comics site, or a creator's homepage, in an article on a specific title. Now we have links through to DC Comics which has a link to their site. Equally if there is no article for a title's creator it might be helpful to have a link on the page or if the creator has a section of their site for the title then that would seem useful, but a general link when the creator has their own site seems like clutter. This user seems to be working through X-Men related articles and adding a link to an X-Men fansite, now fansites apart (and I don't think we can blanket disqualify all of them, as a few are well done - I find Roots of the Swamp Thing handy from time to time), it is just a general link and I am unsure how useful that is.

So I'm unsure what people think but typing that out suggests to me that a reasonable rule of thumb would be to put general creator/publisher links into "external links" only if they don't have their own article and to try and put in as specific a link as possible.

There are, of course, exceptions - I had trouble earlier, for example in finding a useful Grand Comics Database link for Electro (Marvel Comics), it might be confusing for people clicking through who would then have to then search for it and wade through the search terms looking for something useful, but if it has been used as a source it might be worth flagging it (note we have tried to make it easier hooking into the GCDB as it is useful, {{gcdb}}, {{gcdb series}} and {{gcdb publisher}}, but characters still seem to be elusive, although I'll have another run at it later).

Some are mystifying - I removed this from Tank Girl earlier: "The Unpopulars - Alan Martin's noise-punk band on MySpace" [5] (Emperor (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

Right now, while the GCDB is set up to search for a specific character name such as "Electro", it doesn't have the database structured to lump/exclude appearances. They're trying to get that added in, but it's taking time.

That aside...

I've had one run though the xmenfansite.com ELs and wound up stripping out:

• Canvasing for fan polls there;
• Fan-generate "Mutant of the Month" links;
• Fan pipe dream casting for X-Men 4; and
• "Storyline featuring..."

In those cases they were by and large pointing to message board threads. That and the tone mad them less than useful for ELs.

IMO, the EL should be limited to either a site, or sub-section of a site, directly related to the topic of the article. Other than fan forums.

Looking at xmenfansite.com a little more closely, it's mostly a forum site, and the editor's actions here feel a lot like spam. - J Greb (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OK cool - I only had time for a quick glance at the site - my main concern was the lack of specific links but it is clearly lacking on a number of fronts.

If you hear that they have the character linkage sorted let me know - it would be very handy to be able to provide a useful link (and I'll probably knock up a template if need be - the URLs so far haven't been very standardised so it has required a new template each time).

On the broader point I have for example, removed the basic link to the Image Comics site from the The Amazing Joy Buzzards - it is not only redundant but such links can often not be very helpful as their site doesn't (or didn't) have pages for their titles, so people could end up going round and round and get nowhere. (Emperor (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC))

Hi, I hope this is the appropriate place to put this. I am Justin, the owner of X-Men Fan Site, and have just become accustomed to mediawiki and wikipedia. First, I'd like to apologize for not familiarizing myself with what properly constitutes a purposeful EL. In the past, I had seen links on X-Men related pages going back to forums on other sites and also articles containing subjective information on a character. X-Men Fan Site is primarily a site containing editorials on story lines, character arcs, etc. Many of these articles are multi paged, divided by character. It was, and still is, my understanding that is an acceptable EL? Further more, X-Men Fan Site has rewritten it's SEF URLs. I was going to update them on Wikipedia, but as I saw most had been taken off, I assumed I had done something wrong and then rushed to further information about editing an article here. I wanted to clarify the purpose of my site and again apologize if I made your lives any harder and added extra unnecessary work. Please know any editing I do in the future beyond this discussion will be in full compliance with Wikipedia and the policies discussed herein. If there's anything I can do to help like remove any of my links or all of them please let me know and I'd be more than happy to do so.Wildbudda (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a good place to discuss it. I'm not familiar with your site, but it may have pages that will be good for our External links sections. Because you have a conflict of interest it's probably best that you discuss what needs to be done before doing it. Depending on the situation, it might even be best if we did it for you. Is the situation that other wiki editors have linked to your site, but you've changed the site's structure and are trying to fix the links? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so glad I came to the right place! My structure has changed slightly but what the situation is that the links themselves have changed, ie. an old link pointed to "xmenfansite.com/index.php/latest-articles" where the new link would simply be "xmenfansite.com/latest-articles," dropping the "index.php." Where would be most appropriate to take it from here? Should I remove the links I posted? Would you like me to collect URLs of my site that are good for external links according to your guidelines and show them to you via a certain talk page? Wildbudda (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just notice the Alan Martin link at the top of Tank Girl is piped to User:Wierd Studio Bunch. Surely this is just an attempt to work around notability rules and the link? Especially as we have a red link for Alan Martin which can be seen at Alan Martin. (Emperor (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

Fixed. Article links should never point to user pages, so that makes it an easy issue to spot. But beyond that, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wierd Studio Bunch and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unpopulars. User:Wierd Studio Bunch has been inactive since its spate of self-promotion failed in 2005. Postdlf (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah right I see - I only spotted it as I walked out of the door and it was confusing as the user page is being regularly updated by various editors. What you link to there makes sense of it all). I know folks can do what they like (within reason) on their talk pages but that should really be in a sandbox. I doubt there is anything we can do but I'll keep an eye out for linking naughtiness like that in the future. (Emperor (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC))

I think it violates WP:USER in a number of different ways; if one of us is feeling industrious, we could list it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Postdlf (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC) [Update: done. Postdlf (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)]

Before resorting to any XfD, give the user a fresh explanation of what's wrong and ample opportunity to do the right thing. Doczilla _STOMP! 05:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This has now been deleted: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wierd Studio Bunch. note there is an Alan Martin red link which is a much better one to use (I am surpirsed he doesn't have his own article yet but all things come in their own time). (Emperor (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

• Vertigo (comics)

Or specifically at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Requests for comment/Articles/Vertigo (DC Comics). One guy won't let anyone change his "Notable Creators" sefctin without permission, and he and another guys are talking talking talking in circle. They need to be unplugged. --Skippu (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the above interpretation of the page. that said, I would welcome others' insight. - jc37 22:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I disagree with bits of it but they have both been talking in circles (I took my eye of the discussion as I assumed they could fix the minor issues, quoting from a catalogue and using the word "maxiseries", and when I checked the talk page contained some serious catch-up reading) and it does look like the RfCs has turned into a continuation of the debate with even more reading for those trying to catch up (so much for jc37's idea for a quick summary). So it looks like the input of other editors would be useful. (Emperor (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC))

I thought the new page was solely for the two of us to discuss/argue/debate the whys and wherefores, thus freeing up Talk:Vertigo (DC Comics) for other comments on any issues... Probably some wires crossed in what's been asked for at various points.

Similarly, I was under the vague impression that the morass currently dominating Talk:Vertigo would be shifted to a page of its own (the lengthier one linked above, maybe), and then the summaries jc37 requested would be sent to Talk:Vertigo for wider input.

Not sure if that's what was intended/implied (or even if it's advisable/allowed), however.

The specifically challenged catalogue quote is out of the article; "maxiseries" is also gone. I challenge the logic behind the first removal - but not necessarily the actual removal itself - and think it brings up worthwhile issues over the nature of sources, sourcing and wider issues of reliability. Hence the long, amicable, back-and-forth. (Which I didn't think anyone else would even be bothered with trying to read, frankly... Sorry.) ntnon (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh well I am confused - I thought that was so other people could put in their thoughts on moving things forward but I suppose if it is a space you two can thrash out your differences then that is fine too. I'll use the Vertigo talk page to try and move things on without the requirement for reading/writing a small novella ;) (Emperor (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

What's the name of the list or category for comics writers & artists whose articles need photos? Doczilla _STOMP! 08:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this is what you want, the closest I could find was Category:Wikipedia requested images-comics. Only two articles in the subcategories, though. On the other hand, Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of comics has over 1,500 entries, so that may be a better candidate. Fram (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that won't provide anyone in my group with a handy list of people whose photos we should take during Comic-Con next week. Doczilla _STOMP! 09:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to get Asian comics creators' pics, and very few of them actually have pics currently. So if you see any and you're so inclined, can you get a pic and their name? You don't even have to check the list, because a ton are in the "articles to create" pile. I wish I lived somewhere other than the middle of nowhere. :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 21:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Damn - that reminds me I've got some posters that Alan Moore did (one is from the early 1980s and the other is from a couple of years ago) - what license should I upload them under? --Allemandtando (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

These are fair use. If you don't ahve an immediate use for them in an article (beyond mere decoration), then it is better not to upload them. Fram (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well as far as I'm aware, they are two of the only examples of his work as an artist (him being a writer) so surely they would be instructive rather than decorative in an article about his life and works? --Allemandtando (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Found a shorter list, perhaps better suited to your needs: Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of comics creators. Fram (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What he said. Hiding T 13:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Hiding's good work requests for photos and infoboxes are now broken down into manageable and specific chunks by work group and I've linked to those categories from the to do lists on the top of the wrok group's talk page, for example. So as long as people make sure they keep the article's talk page headers updated (and each work group has example text you can use) then the list is automatically generated. (Emperor (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC))

Thanks. I knew we had such a category, but just couldn't remember the name. Even though a lot of photoless creator articles aren't in it, this will nevertheless help a lot. Doczilla _STOMP! 04:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes well I'm afraid if people haven't flagged the need for an image on the talk page along with adding it to the creators work group then we can't really help people much. Everyone should check talk page of creators as you pass through - example code is given on the creators work group page and you can quickly update the talk page. It will take a while for things to trickle down but you should have a good start there and clearing the backlog will help us target future additions. (Emperor (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

• Related point. Am I right in assuming we can use copyrighted photos in articles of deceased creators, given it is less likely a free alternative will become available? I've added on to Hugo Pratt and am just sourcing one for Harvey Kurtzman. Hiding T 21:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one who had a vision of obsessed wikipedia editors digging up graves? On the broader point - I think the *normal* fair use rules apply ? anyone? --Allemandtando (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've worked up a potential guideline on how to write plot summaries at Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. I welcome input from members of this project as I try to move the page to guideline status. Thanks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• List of fictional characters who can alter probability → ?
• List of fictional characters who can poison → ?
• List of fictional characters who can generate and manipulate radiation →
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate earth → Category:Fictional geokinetics (or Category:Fictional terrakinetics?)
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate electricity → Category:Fictional electrokinetics
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate darkness or shadow → Category:Fictional umbrakinetics
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate fire → Category:Fictional pyrokinetics
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate gravity → ?
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate light → Category:Fictional photokinetics
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate magnetic fields → Category:Fictional magnetokinetics
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants → ?
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate superpowers → ?
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate time → Category:Fictional chronokinetics
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate water → Category:Fictional hydrokinetics
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate weather → Category:Fictional atmokinetics
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate wind → Category:Fictional aerokinetics
• List of fictional characters with telekinesis → Category:Fictional telekinetics

Now there are lists which already have categories:

• List of fictional characters who can move at superhuman speeds vs. Category:Fictional characters who can move at superhuman speeds
• List of fictional characters who can teleport vs. Category:Fictional characters who can teleport
• List of people in fiction with claimed eidetic memory vs. Category:Fictional characters with eidetic memory

Thoughts on what to do? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, same though from the last time this came up: The cats were killed in favor of the lists. The lists still have the advantages:

• Eliminates category clutter on character articles.
• Allow for citing why a character should or should not be included on a list. Also centralises this so like can be compared to like instead of having to hunt across multiple articles.
• 90% of the "-kinetics" you suggest are either neologisms or jargon. They are not suitable for list or article tiles. It's also not a good idea to add them into the descriptions/inclusion criteria.

- J Greb (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will take the time to cleanup and add references to these lists. What are the remaining 10%? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"No one will bother to clean it up" is more an argument for deleting the content entierly — no list or category.

"Telekinetic" and the unlisted "psychokinetic" tend to be treated as stable words, though mostly used in a jargony way. The other one is "pyrokinetic", though that's close to border line. The rest fall into "gamer" or "geek speak". - J Greb (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember that consensus can change. If the character's page implies that they can perform telekinesis, pyrokinesis, etc., then there is no reason to source it in a list. A category is all that is needed, given the article itself references it. Agreed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"Character's page"? Uh, no. Just because some editor added something to an article, doesn't mean that that term is actually within WP:NC or WP:CAT/WP:OC. And neologisms are a good example. - jc37 23:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto what J Greb said above. In addition, for those reasons (and more) "fictional noun" categories are slowly but steadily being deleted/turned into lists. With that in mind, perhaps we should consider codifying this somewhere. - jc37 22:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a good idea, although those likely to start such a category might not read it.

Also just to state my opinion I also agree with J Greb - we try and avoid categories like that because they are difficult to police and really require sourcing somewhere along the line. (Emperor (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

I still don't think crufty lists are a good way of sorting these. Can we perhaps make a category that encompasses the lot of these? Or would, say, Category:Fictional characters with aerokinesis be better than Category:Fictional aerokinetics? As said above, if the article gives a reliable source for the superpower then I fail to see any harm in a category. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

First, "aerokinetis" isn't going to fly (pun unavoidable), period. It is exactly the type of term WP:NEO points to as not desirable.

Second, the harm is in over categorization and reworking the wheel every time an inclusion in a cat is questioned, same article or not. Both of those were what ran the cats down. And 9 time out of ten, or more, the reliable source is the primary source material. That means if Batman #X or #X through Y have Batman gaining the innate ability to manipulate electricity, he gets added to the cat. And if the argument is going to be that "Well trivial or transitory stuff doesn't count" then we are talking about a list, not a cat, since that discussion is fundamental to the list of electricity manipulators, not Batman. - J Greb (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Then what is the purpose of List of fictional characters who can teleport when we have Category:Fictional characters who can teleport? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, first, per WP:CLN, there can be a catagory and a list for any given topic, presuming consensus and following the MoS, etc.

That aside, the teleport category, and several others still exist due to this CFD discussion. (Which I closed, btw.) One of the things that came out of the several discussions (noting that this had other CFDs both before and since), is that categories based upon fictional properties probably aren't a good idea. At the time, I noted a distinction between those which are "external" to the character, and those which were "intrisic" to the character. However, since then, it's been shown that even that distinction can be rather subjective at times, and so now, as I noted above, "fiction noun" categories are steadily being deleted. I've been a proponent of allowing them to be "listified" (see the userbox on my userpage), which, I believe has made some headway (though I currently have had little to do with it), despite it being a bit more work for the closer : )

I hope this clarifies.

Incidentally, if in doubt, feel free to nominate those few fictional power categories for discussion at CFD. The discussion might be interesting. - jc37 22:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather mark those lists for deletion and have the categories. But that's just me. Thanks for explaining man. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Something I've been thinking about since putting {{Infobox Asian comic series}} together...

Would it be worthwhile to add a genre/type field to {{Infobox comic book title}} and {{Infobox comics story arc}}?

We already cat on some of these — Category:Comics genres. The next step would seem to be to add the field.

- J Greb (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any harm in it and it might be a good guide. I thought I'd see what other projects do {{Infobox Film}} doesn't list genre and {{Infobox Book}} does, so no consensus.

One thing it does raise the big "genre" is missing - we don't have "Category: Superhero comics" (while there is Category:Superhero films, Category:Superhero novels and Category:Superhero television programs) - it might have seemed redundant but there are superheroes who have originated in other media (hence if is unwise to make Category:Superheroes a child of Category: Comics characters). So we sneak a Superhero comics category in there and slot it under comics genres and we should be set - it shouldn't require big changes as you could then weave it into the existing structure.

In fact Category:Superheroes is a mess. It might be worth creating a "Superhero media" category and moving the books, films, etc. off into it. Category:Superheroes by race has always worried me but it is actually worse as it contains things like Brazilian superheroes (which should be under "Superheroes by nationality". A further category of "Superhero by type" would scoop up the child/robot/animal superheroes categories.

Wow, the race one really isn't in great shape. Japanese are suddenly not Asian, some race called Captain Fatz exists, and yes, the Brazilians. And it's full of anime characters, as well. Even if that's fixed, though, what confuses me is, do characters go in both their nationality and racial categories? And then Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race. Those characters would go under their nationality, Hispanic ethnicity, and (probably) multiple races? Dividing people, even fictional ones, up by race always kind of worries me. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The "by race" category is one that concerns me whenever I run across it. Such things can change at the stroke of a pen and how do define it? How black do you have to be to class as black? Is "black" a race? What definition of black do you use? Do we go back to Apartheid-era racial classification schemes or back further? quadroon? Do we count Aboriginals and some of the Pacific Islanders (and the Andamanese? If they ha any superheroes). Do we really mean superheroes of African descent? How meaningful is that when they are fictional and appear only on paper? It goes on.

Same with Category:Jewish comics characters - it is under "Comics characters by origin" but all the rest are by nationality and that is surely not an origin but a faith. Do we then have "Catholic comics characters"? Do The 99 go under "Moslem comics characters"? (Emperor (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

Yeah, and miscategorization can be really offensive. On the other hand, they can be useful and desirable for end-users. Self- or other in-universe identification is one pretty safe way to categorize, but I don't know how often that actually happens. Jewish is an odd one, as it's both an ethnicity and a religion, and a member of one isn't always a member of the other. You know, it might be worth looking at some of the race/ethnicity-based wikiprojects for some guidance on fictional character classification. There's African diaspora, Jewish history, and the Hispanic-Latino projects seem scattered. And maybe this has come up at Films, Books, etc? --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 04:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that comics is a different medium with its own problems. In books all the information is, obviously, conveyed through words. In comics they rely a lot on pictures to tell a lot of the story, so in a book if the author wants a character to be black or half-German, quarter Hispanic and a quarter Japanese they'd need to go into detail. Equally in other more visual mediums if they cast a black character for a role then you know the producers and people doing casting had something specific in mind. Comics are also serialised and characters may reappear in other titles over the years being produced by different creative teams who may tweak things to suit the story. So it is a fluid medium that can change over time and a lot of information is conveyed visually without any need for actors - which can leave a lot of things unsaid unless their background is important to the story or the characters origins.

I'd need to dig out the previous discussion on this on the Comics Project talk page but see also the last CfD discussion. The guidelines on this are pretty clear: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference:

Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created.

Note where we do have articles corresponding to the racial categories they are lists: List of black superheroes and List of Hispanic superheroes. Note the difference in wording too - we have "black superheroes" and they use "African American musicians" which is a much more specific category and not open to such interpretation.

In fact since I last looked this area has now spawned a whole new page: WP:CATGRS. Clearly it is more controversial to categorise actual people by race, sex or religion but equally it is more difficult to categorise fictional characters (and fictional comics characters comes with 2 or 3 extra aspects which make it more difficult to categorise them than in other media). (Emperor (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

That was actually really informational - thank you! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 18:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the Marvel Comics character, but two of the articles that link to it:

• Pages the link to Bug (comics)

...are about a DC Comcs character with the same name. I'd just remove these two links, but the way the two (Character changes during Infinite Crisis and List of Secret Society of Super Villains members) articles are set up, it seems almost certain that the links will eventually be recreated.

I don't want to move it to something like Bug (Marvel Comics). The problem with that is the Marvel character is much more notable than the DC character. So much more so, that it seems like a bad idea to do this.

The best option seems to be to direct the links to another article, but I haven't been able to locate an article to direct them to.

I'm at a loss right now. I can't leave the situation as it is, but I can't figure out a good way to end it. Stephen Day (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just directed them to Bug (DC Comics). I feel dumb now, it was so simple I was completely overlooking it. Stephen Day (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Galactus may be afraid of the Ultimate Nullifier, but apparently some are not.  ;) What are we to do with it? BOZ (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, this is getting out of control. Can someone who is actually reading the comic reign it back in? Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming {{company}} is the right one (as they are a company within a company), which is used at Wildstorm, but I wanted to double check before throwing a few in. (Emperor (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

I'd say "in most cases" since a lot of imprints are either the primary company (DC), bought out companies (WildStorm), or studios (Top Cow). That makes them companies in their own right. Things like "Vertigo", "Marvel UK", "Epic", "Helix", etc, though have never been their own companies. Most of the fields in the company template won't apply, and one of the required one, foundation which generates "Founded", is awkward. "Vertigo", for example, wasn't "Founded" but "Launched". - J Greb (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Good points. Would you suggest an "imprints" infobox or getting the company one changed? (Emperor (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

As much as I tend to try and compact the infobox templates, I'd suggest making {{Infobox imprint}} in this case using the few relevant field names and format from "company" and the one cosmetic change. If the business project looks at it and say "We can fold that in here and add 'this' to give it what you want" so much the better. Other wise, we've got a template that works for the 10 to 12, if that many, relevant articles without barging into one that is core to another project.

(Addendum: Maybe add a "parent=" field to get "An imprint of <parent>" and a "folded=" since most of the imprints have.) - J Greb (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I just ask, what exactly is an imprint? Like, is CMX is an imprint of DC Comics? How is it different from a subsidiary or a division? I typically hear imprint used to describe something like a line of comics, the way they are branded. Like UDON has their Capcom imprint, their Korean Manhwa imprint, etc but everyone considers Udon as the publisher. Whereas no one considers DC the publisher of Tenjho Tenge. How are they different, and is the terminology that's tossed around even correct? --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 04:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that it is really just the print world's fancy name for a division/subsidiary. In comics they tend to be relatively self-contained and (as with Wildstorm) can even move between companies (I do wonder if the difference between Wildstorm and say Vertigo is that the former is a subsidiary and the latter is a division - that said Marvel UK was sold off to Panini so the difference may be fluid and even legal sleight-of-hand - I know someone I can ask on this so I'll see what they say). More at Imprint. (Emperor (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

Good ideas - looking at {{Infobox Company}} I see it does actually have "parent" (used on Marvel Comics but not on DC Comics) and also divisions so we could list the imprints in the main company infobox which would be handy. I don't think "foundation" is necessarily a deal breaker as we could interpret it in a broad sense. Also if you want a "folded" field then we have {{Infobox Defunct company}} (which we can also use on articles like Timely Comics, note it is already in use at Atlas Comics (1950s)) - that also has parent/subsidiary fields. So it looks to me like we do have nearly everything we want there - the only thing is the difference between founding/launching (and establishing?) and I think if the difference is explained in the text that should be fine (if need be you could do "|foundation=1987 (launched)") if it was felt clarity was needed. Given all that I am unsure if a new infobox is needed - if we felt we needed extra fields we could always ask at {{Infobox Company}}. (Emperor (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

Fair point. And I'd go with "YYYY (launched)" off the hop... if not "[[YYYY in comics|YYYY]] (launched)"... just so it's clear. - J Greb (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

OK cool. If any issues come up we'll at least have the data to hand and can transition to a new infobox easily. (Emperor (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

I added the defunct company box at Timely Comics and the company box to Marvel UK and Vertigo (DC Comics) (with a tweak to the existing one at Wildstorm. Have a look over them and see what you all think. It'll take a bit of kicking around until we get the wording right - I'm going with publishing industry with the product being comics, for example. I'm only adding people like editors as key people. That kind of thing.

I do wonder about things like Elseworlds which doesn't really seem like an independent entity, more a brand for comic titles. All thoughts are welcome. (Emperor (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC))

Related to the above thread, I'd like to start a discussion concerning the use of "comics anthology" as a dab phrase.

AFAICT, the main issue is a question of usage (or not) of the term "comic book". Especially in terms of the varied terms in English-speaking countries.

Emperor proposed that comics anthology be considered as a dab phrase. Presumably patically to deal with the UK usage of the term "comic", which can be considered confusing when looking from a world-wide perspective.

My main concern is that anthology may refer to more than the UK-specific usage. For example, most early (and some current) US comic books were (are) anthologies, some even anthologies of comic strips. In addition, there have been trade paperback collections of comic books, of comic strips, etc. Would this also lead to confusion?

Note that this is only for those cases where it is needed to further disambiguate "(comics)".

All this said, I don't strongly oppose the suggested usage if we can clearly indicate when the dab would be appropriately used.

So this is an open "call" for discussion in order to determine consensus regarding this. - jc37 02:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would find this disambiguation confusing, given the existence of books like the Best American Comics books ever year. I don't find trades and collections to be confusing in terms of anthologies, but there are genuine comics anthologies in print. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well we need something if "(comic)" isn't allowed and I agree it probably shouldn't be (as it is confusing it with "comic").

I don't see trades confusing matters but I am unsure what the problem is with "genuine comics anthologies" are they also "comics anthologies"? The only other alternative is "comic magazine" which is much more ambiguous and I'd rather avoid it if we could.

What about "anthology comic" then? (Emperor (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

What are some articles that require this particular disambiguation? It might be easier if I were looking at specifics. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually listed the four I spotted immediately above. (Emperor (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

I confess, I don't see why "comic" is problematic in these cases. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see the problem as comic and comics could be seen as almost the same thing and if we are using "comics" as a class not a type then "comic" could cause potential confusion. With the correct hatnoting I don't see it as being a big problem but as it stand consensus is against it. I would vote for it (as it is probably only going to be used about half a dozen times) but we'd have to see what the general opinion is. (Emperor (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

One that I will run into (haven't written the article yet) is for a magazine that serializes comics called "Chance." "Chance (comics)" is already taken. It will be in the same vein as Comic Champ. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 04:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't a magazine that serializes comics a "comics magazine"? While Tintin (magazine), Spirou (magazine) and Heavy Metal (magazine) have probably not used the correct disambig, renaming them to Tintin (comics anthology) e.a. would to me look bizarre. The category is also at Category:Comic book magazines and at Category:Comics anthologies, with some magazines in both. I would expect a magazine to be a regular appearing (every three months or sooner), probably numbered and/or dated, in many casse feauturing continuing stories, and cover prized collection, while an anthology is either one-off or at most yearly, not further dated, with complete stories, and without a cover prize. The Beano Annuals would be anthologies (they are also more booklike), Heavy Metal would be a magazine. Collections of magazines are more tricky :-) So a "magazine that serializes comics" is a comics magazine and not an comics anthology. Just my opinion of course... Fram (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't a magazine tend to have other stuff as well? written material or quizzes or competitions. Which of course makes us brits use of "annual" slightly tricky. --Allemandtando (talk) 08:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that comics magazine means different things to different people. For example I would describe an issue of 2000 AD or Judge Dredd Megazine as being a "comic" but the former is a comics anthology while the latter is a comics magazine (as it contains interviews, articles and reviews). (Emperor (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

2-ish¢...

I really don't see the problem with using "comics anthology" as a dab for publications that 1) run 2 or more comic strips/series, 2) are regularly published, and 3) tend not to have "magazine" aspects. While that covers 2000 AD, it also, rightly, covers runs of Action Comics, Detective Comics, Marvel Comics Presents, Tales from the Crypt, and the like.

That being said, I think we're falling back on to "specialist" terms. "Comic book", "comics anthology", "comics magazine", even "manga" are terms used within the "community" with precision. Those on the outside don't. It the idea of the dab is to be as general as possible, then we would be looking at "(publication)" as the phrase of choice. It's the most general and the least likely to be argued about: 2000 AD, Batman, Arika, Titntin, all of them are publications. Now, I don't see falling back on the "specialist terms" as a bad thing, especially since something like "Batman (comic book)" is a more likely search than "Batman (publication)" (this also ignores the even more likely run at "Batman" and having to use the hatnote...). It's also something that is going to be reflective of where the publication originates, so I tend to see that as a plus.

- J Greb (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to heartily disagree that those terms are used with any precision, the same way by everyone, or even by most people within any single community. However, I do believe they are specialist terms, and unless one, very correct way of using them can be determined, they should be totally avoided. Terms like "magazine" are pretty general; if it sits on the magazine shelf at the bookstore, call it a comics magazine, regardless of its contents. However I think I find "publication" a little too general, maybe a bit like dabbing a person as "John Doe (human)." It's more general than our primary dab of "comics", and thus seems backwards. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 04:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Publication? Comics publication? Comic publication? Do those suggestions help? What was the issue with comic again? What are the examples again? This page is full of different DAB conversations it is hard to follow the thread. Hiding T 13:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is why a simple "(comics)" is far preferable..! Much fewer headaches all round. And I certainly concur with hamu♥hamu (and J Greb) that "publication" is not a good term and "magazine" (certainly magazine solo, possibly "comics magazine" also) is a distinct step backwards. By the by.. does anyone have a link to where this was discussed BEFORE and - I presume - the universal "(comics)" decided upon?

If different terms such as anthology are still desired, though, perhaps the best way forward would be to highlight a good representative example (or two) of each of the different "types," and work out which are the most similar/most indicative of certain traits, and hence potential disambiguatory names:

• Beano (UK) - (children's anthology) comic (magazine?) [Magazine size]
• Beano Annual - (children's anthology) comic annual/hardback/collection [Magazine size]
• 2000 AD - ('adult' anthology) comic (magazine?) [Magazine size]
• The Megazine - ('adult' anthology?) comic (magazine) [Magazine/Comic size -- it's neither, is it?]
• Amazing Fantasy - (pseudo-'adult' anthology) comic book/comics [Comic size]
• Amazing Spider-man - comic book/comics [Comic size]
• Heavy Metal - (adult anthology) comic magazine [Magazine size]
• Spirou - (children's? anthology) comic (strip?) magazine [Magazine? size]
• Tintin - (children's) comic album/GN [Magazine size]

For one character:

• Batman
• Batman (comic book)
• Batman (comic strip)
• (Batman in) Detective Comics (comic book anthology)/(comic book)
• Batman (1966 film)
• Batman (1989 film)
• Batman (TV series)
• The Batman (animation)
• Batman (film comic book) <--A single issue unlikely to ever warrant its own page. But the Superman: The Movie Treasury-sized comic might. Maybe.

...remind me again why this is an issue? And why the answer to all these debates isn't just to keep things easy and straightforward and standardized with (comic book) for titles and (comics) for everything else..? ntnon (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the Eagle isn't a comic book.

On the: I'd describe nearly all of those as comics anthologies, the Megazine is a comics anthology but also a comic magazine (thinking about it wouldn't the comic magazine always be a comics anthology too? As it contains serialised comic stories as well as articles and features. The only one I can think off off the top of my head is The Daredevils. (Emperor (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

On the specific example of the Eagle (and assuming that "(comic)" is frowned upon, which it shouldn't be), why not have the Eagle article as "Eagle (comics)" with a large note pointing to a new page: "Eagle (comics) Disambiguation" for the alternates...? Aside from the WildStorm character and maybe the manga, which of those rival "THE EAGLE" for "Eagle (comics)" placement?

I would be unhappy with the (theoretical) lumping together of The Beano, 2000 AD, Tomorrow Stories and Action Comics as all being "Anthologies," though. Seems a very "technically" accurate term, rather than a helpful, simple description. "Magazine" has distinct connotations over size, and possibly market. I think you're right, that a comic magazine might well be also an anthology, but to effectively equate the two terms still seems wrong..! (Plus, if text pieces is the breaker, then 90% of early US comics are "magazines" - they required the text pieces to qualify for second class postage. In fact, it may have been that they deliberately masqueraded as "(technically) magazines" to do that. Still not "magazines," though!) ntnon (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is just a thought, but perhaps an alternative (at least for the moment - though I'm cringing at doing a "quick fix" which may become more permanent than we might wish), might be to only allow "comics anthology" as the "last step" of disambiguation.

Only at those times when "comic book" would be appropriate, and only when speaking about non-US publications (and only when the item is a comics anthology).

In addition, I'm looking at Mad (magazine). It's obviously a "comics" magazine (and was merely labelled as a magazine to avoid censorship rules of the time).

I wonder how many of these would be considered comics magazines?

So will we be defining what a "magazine" is?

The article states: "The various elements that contribute to the production of magazines vary wildly. Core elements such as publishing schedules, formats and target audiences are seemingly infinitely variable."

So I'm not certain that we should subjectively define the term.

And I found the following amusing: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Periodicals. It essentially gives no guide at all, except to say to not translate the titles.

So, I think atm, anyway, it's up to us to try to sort this out, since labelling world-wide comics as "comic books" seems to be proscriptive, and inaccurate. So I think we probably need some term.

As for "comic", the main problem I can see is that it's rather often misapplied. To the point of almost uselessness on Wikipedia.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what they call comics in Autralia? (Or the rest of the world, for that matter.) I think that might be interesting, if not informative. - jc37 19:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if (weekly comic) and (monthly comic) might be preferable to plain (comic), if that is not thought useful? Certainly the theory would need to be a last step, and hopefully never necessary. But it's still - perhaps - starting down a slippery slope. "MAD (magazine)" is fairly reasonable, since it's known as (popularly and critically) as "MAD Magazine." Indeed, the parentheses are arguably unnecessary in that instance.

There's obviously both a very fine line AND a world of difference between "humor magazines" and "comics" - since the former utilise the latter, and the name of the latter derives from the same(ish) root... but at the same time, 2000AD is utterly different from Cracked; but then both are different still from The Dandy... it's all a bit of a minefield!

I think the really nail+head issue is jc37's query: So will we be defining what a "magazine" is?, which can be cross-applied to "anthology," "comic," "comic book"... It's almost as simple (and unhelpful) as the linked Naming Convention implies: you just know instinctively what's what. Superman is a comic (book); the Beano is a weekly children's comic; MAD is a humorous magazine with comics in; Acme Novelty Library is a comics anthology thing...

Taking it back a bit, though I certainly disagree with the initial (way back when) suggestion that "(comic)" should not be used in case it is confusing to people unable to differentiate "comic STRIP" from "STAND-UP comic." That's a total non-argument, since there are numerous words which have a double meaning, but don't present difficulty due to context. "Ben Elton (comic)" (whether accurate or not) is clear. "Eagle (comic)" is also clear.

Similarly, that something is misapplied (even if it be widely) is not an automatic reason to do away with it altogether. As I've noted elsewhere (in fairly good company) that would scupper "comics" and "graphic novel" along with "series," "novel" and a hundred other terms that are widely misused and misapplied; misunderstood and confused. Better to focus on clearly defining and accurately using them, to try and cement their usage properly. Thereby addressing rather than ignoring the problem. Perhaps.

Australia surely calls comics "comics"; France has "Bande Desinée" (BD) and the wider terminology of "the 9th Art"... aside from the many variations of manga, manhwa et al. are there many more tailored terms...? ntnon (talk) 04:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

...are a mess. Not that this is a surprise to anyone, I'm sure : )

Presuming I don't get too distracted - there is always so much at Wikipedia to be distracted by : ) - I'll start jumping in on these.

My main concerns from the outset:

• Pages being categorised in both parent and child cats
• Large cats which could use some splitting into subcats
• The differences in categorising between "Lists of x z" and "x" and "z" and "x z".

And, as I find them, article naming issues.

Looks like (in general) Marvel's first. (Mostly discovered through attempting to clean up List of Marvel Comics characters.)

And as normal, welcoming any thoughts/concerns. - jc37 02:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been having a crack at the issue of articles appearing in parents and child cats when I stumble across it as some categories seem prone to it - I think it might partly be from rejigging of some categories (so that categories end up with parents they weren't there when they were categorised) but also people probably don't check or don't check very far. I have also been moving articles out of higher level categories into more specific ones (like Category:Comic book titles). I stumbled across a few things above and will be aiming to start a "Superhero comics" category to go in Category:Superheroes and try and clean it up and get some structure in there. I also have Category:Superhero television programs on my to do list as that is the biggest parent/child offender (for example the Batman shows are already under a Batman TV shows category, which is a grandchild of that). The whole area needs serious work. (Emperor (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

I presume it's "against policy," but can anyone explain cogently why it's a problem that some pages are in parent AND child categories? Surely it aids in searchability to be able to click through to both? Taking Emperor's example of "Superhero TV" and "Batman TV," I would find it of considerable benefit to be able to chose whether I wanted to view other articles in the specific OR general categories from the page directly. Likewise (although less so) "American comics writers" and "Comics writers." But - since I presume the sub-categories are all nested and relatively easily findable - maybe that's just a slight degree of laziness...!

(That said, isn't the whole purpose of categories - and particularly the basic standard wiki-links - to make things easy and allow for laziness..? Saves a search, certainly.) ntnon (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of this-n-that reasons, but the quickest answer is that a category of 5000 members (or even 500 members) isn't really much useful to navigation. (Not in every case, but in most.) So it's better to categorise more specifically, than generally, while not being "too" specific, and using a parent category.

As I said, there are longer, more detailed answers, but for our purposes at the comics WikiProject, I think that that's probably enough. - jc37 09:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, if you don't try and put articles in the most specific category or there is no way to control it - people could stick the article in any/all of its parents and down that road lies madness. As has been said it could also lead to massive bloat which makes the category unusable - I can't imagine how many titles there would be in Category: Comic book titles, instead most titles are subcategorised by publisher, or where one doesn't exist county (this also makes it easier to sort out later as you can spot patterns that mean a new publisher category is needed). There are always exceptions but they should be judged on a case-by-case basis and judged against fairly clear guidelines: WP:SUBCAT. Worth noting that categories aren't the only weapon in our arsenal, why not add a "see also" section to Batman (TV series) that links through to List of television programs based on comics? You can have lists that span a category that has subcategories, which allows you to pull everything together in an easy to use format (and has the bonus of allowing redlinks and references). So we can mix and match to get the best results and provide people with different ways of getting to the information. (Emperor (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

Fair points, all. I certainly agree that the larger-populated categories are distinctly unhelpful (and further, because they'll often include pages which have no need to be included), so that's reasonable. And, yes, interlinking categories and lists on various pages should make it easy to find anything useful. Good point. ntnon (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Category:Ultimate Marvel

This cat has been sorted into the new cats:

• "Lists of X characters"
• "Lists of X story arcs"
• "X characters"
• "X titles

and, of course the existing sub-cats

So to use this as an example of the discussion above, this allows for easier navigation. For example, several articles are categorised both under characters (or teams) and titles, since the article (in these cases) covers both. - jc37 22:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Within the month, ImageTexT, a peer-reviewed journal of comics studies, will be publishing an issue on the comics work of Neil Gaiman. I'm intimately familiar with the contents of the issue, since I co-edited it. It's a good resource - 8 essays on Gaiman's work, hitting Sandman, Mirrormask, Stardust, his friendship with Tori Amos, 1602, his comic set in the Hellraiser universe, and touching on Dave McKean's Cages as well. All free and online. The problem is, it's high academic literary criticism - the articles are drenched in Lacan and Derrida, and are far from easy secondary sources to read.

I know the stuff well, and I'm happy to, when the issue comes out, start creating Academic Criticism sections in the relevant articles for the material and summarizing it. But I figured I'd bring it up here as a possible COI issue first, since I did edit the issue. Do people want me to do this work, or would you rather I leave it in the hopes that an unknown someone eventually will add it? Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. I have redlinked to ImageTexT before and think it is a useful resource. One problem - WP:COI and WP:EL say you can't under any circumstances link to such a site but I'm sure you can work with other editors to fix that.

My only additional comment would be to perhaps create a "Reception" and put it under there - it might prompt others to fill out the rest of the section with reviews, sales, etc.

This is the kind of thing we need more of and as you know the material it seems like a good idea to me. I would recommend you drop a note in here so we can read it over and make sure it is OK, just to cover yourself in case it prompts finger pointing. (Emperor (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

My assumption tends to be - and this certainly proved uncontroversial when I did it on Calvin and Hobbes - that linking to something that is being used as a reference remains OK. Notably, COI says to avoid or exercise great caution when linking. I certainly wouldn't link to my personal website or to comments I made on a blog, even if they were comments I was making with my academic hat on. On the other hand, I think it's generally agreed that a peer-reviewed journal is OK to link to, and so long as I link within the context that it's appropriate to use it, nobody will really fuss. Notably, NOR says "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy." So I assume I'm in the clear there. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no wiggle room I'm afraid: WP:EL#ADV: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." It might not strictly stop one of the authors from dropping in the link to their own piece, as an editor of the publication you do fall into the group of people who can't link to the site. As I say we can work around it but an editor would be in their rights to remove any such link you add and we may as well try to had that off at the pass. (Emperor (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

That guideline can't possibly be intended to prevent that... I'll bring it up over at EL and see if I can get that line clarified so that it doesn't have the "experts can't write about stuff they are experts about" implications. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, never mind, I'm still in the clear - "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources." Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised there isn't already an Academic Criticism section for Sandman - "The Sandman Papers" has been out for quite a while, among other works and articles. ntnon (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(Starting a new thread, since the one at the top is becoming hard to navigate thread-wise : )

Based on the discussion, I'm going to try to give WP:NCC some further clarity, in order to (hopefully) reduce confusion. I'd like to think that it's been the phrasing there which may have been too "vague", and as such may have been the cause of the confusion for well-meaning editors.

One of the key things I intend to do is to separate dabbing by the three types that seem to have come out in the discussion: "Items" (persons, places, things, concepts) of fictional nature; publications; BLP articles.

I obviously welcome any discussion concerning this.

With that in mind, it looks like Emperor has suggested that we (along with those of us who supported) go with option "C" for BLP articles. Are there any further concerns about this? - jc37 22:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Added a few explanations, and clarified some possibly vague text.

It looks like a comics-related BLP dab section will need to be written from scratch. I would greatly appreciate help with that, so any further discussion here would be welcome. : )

And if there is something that you feel should be further clarified, please bring it up : ) - jc37 02:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily about C (although we do need to clarify if we use "writer" or "comics writer" - given the simplicity guidelines at WP:D, and people writing in different media, I'd go with the former) but possibly about the 3 types - I thought there were basically 2 types people and things (titles, characters, etc.) with some special rules for where we have more than one person (with an article) per alias. Hence the two "trees" I gave above. As far as I was aware WP:NCC is largely fine and the guidelines are pretty clear and well understood. The main adjustment would be with the dabbing of people once we've fully agreed on the details, and that will only require a quick supplementary section (and a bit of rewording). It wasn't necessarily "vague" it was its application to people that came into question. (Emperor (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

Well, after just now going through the wording with a "fine-toothed comb", I was actually rather surprised at how confusing some of the sentences were. And as (as we've seen in the past), WP:NCC is often seen by comics editors long before they see (if ever) WP:NC. So the indication of "need" for dabbing needed clarifying. And I tried to include a bit of "why" to the guidelines. (Why do we do such-n-such.) And tried to explain terms a bit better.

As for BLP, I don't believe I changed anything, except remove a single example (which I'm thinking about restoring). We need a new section under disambiguation for comics creators (which we haven't had).

Is there something in how it looks now that you're concerned with? - jc37 03:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been missing out on this discussion, but tried to just catch up. The up-thread talk about all the potential exceptions and confusions of what might be (comic), (comics), (comic strip), (comic book), etc. is really why I advocated the blanket (comics) for everything in the first place - although I still support the AUTOMATIC disambiguation for individual titles of (comic book) to save having to do things in retrospect AND to add in clarity both for editors linking (blind) and users searching.

Despite the simplicity guidelines Emperor cites as suggesting (writer) rather than (comics writer), I think this will be problematic. Firstly because there's a much higher chance of mis-linking where identically-named individuals already exist (admittedly probably rare, but still), and secondly - although this SHOULD be a non-issue - because there will likely be unease amongst literature-types of effectively lumping Chuck Austen in the same bracket as Jane Austen, etc. Personally, despite the simplicity guidelines, I would support automatically parenthesising terms after everything (particularly (book), (TV), (film) and (comics)) because it would be easier not to have to second-guess - is there already a "something" called this, necessitating the dab phrase, or should I risk it? Even the reasonably obvious - say, Wolverine - is not totally obvious - whereas if EVERYTHING were (comics)ed, it would be. (If that makes sense.)

As for the early comment about there being comic book, comics, American comic book and sundry other multi-pages covering broadly the same ground, would it not be wiser to leave this discussion for a later time, and expend initial efforts in standardizing a hierarchy of referential terms and language?

"Comics," as Scott McCloud noted is the medium. Comics = Books = Film. "Comic strip," "Comic book," "Graphic Novel" and "TPB" (and probably a couple of other, lesser, terms) are the INDIVIDUAL FORMATS. All people and things within the purview of this Project should thus be (comics) - and if not just (comics), they should at least have "comics" involved - so not (writer), but (comics writer). Crossover between mediums might be a problem in some cases - Greg Rucka is tricky. Alan Moore is not. Neil Gaiman, Peter David, Frank Miller and Joss Whedon - all a bit tricky. - but in 99% it isn't going to be difficult to say that so-and-so is a comics writer (who happens to have written a screenplay or two), someone-else is an artist (who happens to have illustrated a couple of comics), etc.

Anyway, I tend to think it's more important to standardize and categorically state which terms refer to what before there's much more discussion about how they should be applied as dab phrases.

As far as the WP:NCC goes, I think we need a dozen or so good examples and MORE specific cases to illustrate each and every point. That's the major need in that regard, I feel. ntnon (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to keep this short...

1. The dabbing convention, by all appearances, is to keep it as simple and accurate as plausible while not being confusing.
2. Dabbing a real person by a medium only is not accurate.
3. Dabbing a person with "(comics writer)" when there are no other articles on either people of that name or writers of that name is not simple.
4. "Comics" for good or for ill still has a pejorative connotation to it. Using it to define a person, unless absolutely necessary, can be seen as a devaluation.
5. Dabs are not categories. Jane Austin, Chuck Austin, Issac Asimov, Shakespeare, and D.C. Fortuna are all writers. Dabs for them, if needed, don't automatically lump them into the same categories.
6. Dabs are supposed to work with dab pages and/or hatnotes. Where the dab suffix is general, the 'note or page provides a line or two of context and clarity.

- J Greb (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

2. I know that's usually cited as the logic, but I'm not sure why, though. The dab phrase is to separate individuals clearly so that a casual reader looking for one or the other can find them. They will be looking for a COMICS writer, not a WRITER of comics.

3. I know it's not simple in the purest sense of "less is more," but as a standard, it would be simpler, because you'd know automatically that every writer would be (comics writer), rather than some being themselves, some being (writer), some being...

4. Well, of course. But that has to be seen as utterly irrelevant. If it is relevant, then the lead-in to every other article needs to be changed and all mention of comics expunged/replaced. And that would be ludicrous! If anyone think "comics" is a devaluation than: a) They're unlikely to be looking for such articles, and b) [insert sarcastic comment here]. (Is that - perceived as "perjorative" - the sole/main logic pushing for the change, by the way..? I hope not.) ntnon (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Of the 6, #4 is the least and last thing I'm looking at. I put the 6 up in the ever popular "no particular order".

Both of you comments about #2 and #3 seem to assume that only the article tile is going to be listed for a user looking for a particular biography.

That isn't, and never should be, the case.

The dab pages and hatnotes (my point #6) should always spell out in that 1 or 2 sentences exactly who the person the article name refers to is.

And if you are looking at in text links, those should rarely have the dab links showing. Beyond that, editors have a responsibility to check that the link they set is actually pointing to the article they intend.

- J Greb (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 20#Comic book titles by publishing frequency

It's on the notice board, but I thought I'd mention it here too. - jc37 07:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the discussion on disambiguation I noticed a few renamings that might have some bearing on this:

• (Move log); 18:54 . . Maestro25 (talk · contribs) moved Inferno (Marvel Comics) to X-Men: Inferno

• (Move log); 17:00 . . Elkman (talk · contribs) moved Legends of the Dark Knight to Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight (per unopposed request at WP:RM)

As can be seen at least one eliminates the need for disambiguation. However, I do wonder how we tell as the title on the comic is often just given with the title across the top and the name elsewhere. I did check the various database and some do it that way [6], [7] and others don't [8]. Is there a definitive way to tell what the official name is? I have just checked a few comics but not found anything definitive. Is it worth moving something like Legends of the Dark Knight if it is clear at that address? I don't really mind either way as long as we have a standard that can be understood and easily applied.

Yes there is a problem with "X-Men: Inferno" as it is the name of the collection of the X-Men related stories [9] within the larger story arc [10], but that is another problem. (Emperor (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

With US comics, at least for about the past 30 to 40 years, the indecia has the "legal" name, regardless of the cover. This tends to be the test with the indexes on GCDB, though oddities (missing indecia, wrong ones placed in mockup, wavering in use) are noted. These are also noted in publications like Overstreet.

I can see why the LODK move was requested, an the logic works: only the first 3 of 15 years was without the "Batman:..." bit, and splitting the article over it would be very, very silly. Go with the title for the bulk of it, but make sure there's an explanation in the article.

- J Greb (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Emporer regarding Inferno. BOZ (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion is on-going on Talk:Original English-language manga#What to call it regarding the name of the article and what term should be used for "world manga" (aka, comics from other countries inspired by manga) as there are now original German language MICs, Spanish MICS, etc. Input appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - I was just on my way to post it here! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 01:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To make things clear, this discussion is about the category as well as the article. I hate to say this but since this is a Comics category we really need input from someone other than the Anime & Manga project. I know this category isn't of interest to most of you but is it really appropriate that editors from another project whose articles do not fall within the category get to determine how it's defined? --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

...and a bit.

The cat question first: Are the "<Publisher> titles" cats supposed to be used instead of the "Comics titles by country" scheme?

And I guess there's a follow up to that... are the "by country" cats to be populated by country of origin/first publication for the titles?

And the bit...

Are there any thoughts about using the flag icons for "Western" comics as is don with the Asian comics and manga?

- J Greb (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, publishers' works can span many countries of origin, like Tokyopop's, so can't really replace "by country" cats. And for the kind of stuff I deal with, "by country" is the country of origin, which is nearly always the same as country of first publication. Gets trickier when you work with a language like English, used in so many countries, but I would think a work can fall into more than one "by country" category possibly. IMO, the cats should be inclusive and "make sense", rather than rigid and defining. (Oops, this was by me, forgot to sign. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 20:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

The structure usually does this automatically. Let's take an example:

Category: Marvel Comics titles are under both Category: Marvel Comics and Category:American comics titles so here the category automatically sorts by country and publisher.

I have then put other titles from American publishers with their own categories into Category:American comics titles (e.g. Doc Frankenstein and Shaolin Cowboy as Burlyman Entertainment hasn't yet got its own category). When the publisher category is created then they can move down into the more specific category and the structure will hook it into both categories.

For titles from another country distributed by the company you can add both the "<publisher> title" and "<country> title". So Priest (manhwa) is under Category:Tokyopop titles and Category:Manhwa titles (the latter probably being changed to "Korean comic titles" - see World comics work group discussion). I suppose we could clarify the situation with distributors by having Tokypop's OEL manga under "Tokyopop titles" and then another parallel one "Titles distributed by Tokyopop" - the former could then be made a child of Category:American comics titles (as it is a US publisher). I do think this distinction is worth making - you could even have "Manga distributed by Tokyopop" and "Manwha distributed by Tokyopop" which would allow you to hook into the relevant structures there. (Emperor (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

I don't particularly see a need to have categories for Tokyopop titles for each country of origin. Category:Tokyopop titles is included in Category:Manga distributors, Category:Manhwa distributors, Category:Manhua distributors, and other relevant country categories, I'm sure. Is there really a need to divide them again? It seems to place undue emphasis on national origin, and the Anime & Manga project has already carefully formatted List of Tokyopop publications and all similar lists to do just that. And since the titles are already in their "by country" cats, why would their publisher cats also need to be divided by country? If it's to have publisher cats replace country cats, I don't think I like that. There's value in both, and there's value in keeping all of a publisher's body of work together. Just my 2c. (And there are so many publisher articles and lists there are to make... to make a cat for each country for each of those? Yuk! :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 21:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue with Tokyopop would come down to miss-catting articles. It's implied that if Category:Tokyopop titles is a child of Category:Manhua distributors that all of the articles are manhua titles. Now, given the depth of Tokyopop's catalogue being large enough to split, a cat like Manhua titles distributed by Tokyopop can be created as a child of both Category:Tokyopop titles and Category:Manhua distributors. Such a structure would eliminate "miss-catted" articles. - J Greb (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I actually said that wrong. Category:Tokyopop titles is not a subcat of, say, Category:Manhua distributors. The article Tokyopop is listed in the latter category, which is entirely appropriate. I can't see any need for Category:Tokyopop titles from Taiwan. Tokyopop belongs in the countries it actually distributes in, not the countries it licenses works from. It certainly would never be a primary category for any non-American title and I can't see any reason for it to be present in Category:Taiwanese comics titles. Taiwanese comics, if categorized by publisher in the Taiwan category, will be with their Taiwanese publisher. Unless we want to have the Taiwanese category full of dozens of sparsely populated categories of non-Taiwanese publishers. I think it's fine the way it is. And if it's not fine, well, I guess I'll just screw up because I can't keep track of 5000 categories. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 23:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with J Greb's take. "Tokyopop titles" implies that they are their titles (i.e. their intellectual property) and including titles that they merely translate and reprint could be misleading. I don't understand "Category:Tokyopop titles from Taiwan" or why it would be created. I could see in theory a "Category:Taiwanese comics distributed by Tokyopop" but that is a whole different kettle of fish (the former might suggest something like Marvel UK - i.e. a local imprint producing original titles).

What this would allow us to do would be to distinguish between original titles. For example Banya: The Explosive Delivery Man is listed as a Korean comic title and a Dark Horse title, but Dark Horse don't produce original content. Tank Girl is listed as Dark Horse, IDW and Vertigo titles (and so to be a 2000 AD title) as each company has produced original stories. If a French company translated Tank Girl and released it in Francophone areas of the world it wouldn't really be right to consider it as one of their titles just a title they distribute. (Emperor (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

Okay, I think I understand where you're coming from. The made-up category I listed was just that - made up, to mean the same thing as the ones you listed initially like "Manhua distributed by Tokyopop". As usual, I phrase things incorrectly and should probably just shut up altogether. I think that anyone who clicks on one of the articles in the Dark Horse category can read for themselves and understand that Banya's a foreign title originally published by Haksan and licensed by Dark Horse for release in USA or whatnot. To shift back to Tokyopop since I have examples at my fingertips, there is also an article called List of Tokyopop publications, which lists a few titles out, divided by country (or rather, by language since "manhua" doesn't denote a country). Of course manga is listed first and OEL is at the bottom because the article was written by the Anime & Manga category. So I'm not sure it's truly confusing or misleading, since "Tokyopop titles" is pretty generic IMO, but I can see where you're coming from, now that it's explained out. I just never interpreted it that way. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 23:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

OK... I think I've got the idea. The "<Country> comics titles" are the "safety net" for material that are/were published/distributed by companies that don't have their own cat.

So... if I've got that right a hypothetical example: For a comic that was originally published in Australia by a small company and subsequently re-published first in the UK by another small company then in the US by Dark Horse with a high-ish profile (rating an article), the article would be catted as "Dark Horse titles" and "Australian comics titles", but not as "British comics titles". Right? - J Greb (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That is pretty much it. When a company category is made, the title moves into that and stays a child of "<country> titles" but is now also a child of the titles by publisher. So they one category brings it into two structures.

The example wouldn't be unreasonable as the structure has to be flexible - the details of a convoluted publication history can obviously be addressed in the article and the categories are the best approximation. If you had a title published in the small press, say, which is then picked up by a big publisher it could certainly apply. (Emperor (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

Real world example: The Phantom published by Frew, an Australian company. It reprints Phantom Dailies strips, Sunday strips and Scandinavian Fantoman comic, with the occasional US comic (Gold Key, DC, whatever) and the very, very rare original Australian story. If this comic became notable how would it be categorised?

Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so Bart Allen's dead now, so it's not like he's going to grow into the Flash mantle anymore.

Impulse lasted 89 issues (and this is not counting any appearances he made in the other titles, like Flash or Young Justice). He was Kid Flash in Teen Titans for #4-32, which is 28 issues. And his Flash series lasted 13 issues.

Does anyone think his SHB image should be a picture of him as Impulse, since that's who he was for most of his history? --DrBat (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. ntnon (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not only is it his longest last identity, but it was is the one that is most uniquely his, that picture could be Barry, Wally or Bart. Duggy 1138 (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see the logic here, and agree that Impulse is the more "iconic"/"immediate connection" for the character. But I've got two questions:

The first is, "Is 'dead' the tipping point?" "Dead" is a transitory state in comics. If we're going at this with the idea of "duration", "# of stories", "# of issues", "# of appearances", or the like as setting the preference for the codename, much less costume, put into the 'box, "death" should have next to nil to do with it. And this is going to touch on a lot of articles. Off the top of my head I can think of Roy Harper (comics), Jubilee (comics), and Robin (Tim Drake) — the first 2 are using images for the current codename, not the one the used the longest, and all 3 are depicting the current costumes, not the ones the characters are best know for. Since this has come up, we should address that fundamental issue.

The second is, "Is this discussion going to be moved to Talk:Bart Allen, or is it already running there?" Even if the fundamental issues isn't addressed, if a consensus is reached with this specific article, it should be documented on the talk page there so it can be pointed to.

- J Greb (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think here since we're discussing general usage.

As I see it there's an argument for "iconic" and for "current". Superman, for example, works better for the main picture to be iconic (IMHO), rather than including any long-haired version, black-S-shield version, etc that may happen to be current for a particular storyline. Then again, in that is the assumption any change is temporary, and we can't run on assumptions. Not to mention that iconic can be subjective.

The X number of issues thing, I think is meaningless (although it could be used as proof of iconity) I mean, do we want to count the number of issues that the GA Superman costume was used compared to the SA costume, do we want to have a countdown for when every picture has to be changed. Do we only count appearences outside their own title.

The current costume makes a lot of sense, too, as, theoretically, the current appearence is probably the one people are looking for. Bart, while he was The Flash should I feel have had The Flash picture there. Upon his death, there's no "current" costume, so I'd go for iconic. However, especially in Bart's case, I think that the best picture would be one of those transistional pictures that include all three - there's a reason that Who's Whos love to use them.

Something like one of these [11][12] but with all three. Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

00:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a few things in there...

First, characters like Superman, Batman, Captain America, and so one are dicey examples at best since the "iconic"/"primary" look is the result of a slow evolution.

Second, an assumption of a type needs to be made. If it's to favor the "current", all of the infobox images become fair game to have images from comics on the stand this week, or from solicitations for two months from now, or tease images inserted because that's how the character looks in the mos recently released thing. That isn't good for stability, and it undermines characters that do have historic, iconic images. By way of example Captain Marvel (DC Comics) and Bucky both have strongly defined "iconic" images which have been reaffirmed as being proper for the articles even though they aren't the "current" costumes.

Lastly, the compilation images are problematical, at best. There are very, very few like Image:Catwoman-ninelives-tpb.jpg where the costumes are present and legible, not an over sized Photoshoped collage, and/or not taken from another encyclopedic work. The two you suggest exemplify the problem: The first is a digitally created composite with the Impulse image all but faded out. The send would have worked, up until the story had him become the Flash.

- J Greb (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How about this one? --DrBat (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ask the questions: "Would either the Impulse or Kid Flash images pass the guides? And would the be legible when knocked down to 300px across?" The answers are "no" and "no"... And I'd also ask where the art was used, if it was at all. - J Greb (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer your last question, it was the cover art for Flash: Fastest Man Alive #9. [13] --DrBat (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on the Superman, etc iconic look thing. Which sort of proves the point. Superman's primary/iconic look has been pretty stable for a long time, but making the claim that that is "the" Superman look becomes OR, I think and probably in most cases difficult to site.

Certainly, the "current" look won't be stable, which I think one of the points I made for the iconic look being preferential. There'd certainly be a crystal ball fight over previews of an upcoming costume, etc. And a costume that he wears for two issues should be the picture for two months. Then again, there are "current" looks that are meant to last (and sometimes do) at what point do we change? As I said, I don't want us to have to count issues (20 issues in his own comic, 15 in JLA, a guess appearence in Superman in is old costume, so when issue 58 of his comic comes out we can change, but not before) or time (Well, he wore the old costume in his first appearence in 1948, and his second appearance in 1985, and has had the new costume in his own comic since 1988, but we can't change the picture until 2025). I think it most cases it's common sense, but hard rules are usually needed just to stop people with different common senses.

I didn't really look at the two pictures, they were illustrative and not suggestions. One actually looks like an Impulse meeting young Wally... and I think I said both wouldn't work because they were both a Bart short. But that's the type of thing that would be best, if it was possible (and probably doesn't solve the "current" problem as those usually appear long after changes, so long that Bart didn't get a transistion to The Flash one.) Also, with characters with a lot of changes, versions, you lose some detail by having to fit so many versions in.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

On that note, can someone find a better picture for Rip Hunter - the current main image shows him with a beard - a look he had for two issues in a 50 year career.... --87.113.22.152 (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey I was wondering, when American comic books are distributed in other countries (in English), are there generally content changes made to them like there would be if they were translated? I'm looking at this page [14] where a publisher called Chuang Yi distributes DC, Marvel, and Virgin Comics titles to Singapore and Malaysia. I see the Singaporean price on the cover, but would I expect the inside contents to be exactly the same? Also, some of those like Batman and Superman have been around for a long time. Do foreign releases usually start with the original issue #1 or do they begin midstream with whatever is current in the originating country? Also, who is the "Gotham Comics" listed on the cover? Is it Gotham Entertainment Group? Is it I realize there isn't a lot to go on, but I thought someone might know the general trends and practices in these kinds of situations. Thanks! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 19:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Of this type I know the Marvel UK comics the best and a lot of them were reprint titles and they tend to go with what suited them. Quite often they turn the titles into the equivalent of a British comic - I'd need to dig them out but they could slice up a number of comic books to create a weekly anthology like a lot of other British comics. With The Daredevils they did a monthly with Daredevil (Marvel Comics) as the main story with one month's worth at a time along with other original stories and articles/features and other shorter repeats. I have the relaunched The Mighty World of Marvel to hand and they did two full length comic book stories a month in a roughly 50 issue monthly.

How they decided on the series to run is difficult to say The Daredevils started with Frank Miller's run on Daredevil which is considered a modern classic - starting a reprint at issue one would be tricky as there had been so much water under the bridge with long running series and they might be seen as dated. So I assume they go for a good jumping on point but basically it is what they'd imagine would sell well. (Emperor (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

Hmmm, interesting. Seems there is variation in terms of who does what, based on what they think will work best for the market. Singapore has stricter censorship laws than the US, so I wonder about content changes. Singapore is small and most purchases are made in person, so they don't put a lot of product info on the web. Basically, I'm making a list of titles Chuang Yi publishes, and I despise dividing things up by country of origin like is done on most present Asian comics lists like List of Tokyopop publications. I'd like to put the American comics with all the rest of the (Asian) comics but CY actually translates the latter, and if we're talking about apples and oranges in terms of Chuang Yi's involvement, then they should be separate. I don't want someone to come and say "hey dummy, CY didn't do anything with those comic books but offer them for sale in Singapore." LOL --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 20:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Format-wise, Emperor's comment about combined comics in the UK happens on a wider basis, too - I have a French Tom Strong/Planetary comic, for example.

Content-wise, I would find it unlikely that the contents wouldn't be broadly identical (albeit perhaps in different chunks, as per format) - indeed, there was a case in Ireland recently where All Star Batman and Robin made it into one of the child-aimed compendium comics, and as it was unchanged, caused some complaints.

I don't think that most would even be re-adapted (as a number of manga titles are for an American audience, particularly slang-wise) even if they were translated. There's obviously a difference between "translated" and "adapted" (with the latter being looser), and I think most American comics are merely translated faithfully.

Surely it's more likely that for countries with stricter censorship laws, certain comics just wouldn't be distributed/translated...? But then, if the Comics Code retouched pages on occasions, it's not impossible that other countries might do something similar.

I do think it's safe to assume that "Gotham Comics" is "Gotham Entertainment," yes.

Specifically, you may be mixing apples and oranges when dealing with whether titles are merely distributed, translated or adapted, yes, so it might be best to keep them separate until you can be sure. ntnon (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. It's unlikely I will ever be able to be sure, as I don't have access to these works, and the people that do don't have access to the American versions. :) You have, however, given me the idea to ask about it on the Singaporean project board.

As far as censorship, actually no. I'm sure there are titles that are just not imported because they can't be edited enough to make them comply, but for the most part companies are generally happy to import and alter before distribution, if they think they can still make a buck. American companies do it to imported titles by the boatload, to either comply with censorship laws, fend off angry idiot parents, or whatever. But that's a whole other rant. :P Chuang Yi admits they alter contents, as well. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 05:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Another question, as I'm stuck on understanding why the comics have both Gotham's logo plus either DC, Marvel, or Virgin's logo, and thus can't figure out the correct thing to write in the article. Gotham's website appears to be broken, as I can't get it to work in IE or Mozilla. Anyone able to browse their site (I'm hoping it might shed light)? --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 05:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's probably as simple as the difference between PUBLISHER and DISTRIBUTOR - DC/Marvel/Virgin is still the publisher (and, more importantly - since the terminology can get vague - is the ultimate originator of the material), while Gotham is the local distributor. Or something like that, anyway. Fawcett's old (Captain Marvel, Whiz) comics would have the Fawcett logo, but also mention of which company was either physically printing them or physically moving them to shops, so the differentiation is likely similar to that.

If that makes any kind of sense...! ntnon (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)