Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

Bibliographies

Hi guys. I remember a lot of comic-related articles had a section 'Bibliography' a few months ago, which where very helpful for tracking the character's bio, but they seem to have been removed now. I guess the section is discouraged then, but why? Ipsumesse (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic. Everything should be included in the Publication history section. All the information can be found on http://www.comicbookdb.com/ (alphabetic listing or chronological listing). --Crazy runner (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I agree that it should all be included in the Publication history section (which unfortunately often isn't), but nevertheless a special section may be needed as well, with only the list of titles (with no need of further explanations, like a kind of quick-look resume). I think so because the information given in a Bibliography section is not the same than an appearance list. A panel showing a character might suffice for an appearance list, but would be irrelevant for a bibliography section, except something important for his bio happens in that panel (a death, for instance). The Bibliography section is important then for knowing which titles had a character in a leading role, and then, which titles should be considered the main source for canonical info on the character's bio. This should be done by including a character's own titles but also his back-up stories, but at the same time ignoring irrelevant panel-appearances. This distinction is impossible for an automatic search in any comic databases (they can't distinguish relevant from irrelevant), and is crucial for structuring a solid character's bio. Heck, that's supposed to be the goal of a bibliography section in academic articles: to state which are the main sources of a specific matter (own titles and own stories) and distinguish them from secondary literature (appearances). From this perspective (not aiming an irrelevant and usually hardly complete appearance list), how come a Bibliography is not encyclopedic?? I think this issue might need a deeper debate here. Opinions? Ipsumesse (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There already was a deeper debate. You can read it in the archive. Spidey 104 17:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well...

• The issues and titles with real world context should be in the prose of the "Publication history". That covers the first appearance, solo series, prominent use, origin issue(s), and the like.
• Issues that are key point in the in-universe history of the character should be integrated into the "FCB" as references/sources.
• Cannon is a fluid thing in a medium that coined "retcon". It can and does change. And that is without dealing with a lack of clear secondary sources that consistently codify what is "in" and what is "out".
  • An aside to this: We don't get to decide what is and isn't cannon, either by consensus or fiat. Doing that with the original source material is original research.
• Most academic papers are, by definition, works of original research where a theory or topic is presented by the writers as their conclusion with the sources and/or data supporting their point of view. Wikipedia articles are supposed to keep a neutral point of view and not unduly favor on section or perios in covering a work of serial fiction.
  • An aside on this: The type of bibliography you are pointing to is what is genreally the "References" section of an article.
• By nature of the general topic of comics characters and the contributors that generally work on the articles, the lists quickly become full appearance lists.
• Both versions tend to fail list criteria. The full version is indiscriminate in trying to catch all appearances. Any abridged list is arbitrary.

- J Greb (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, guys. Thanks for the answers and sorry for my delayed answering, but I was on vacation. I'll check out that previous discussion and let you know my point of view. Thanks again. Ipsumesse (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. I've read the previous discussion and the first thing is to assure you I'm not asking for an appearance list. I'm simply pointing out a distinction already operative (only that not always explicit) between 'main source' and 'secondary source' in comics (and I just want to make it explicit). That's what I was understanding simply as a Bibliography, following this, and trying to answer question #5 here ('Characters'). The distinction already operative here is, I think, what's underneath J Greb's 3rd point. Of course that canon is dynamic, but what's J Greb calling 'secondary sources'? If he's leaving aside books and issues like 'who's who' or 'secret files', then he sees a difference between 'canonical' stories/books and non-canonical stories/books, which I might call (main source) and (secondary source). This differentiation that doesn't involve original research, but simply interpretation. I just want to extend that interpretation for distinguishing titles and stories that conforms the canon from those that don't (see canon (fiction) and continuity (fiction)). This should be done explicit, I think, for a better tracking of the character's bio, which is the responsibility of any editor, who has to give due weight to the info at his disposal.

So I think the question is what is the concept of canon/primary source when applied to comics? Or better yet, considering we should avoid original research: what criteria should we use to differentiate in comics those canonical stories (main sources) from those who aren't (secondary sources)? I think this is quite the point, and my opinion is that, in comics, canon is basically given by the own stories of the character, which not always appear in a title of its own (e.g., Marvel Comics Presents, featuring different stories of different characters; back-up stories could also be listed as examples here). I don't mean here guests appearances like Punisher's in 'Mark Spector: Moon Knight 8' (1993), nor Black Knight's appearances in Avengers, but rather those starring roles like the ones in back-up stories, or in titles as the aforementioned Marvel Comics Presents. Even when the first kind of appearances should prove relevant for some motive, they shouldn’t be listed in a Bibliography section, which should contain only stories that featured a character on a regular basis (e.g., Green Lantern in Action Comics Weekly).

Sorry for the length. If I'm too confusing here, I hope to make myself clear with the help of your contrasting thoughts. Ipsumesse (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't mean to be boring! Please let me know your thoughts! Ipsumesse (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

British comics terminology redux

Further to previous discussion here, I think the current naming conventions need amended regarding the disambiguation terminology for British comics. In particular, British comics are not called "comic books", and we need to establish some kind of standard disambiguation phrase that will stop people renaming articles to things like Knockout (comic book). Although the naming conventions do not appear to say so in so many words, it appears a lot of editors find the disambig "(comic)" unacceptable and change it to either "(comics)" or "(comic book)" wherever they find it. "(comics)" is fine when there is only one comics-related article of that title, but when there are more than one, as in the case of Knockout, a better alternative than "(comic book)" needs to be agreed and written into the naming conventions. Might I suggest "(UK comic)"? --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Is (UK comics) un-British? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's an actual comic then i think (UK comic) or (British comic) should be used but if it relates to British comics but isnt a comic in itself for example a strip inside a comic then I believe (UK comics) or (British comics) would be more appropriate. Eopsid (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have been guilty of changing the disambiguation of a British comic article to "(comic book)" before, just because there was already an article or disambiguation page with "(comics)" on it. I agree that "(comics)" is fine when there is only one comics-related article of that title, but when there are more than one, I think "(UK comic)" would be more acceptable, if necessary. And if an article relates to British comics but isn't a comic in itself, then wouldn't "(comic strip)" be more appropriate? Fortdj33 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is a comic strip yes but if it's an article about a specific character in a comic strip then (comics) would make more sense than (comic strip) but there are very few articles about characters in British Comics most articles about a character tend to be more about the comic strip from which the character originates instead, which is a good thing because most characters have the same name as the comic strip and it would be hard to write about the character without duplicating information on the comic strip. On the topic of confusion between comic meaning comedian and the meaning discussed here. Comedians usually have articles named after the first and last names and british comics are just usually one word so Knockout (British comic) doesnt sound like a British comedian called Knockout because comedians rarely go by a single word name. Eopsid (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I was more worried about the confusion "comic" would cause, considering that a "comic" is also a comedian. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any real danger in that - context should make the meaning obvious. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What context do you get from the search box suggestions? The disambiguation is useful before you find the article, not after. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Like Eopside says above, if "(comic)" follows a personal name it's probably a comedian, if otherwise then it's probably not. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Probably", but if it's labeled (comics) you know it's not a person. Why rely on "probably"? Why assume we can predict the future, that there will never be a comic book named John Smith (UK comics), and 20 years later there happens to be a UK comedian named John Smith? "Comics" is the simple solution that we won't have to regret 20 years from now. It also follows convention better. Why have Spawn (comics), but Some Title (UK comic)? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 14:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about situations where "comics" is not available. There are several comics-related subjects called "Knockout" and they can't all be "Knockout (comics)". --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is where you see examples like Sandman (Marvel Comics), Sandman (DC Comics), Sandman (Sandy Hawkins) and Sandman (Wesley Dodds). Or Weasel (Marvel Comics) and Weasel (DC Comics). CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have always believed that the word "comic" refers to an individual book, but should not be used by itself as disambiguation, whereas the word "comics" refers to the medium in general. And I think that the context of the article would be enough to differentiate the title, if both words were used for British titles only. For example, take the word "Eagle". Eagle (comics) is understandably a disambiguation page. The British comic of that name should probably be retitled Eagle (UK comic). If there were also a strip inside a British comic named Eagle, the article could then be titled Eagle (comic strip), and if there were also an an article for a character named Eagle, that's when we would use Eagle (UK comics). But IMO, using Eagle (comic) for any of those is still too ambiguous. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What's ambiguous about Eagle (comic)? What else could it mean? --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's about trying to find a simple convention that fits the largest number of situations. Eagle (comic) is unlikely to be a comedian, but John Smith (comic) quite likely could be. Or would it be better to have a multipage set of rules on how to name articles, based on how likely the title could be construed as a name? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I fail to see how, if (comic) is ambiguous, then that (UK comic) is much less so. Anyways, given that "comics" refers to the medium, and therefore is less specific than "comic", wouldn't (UK comics) be the default, unless further disambiguation were necessary? And, seriously, if that hairsplittingly fine a level of disambiguation were actually needed, wouldn't you agree that "comic" would then come more dangerously close to being confused with "comedian"?

Imagine there were both a UK character and and US character named "John Smith", as well as a UK comedian of the same name. Should we have Eagle (UK comic), but John Smith (UK comics)? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A comic character or a comic strip would not be disambiguated as "(comic)" - a "clmic" in UK parlance refers only to a publication. But "(UK comics)" works for me - better than "comic book" at any rate. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You also have to think about those who may be looking for an article wo are not familiar with British terminology. By that token, I agree that "(comic book)" is too North American biased. We have to keep in mind the international audience. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "(UK comics)" is probably better than "(comic book)" for British comics. But if that is the consensus, then it should be reflected at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics) and probably also the British comics work group before we make any sweeping changes. I would be happy to change Eagle (comic) to Eagle (UK comics), but a featured article like that will get changed right back, if a standard is not established first. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics)#Between media types says "when needing to further disambiguate a comics-related article related to media (when "comics" is applicable to more than one article of the same name), use only one of the following, as appropriate:

• • • • • (comic book)
        • (comic strip)
        • (film) or (film series)
        • (TV series)
        • (video game) or (video game series)"

As well as British comics, "comic book" would not be appropriate for manga or European comics, so some thought needs to be given to the appropriate terminology for them. At the very least, "(manga)" needs to be inserted as a permitted disambiguator. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could add an another section on disambiguation by country of origin. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Is (manga) really needed as a disambiguator? Manga fans are pretty ferocious about the terminology to, but back in the 1990s, I can attest the few would have fought for it, so who is to say that the fans ten years from now people will still fight for it? (Japanese comics) is neutral, easy to understand (especially for people unfamiliar with otaku flamewars and their terminology—someone simply looking for "that Japanese comic that guy was reading"), and semantically correct. If (manga) goes to a vote, I'd be voting strongly against it. Or are we going to start diasmbiguating using "(BD)", "(fumetti)", "(manhua)" as well?

I do agree that "(comic book)" is very, very North American. How about something along the lines of "(comics title)"? "(comics magazine)"? "(comics periodical)"? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think "manga" is probably widely enough understood, but "BD", "fumetti" and "manhua" are not. European comics are generally published in albums, at least that's the form Anglophone readers would usually encounter them, so perhaps "(comics album)" might be permiisible is "(comics)" is already taken? --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand this desire to overcomplicate things. We're in the middle of a manga boom right now, and the otaku are insisting on people using the word "manga" to distinguish their corner of the comics world from everything else. 10 years from now, it may be a fumetti boom, and then a manhua boom 10 yeas after that. Are we going to change the naming conventions every time a new fad blows into town? Are we going to use our Crystal Balls and assume that this imaginary wall the fans are putting up between Japanese and American comics will always be there? (Japanese comics) is semantically correct. It was correct ten years ago, it will be correct ten years from now and ten years after that, and it doesn't assume that everyone is up on the latest jargon. Remember when "anime" was called "Japanimation"? What will be the "in" term for it be for the next generation?

As for (comics album), that might be fine in certain cases, but what if it's a series of albums, like Tintin. Or Michel Rabagliati's Paul series? (Now there's one that'll need some fine disambiguation!) There's an infobox, {{Infobox comic book title}}, so why not go with (comics title) unless finer disambiguation is needed? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Case in point, Eopsid just created an article for The Phoenix (comic). I was about to move it to The Phoenix (comics) per WP:NCC, but given the discussion above, would it be prefereable to move it to The Phoenix (UK comics) instead? Fortdj33 (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If The Phoenix (comics) is available, then is there any need for further disambiguation? --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think British Comics is preferential to UK comics as their is an article for British comics and UK comics doesnt even exist as a redirect (until I just made a new redirect as I was writing this) Is there any reason for the use of UK comics as opposed to British comicsEopsid (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's shorter. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nicknack009. "(UK comics)" is more in line with WP:PRECISE, but it's unnecessary if "(comics)" will suffice instead. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the guidelines are pretty clear here. It should be Phoenix (comics) until the time arrives that further disambiguation is necessary. I've gone and moved it. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

help with justifications for non-free use

Could someone who has more experience writing these things help me supply justifications for non-free use for the file File:PowerPack1.jpg? RJFJR (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed discussion on disambiguation naming conventions

15 January, 2012

It looks like some folks had a similar discussion in 2008 to the one above at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(comics), as well as the one at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_44#Terminology_for_British_comics that User:Nicknack009 pointed out. I wouldn't be surprised if it came up again in the future. Clearly the terminology differs from region to region, and I think it would be helpful to everyone if a discussion took place deciding on and clarifying the naming conventions---and not just British versus American, but finding something that works for BD, fumetti, manga, manhua, and whatever else, rather than having a different set of conventions for each nationality and subculture.

My first proposal (please tear this to shreds):

• The word comics should be basic, referring to the artform as a whole, in the singular (as with economics and politics. This is also accepted usage in every English-speaking region I'm aware of---please let everyone know if this is not true).
• As such, as much as possible, I think (comics) should be used unless further disambiguation is needed, in which case comics should be part of the disambiguation. Thus, for national disambiguation, (Mexican comics) or (Korean comics); for types, maybe (comics title), (comics character), (comics artist), (comics writer); etc.
• An exception would be (comic strip), as "comic strip" is the accepted usage, and "comics strip" is virtually unknown.
• Possibly another exception might be (cartoonist), for those whose work integrates writing and drawing (virtually everyone working in comics outside of the Marvel/DC assembly-line world---this means virtually all comic strip cartoonists, alternative cartoonists, gag and editorial cartoonists, and an increasing number of superhero cartoonists over the last 20 years or more). A search netted me over 200 hits for articles with (cartoonist) in the title already.
• I think (graphic novel) should be avoided, since, after all these decades of use, we can't all agree on what "graphic novel" means (novelistic comics? or just any book of comics, regardless of length and content, that happens to have a spine?) I have no proposed solution to this, though. There to be a couple dozen articles with (graphic novel) in the title, though (although it appears that at least a few of them should just simply be (comics) (EDIT: I've just gone and moved most of them.)).

CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Well...

• I agree the base dab should be consistent and "comics" is.
• Real people though should be a singular general or primary profession first - "artist", "writer", "editor", etc. "penciler", "inker", etc being used when there is a need to dab multiple artists. "cartoonist" and "mangaka" (sp) are very specific cases.
• Nationality/region would tend to crop up after that.
• The biggest friction comes where there are multiple comics articles for characters and publications. Especially if there are character articles from outside of comics. That's where we start seeing "comic book", "comic strip", "comic magazine", "story arc", etc. There is where it is necessary to know what the publications are called with in context of the UK comics industry, the Franco-Belgian one, the larger European one, etc.
• "comic", alone or with a nationality, generally has a connotation of being a comedian.

- J Greb (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I believe that the general disambiguation phrase for articles related to comics, including creators, publications and content, should be "(comics)". That means it should be the default disambiguation for anything comics related. And if further disambiguation is needed, I am comfortable with using any number of secondary disambiguators (e.g. "comic book", "comic strip", "graphic novel", "artist", "writer", "editor", "cartoonist", etc.), AS LONG AS "comics" is already in use! The issue is, if "comics" does not apply, such as in other nationalities/regions, how much further disambiguation is needed? Fortdj33 (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem that came up was with "comic book", which is what's mandated at WP:NCC, but is pretty North America-specific---in Britain (according to Nicknack009) "comic book" is not used. So the issue was whether we should use (comic book) for American titles and (comic) for British ones. My points were (a) do we have separate standards for separate countries (and just where do we draw the line there?);, and (b) how is that helpful for readers in their searches, especially if they are not from the specific locale?

I think we should be looking for something that can be demonstrated to be applicable across borders---e.g. (comics title), (comics publication), (comics periodical), or whatever seems most helpful/least ridiculous. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 10:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm also happy with "(comics)" as the basic disambiguator, with one quibble regarding individuals. There are many writers and artists who worked in comics but also outside comics. Brian Lewis, for example, is notable as a comics artist but also as a science fiction book and magazine illustrator, so I titled the article Brian Lewis (illustrator), as that covers both, with Brian Lewis (comics) and Brian Lewis (artist) as redirects. Similarly, Alan Grant is at Alan Grant (writer) with Alan Grant (comics) as a redirect, and I think that's appropriate because, although the article currently only covers his comics work, he's also written for TV animation. The disambig shouldn't be over-specific. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think you're right that we should only use (comics) when the person in question works exclusively (on nearly exclusively) in comics. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The conversation started with a need for more options than "(comic book)" and "(comic strip)" as types of publication. I agree that country of origin should be available, and "(comics title)" seems to be an elegant solution. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we necessarily need "more options", but rather more flexible options. (manga) and (anime) are already out of hand (that community is not likely to accept input from outsiders---far too insulated and addicted to their own jargon), but I'd hate to see a proliferation of jargony and locale-specific terms. (comics title) would eliminate both (comic) and (comic book). (UK comic title) is certainly longer than (comic), but it's also semantically correct, crosses borders well, and avoids confusion with "comedian". It also would only show up when both (comics) and (UK comics) are taken, would would be pretty infrequent. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we are starting to come to a consensus, but I'd like to clarify a couple points:

• I can see the advantage of the disambiguation being specific for comics creators, as long as the article title accurately reflects the content of the article. Using "artist", "writer", "illustrator", "cartoonist", etc. is fine, if that is what the person is specifically known for, and it is reflected that way in the article. But in general, if disambiguation is needed, "comics" should be used before anything else.
• And I agree that "comics title" should be an alternative, but only for those articles where "comic book" doesn't apply, AND only if the disambiguation "comics" is already in use. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The major reservation I've got with articles on real people using "comics" as a single word dab in the title proper is that we have pretty much established it as referring to elements of fiction. Characters routinely use it as a first stop if there are one or more articles on real people with the same name. Using it as a first stop for real people can be confusing. Better for an article on Fred Doe, known for his work as a penciler, to be titled as Fred Doe (artist) if none of the other Fred Does are known for fields within the arts than Fred Doe (comics).

It also may be worth looking at WP:ENGVAR before acting on "cases where 'comic book' doesn't apply" or arguing using region/country specific terms is "jargony". Bluntly: If there is a need to differentiate between an article on a publication/series and one on a character, the publication/series article should reflect what is the norm in the version of English where it originates. Not forced to an outside standard. Most of the trouble stems from, AFAICT, mainly North American, and specifically US, editors not knowing or understanding the terminology used in other places.

- J Greb (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to complicate things here, but as long as were revamping the naming conventions for comics articles, maybe we should have separate criteria for creators and articles of different nationalities. I propose the following:

• Have "comics" as the standard disambiguation for articles about characters, publications or general articles about comics in the US, if such disambiguation is needed. If "comics" is already in use, there would be a separate section in the guidelines for further disambiguation of character names, publishers, or types of publication (which would include "comic book", "comic strip", "graphic novel", "manga", "manhua", etc.), again IF "comics" is already being used.
• One exception to this, would be articles about creators of comics and comic strips. They would have their own section of the naming conventions, where specific terms like "artist", "writer", "illustrator", "cartoonist", etc. would be used first, IF the creator is known for a specific field. Otherwise, any article about a comics creator that works in multiple fields and requires disambiguation, would still use the standard "comics".
• The other exception, would be for articles related to comics outside of the US. These would also have their own section of the naming conventions, separated by region ("UK comics", "French comics", "Belgian comics", "Italian comics", etc.) Each one of these regions could have its own sub-section for further disambiguation if necessary.

This might seem like a lot of work, but once a consensus is reached, any changes that need to be made can be delegated to the respective workgroups for creators and regions. What do you think? Fortdj33 (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts: (and keeping this to dabning ATM)

1. People
   • Broadly, use the general format of other biographies: If a dab is needed, profession first, modified as needed.
   • General professions include: editor, publisher, writer, artist, and letterer. That's about it.
   • Comics related professions are: penciller, inker, colo(u)rist, illustrator (all under "artist"), cartoonist, mangaka, and comics creator.
   • Other modifiers would be "comics" ("comics writer" for example), Nationality (Canadian inker), date of birth. (See also WP:QUALIFIER
   • Again, this is to avoid the default impression that exists that "comics" relates not the in-story material or the actual publications.
2. Companies
   • For the most part nationality or founding year can be used if absolutely needed. WP:NCCORP would hold that full corporate names be used though, and I believe that should pass through to divisions and imprints.
3. Works and elements within the works
4. Generally this is where "comics" would be used as an initial dab unless there is a regional preference for another term such as manga, manhua, manhwa, or similar.
   • Method of publication
     1. Cartoon: Generally this is applied to things like editorial cartoons. Is this likely to be needed for a Wikipedia article.
     2. Strips: Generally applied one of two ways - what appears on the "funnies page" of a newspaper or a recurring feature in periodical. "comic strip" is the general term for the newspaper version in North America. I'm not sure as to the term used for the latter though. I would be tempted to go with "comics series" or "comic series" though.
     3. Periodicals:
        • Most originating from North America (US and Canada) fall under "comic book". "trade paperback" or "graphic novel" may be valid alternates, but should not be used unless there is also a "comic book".
        • WP:A&M and manga both provide clear criteria for what should use "manga". IIUC it's Japanese comics produced in Japan for a domestic audience.
        • Manhua and Manhwa provide rough definitions as to what would use "manhua" or "manhwa". Both have regional and stylistic criteria.
        • My under standing is that the UK uses both "comics" and "comics magazine". Clarity on this is needed as is the english term generally used for European comics.
        • That still leaves some areas untouched.
     4. "webcomics"
   • Stories: "comics story" or "story arc" seems the natural fit here, though I believe I've seen "comics series", "series", and/or "serial". Is "comics story" a universal that can be used if needed?
   • Elements (characters, places, things, plot devices, etc): Again, "comics" would be the start, but after that the dab has generally relied on publisher rather than nationality.

- J Greb (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

16 January, 2012

So if we have, let's say, Transformers, which is a franchise that has multiple regional varieties, do we end up with Transformers (comics) for the article that does an overview of all the different comics incarnations of the franchise, then Transformers (comic book) for the American series, and Transformers (comic) for the British series? Does (comics), (comic book) and (comic) all popping up at the same time help anyone at all? Does this help an American who has heard about the British series and wants to look it up? Sticking with (comics) for the general article and using (UK comics) and (US comics) is a far simpler solution, and is much more future proof---it can easily deal with any South African series that might pop up without having to have yet another discussion on naming conventions because South Africa happens to call comic books "floppies" or something.

My objection to using (manga), (manhua), (BD), (fumetti) etc. is that that are not "regional varieties", but subcultural jargon. The word "manga" in Japanese has a different (vastly broader) meaning than "manga" as used in English. The English usage of the word differs drastically from the original Japanese. The English word is not specific to any region---it's used throughout the anglosphere, but only within the comics subculture. For casual readers who just want to look up "that Japanese thing that Billy was reading", (manga) is not going to be nearly as helpful as (Japanese comics), which is clearly parsable by anyone.

Of course, there's no use trying to convince the anime/manga crowd to change this, but we don't have to let it happen elsewhere. When the manga boom fades it could be replaced by a BD fad (hey, Spielberg just did a Tintin movie, right?) Are we going to have a proliferation of new standards to deal with it? Will we had a (bédéist) dab? (BD), (BD album), etc etc, we could go wild! Then the same with the inevitable fumetti fad that'll break out in 2032. Who does it help to have this kind of complexity? (French comics) is semantically correct now and will continue to be twenty, thirty, forty years from now. And it's easy. Easy to implement, easy for causal readers to parse, and doesn't rely on readers to be familiar with the subcultural jargon. And, of course, it would only be used when (comics) wasn't available.

"Trade paperback" I think should be avoided. Again, it's very jargony, and very specific to its printed form, whereas it should be focusing on its content. A collection of songs is an (album), not an (LP). CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Major thing to keep in mind: we are bumping into a number of other Wikiprojects: WP:BIOG and WP:A&M being the biggest - and A&M is with in reason to get upset if "Japanese comics" is suggested as a dab instead of "manga", the term is used and understood, even if pure anglocentric mindsets don't like it. On lesser-sh points we've got WP:TRANSFORMERS, WP:GIJOE, WP:BUFFY, WP:FILM, WP:VG, WP:TELEVISION, WP:DOCTORWHO, WP:STARTREK, WP:STARWARS, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters and other we share pages with.

As for the example of Transformers (comics) there is The Transformers (Marvel Comics) and The Transformers (IDW Publishing), which are fine. The Transformers (IDW Publishing) could do with going to The Transformers (IDW Publishing 2005) to allow Transformers (film comic series) to be moved to Transformers (IDW Publishing 2007). Also, if an article is warranted, The Transformers (Marvel UK) is an option. The rest either do not exist, are heavily sub titled, are dabbed by publisher (a good thing), or the base "comics" if there is a corresponding toy line or show.

Manhua and Manhwa have some advantages since 1) they cover stylistic aspects with out being tied to a strict geographic region, and 2) they avoid thorny issues of "Which 'Korean'?" and the entire mess that would be calling something Chinese/Tiwanese/etc.

As for "fumetti", "BD", and "bédéist" - honestly, are they likely to be used? Is there situation where (comics) isn't going to cut it? Or are we just playing with beans and balls?

- J Greb (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean, "are they likely to be used in 2012?" No, of course not. I've been reading comics for 30 years, and Japanese ones for 20. I came to live in Japan in 1998 (still here, so don't assume I'm being "anglocentric"), and at that time I never would have imagined the Japanese comics audience insisting people call their favourite publications "manga" rather than comics--you know I mean? Insisting that they are actually something different? It's not crystal balling to say the exact same thing could happen with BD or fumetti. It's saying this ridiculousness has actually happened before, making a complicated mess, so let's do something simple and comprehensible to everyone in order to prevent it from happening again. It's also about coming up with a naming convention newbies are unlikely to screw up because they didn't notice a particular footnote to a footnote of a subsection of an appendix to the subpage on naming conventions for a particular WikiProject. And they weren't hep to the fact that what they always called "Japanimation" is now called "anime" amongst the cool kids.

Please note that I've already stated above that I already know this will go nowhere with the A&M crowd. They're a lost cause. What I want to do is make sure that it doesn't spread further. I mean, how complicated do we really want the naming conventions to be? How many pages? How many subpages? I mean, we have a proposal here to have different standards for different English-speaking regions already, why not just go whole hog and name all comics using the standards of their countries of origin?

The Transformers thing was just a random example off the top of my head, because I remembered reading both the American and the British series back in the 1980s, so it seemed like a candidate to present an idea. Next time I'll use "John Doe" instead, to avoid having people miss the point.

So here's the point again: A comics franchise called John Doe. There are local varieties all over the world, which are covered by John Doe (comics). The British and American series were each deemed significant enough to warrant their own articles. So do we go with John Doe (comics), John Doe (comic) and John Doe (comic book); or with John Doe (comics), John Doe (UK Comics) and John Doe (US comics)? Or do we thoroughly consult a manual on naming conventions every time we want to create or move a page?

CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 05:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

(Massive edit conflic with the re-lay)

If we are dealing with a franchise that has identical names for publications in multiple countries, the first step based on current practice would be to use the publishers as dabs. Beyond that, discussion since it will likely be a near one-off situation.

And continuing down this path - "What if this...?" - verges on pointless. It is trying to guess all eventualities and cover them. Nice in theory, but not necessarily practical.

The main rubs I'm seeing are:

• That "comic book" as a non-starter with UK sets where "comics" can be seen pointing equally to a character, feature, story, and/or publication that are notable enough and have enough coverage for inclusion on Wikipedia as separate articles. IIRC that has cropped up.
• It also doesn't work when "comics" covers equally a US and a UK topic.
• Non-English terms.

At this point I'm close to advocating that using "comic" for the UK publications is OK. It shuts down one of the major problems.

As for the non-English... I'm sorry, but "use 'Korean comics' or 'comic book'" registers as "PFK".

- J Greb (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with the term "PFK", and Google's not being helpful.

I also don't understand why you find (UK comics) to be unacceptable. Could you please elaborate? I see it opening up quite a number of problems, and I don't see what it "shuts down" that (UK comics) or (UK comics title) doesn't already shut down. I also notice that User:Nicknack009 supports (comics title), and he was the one proposing (comic) in the first place. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"PFK"... Man you have been out of country a long time. Canada the only French speaking country where KFC isn't KFC in French.

"We will use the American term, even for articles that use British English." Please read WP:EGNVAR.

And please, stop futzing with the secting. I've already had one edit conflict because of it. I may have a second one now.

And now one because you had an incomplete thought.

- J Greb (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm totally familiar with KFC being called PFK, but knowing that isn't helping me parse that sentence.

The quote "We will use the American term, even for articles that use British English." doesn't appear on WP:ENGVAR. The section does, however, open with "The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other." This raises two questions:

1. Why would you consider advocating (comic) if the quote were true?
2. Have you read MOS:COMMONALITY?

It would also be very helpful, given that you're accusing my proposal as WP:BEANS, where my proposal would reasonably fail. It seems to me that the proposal covers the vast majority of cases in a simple and easy-to-understand way, both for editors and readers, and that cases that don't fall under it are truly exceptional, and should be dealt with as such. It seems to me that including every possible permutation of comics terminology that may pop up in any region or subregion or international subculture at any time is, itself, a never-ending quest for beans. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Try looking at WP:TIES. As for commonality... that would be "(publications)".

The PFK issue is language policing. In this case it being not to use a loan word simply because it is a loan word even if it is being use appropriately.

And it's not so much fail, but the "What if..?" rout you were using becomes a bureaucratic nightmare to construct and enact. Literally, you were going for every possible worst case situation even though the likelihood of that happening is all but nil. Better to look at where we are now, what works, what doesn't, and how to streamline that.

- J Greb (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a lot of trouble comprehending the statement "Literally, you were going for every possible worst case situation even though the likelihood of that happening is all but nil" when my aim is to do exactly the opposite---reducing bureaucracy and the fine print of the guidelines drastically. It seems to me that what I have proposed would make things simpler and easier, and you haven't shown us why that's not the case. Please explicate how it becomes a "bureaucratic nightmare", because I absolutely do not see it.

I have looked at WP:TIES, but it talks about article titles and content. DABing is a whole other kettle of fish. "(publication)" seems reasonable to me. Are there other options to consider? Shorter ones?

I don't see avoiding (manhua) as language policing---it would be so if we purged the actual articles of the word, but here we're talking about DABing, where we want readers to find the article they're looking for with the least headaches. You also haven't explained why you would support (manhua) but oppose (BD). I've read articles on Franco-Belgian comics going back as far as the 1980s that use the term BD in English. Of course, I'm opposed to using both, but I'm curious about this inconsistency. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 01:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the subsection title to reflect that fact that we're talking about disambiguation (dab) pages, and not the content of articles. I think we all knew that, but there were a couple of times in this discussion in which it didn't seem clear. I've also broken this up by day, because it was getting long and I wanted to make it easier to navigate.

Curly Turkey's second proposal

Disclaimer: This is not based on consensus, but on my own current thoughts as to what I think might be best, after reading through and considering the preceding feedback.

My biases

I'm aiming for simplicity, flexibility, generality and understandability (parsability) to outsiders (you should not have to be steeped in the latest versions of comics jargon to find the article you are looking for).

The proposal

1. (comics) should be used as the most basic and general dab and others should be avoided unless absolutely necessary---this only applies, of course, if the articles in question are considered mainly to be within the realm of comics
2. People: by occupation---(artist), (writer), etc---unless further dabbing is necessary, in which case precedence would be (comics) and then (comics artist), (comics writer) etc. (cartoonist) should be used for any comics creator who primarily both writes and draws, even if this makes Hal Foster cry
3. Publications: precedence (comics), then (NATIONALITY comics) or (comics title) or (comic strip), then (NATIONALITY comics title)
   • an exception for manga, as the manga crowd is convinced that what they read is not comics and is not open to negotiations, but we should do nothing to promote this kind of needless splitting
   • non-comics media would be dealt with using the standards of the particular medium
   • any thoughts on (comics periodical)? North Americans consider a "comic book" not to be a "magazine"---Kurtzman's MAD "becoming" a magazine was considered an earth-shaking change, and was considered a significant enough difference that it ceased to fall under the CCA
4. Characters: precedence (comics), then (comics character), then (COMPANY comics) or (NATIONALITY comics), then (COMPANY comics character), then whatever is recommended at WP:NCC#By codename
   • (comics character) is more general and easier to understand to people outside fandom than using a company name
   • some companies, like (Marvel Comics) or (Vortex Comics), make it obvious that the article is about comics, but others, like (Maple Leaf Publishing), do not---another reason I think (comics character) should have precedence over company names
5. Truly special cases should be handled in a way deemed most helpful to people who may be searching for the article---jargon and recentisms should be kept within the body of the article (where it can be linked to if necessary)

• (trade paperback) et al. should never be used (otherwise, what happens then the TPB has a hardcover edition? a digest edition?);
• (graphic novel) should be used as a last resort. Its usage is incredibly vague
  • some use it to mean a "novelistic" comic
  • others use it to mean any comic that is not stapled (up to and including, sometimes, collections of short and even one-page comics, regardless of length, intent and content)
  • an increasing number use it to refer to any and all comics—a synonym for comics in the PC-doubletalk age (I see this in a lot of newspaper and magazine articles these days)
  • and others consider it pretentious or buzzwordy, lacking substance, thus refusing to use it—even a large number of erstwhile "graphic novelists".
  • the only reason it should ever be acceptable (other than if its actually in the title of the book) is because there is no other widely-understood term to replace it....or is there?

CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Generally, I agree, "(comics)" should be the first thing looked at if a dab is needed.
2. Again, generally I agree. There is some quibble room with "(comics artist)" as the "next choice" if there are other artists of the same name. "(inker)", "(penciler)", and "(colorist)" are valid options if the person's notability is one of those specific fields. "(illustrator)" is also valid if the person is unique for that among the group. "(cartoonist)" does come with baggage that makes me hesitant to apply it to Frank Miller and the dab "(comic book cartoonist)" is awkward, at the least, to separate him from the editorial and newspaper cartoonists. "(comics creator)" seems like an option here.
3. "(comic book)"; "(comic strip)"; "(comic)", which seems UK standard for the publications; "(manhua}"; and "(manhwa)" seem to work when dealing with specific publication types. If we are going to chuck the lot that are currently being used, under this Project, we may want to drop to "(publication)" which would eliminate "(grapic novel)" as well in most cases, "(comic strip)" for newspapers, and either "(comics serial)" or "(comics title)" for articles on notable strips that run in anthology publications. I'm not real comfortable with the latter two since it feels like neologism.
   • A little bit of clarity on two things:
     1. I do have a problem forcing a US English based term - "comic book" - on articles where a different term would be used based on the variation of English used in that article. If British English uses it to cover all the periodicals, fine. If not...
     2. I don't have a problem with non-English labels for things if there is a clear indication of what they are referring to. As far as I can tell, manhua and manhwa fall into that category.

This is not self-evident. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

1. I'm not that convinced "Nationality" is a necessary component. For the most part I can't see cases where it shouldn't end with the company.
2. This is a bit self evident.
3. Trades - my error for bring it up earlier. These are either collections of unrelated stories, which have unique titles, or of specific story arcs. Dabbing there would be "(story)" or "(story arc)".
4. You have a point, the term "graphic novel" has been abused, but there rare cases where it should be used as a dab.

- J Greb (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(5) should be self-evident, but I personally favour being explicit, especially when being explicit doesn't complicate things. A single line acknowledging special cases is appropriate, I think.

Also, what I'm implying is that terms like (manhwa) and (BD) would be considered under (5)---as in, should not be used unless it were a truly special case in which the other options just weren't applicable. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My two cents (echoing my opinion above):

1. I agree that (comics) should be used as the standard disambiguation, for characters, publications and other articles about comics in general
2. For people in the comics field, disambiguation should be by occupation, e.g. (artist), (writer), (cartoonist), (illustrator), etc. if a specific disambiguation is needed. But the generic (comics) should still be acceptable, especially for people who perform more than one role in creating comics. Only if further disambiguation is needed, should the two be combined (e.g. John Smith (artist) first, John Smith (comics) if there's already an artist by that name, and if there's more that one comics creator named John Smith, then we start using John Smith (comics artist), John Smith (comics writer), etc).
3. Publications: (comics) again should be used as the standard disambiguation for the most part, unless the article falls into one of the exceptions below.
   • by media type: I think that (comic book), (comic strip) and (graphic novel) should all be acceptable for US publications, if (comics) is already in use. Or are you proposing that we replace (comic book) with (comics title)?
   • by nationality seems to be where we are running into the most confusion. I'm OK with using (UK comics) instead of (comic), and some editors have already started to implement this change, but I also think that (manga) needs to be added to the conventions, for obvious reasons.
   • by company is already spelled out pretty clearly in the guidelines at WP:NCC#Between publishers.
   • and I think that (comics magazine) is preferable to (comics periodical)
4. Characters: again (comics) should be used as the standard disambiguation. If further disambiguation is needed, the next level should be (COMPANY comics). I understand that you think (comics character) is easier to understand, but the disambiguation should be specific. If there is more than one character by that name, that's when further disambiguation by character name or codename would be needed, per WP:NCC#Character articles. And as stated there, (character) should be the last choice in disambiguation, only when all others appear to be inappropriate.

Hopefully we can come to a consensus soon, and the changes can be implemented in the naming conventions, so that we're all on the same page when it comes to naming comics articles! Fortdj33 (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• The reason I'm not thrilled with COMPANY having higher precedence than NATIONALITY is that
  1. non-fans are not always familiar with the companies
  2. some comics have switched companies (like Bone and Usagi Yojimbo) without starting new series. In the Marvel/DC world, the characters are owned by the companies, which gives rise to their strong association with their respective companies. That's far from the case outside that world, however.
• My understanding is that we want DABs to be general unless they need to be more specific. That's why (comics) takes precedence over (1967 South African children's comics magazine). That's why I think (comics character) should take precedence over (COMPANY comics), especially since a character may belong to more than one company (Captain Marvel, Alfred E. Newman), or no company at all (creator-owned).
• I am indeed proposing that something like (comics title) entirely replace (comic book).
• The problem with (comics magazine) is: is a (comic book) a comics magazine? Technically, it certainly is, but culturally, North Americans consider magazines and comic books to be different things---for some reason, people don't see "comic book" as being a subset of "magazine". I haven't lived in North America for quite some time, but online at least the mentality seems still to be around.
• I don't think we need to promote the use of (manga), since the A&M crowd are doing it themselves. Should we explicitly be discouraging people from using (Japanese comics)? It's a religious issue, and I don't think this project should say a word about it---either promoting or deprecating it (meaning no change to how it is already handled).
• I don't think (comics title) would qualify as a "neologism". It's descriptive and neutral. It's also in use by {{Infobox comic book title}}, which is why I brought it up. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Some comments. I'll not follow your original numbering.

I have no problem with the use of the dab "(comic book)" where it's appropriate - for American comic books, even for similar titles published in the US market by creators and publishers from other countries. I don't think it's at all necessary to replace "(comic book)" as a dab - in fact I think to do so would be silly - but I don't think it's appropriate for the "traditional" British comic.

As far as terms like manga, manhua, BD etc, these should be permissible where they are understood by the general reader, which I think is probably the case for manga but not for the others.

Disambiguating articles by publisher founders, again, for British comics. DC Thomson is fine, but the other major publisher of comics in the UK has been variously known as Amalgamated Press, Fleetway Publications, IPC, Fleetway Publications again, Fleetway Editions, and Egmont. Other companies, like J. B. Allen, Hulton Press, Odhams Press (also known as Longacre Press) and London Editions have been amalgamated into that company, so good luck trying to find a single disambiguator for a title that ran through various changes of company name and ownership, as many of them did.

Finally though, I don't think we need to have absolute rules of precedence. The basic dab is "(comics)", and we should have a range of approved options where that's already taken, to be chosen according to what's appropriate for the subject. "(NATIONALITY comics)", "(PUBLISHER comics)", "comic book", "comic strip", "comics character", "comics title", and combinations thereof, seem to me to be reasonable. There should also be a bit of common-sense flexibility built into the policy, as there'll always be cases that haven't been foreseen. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Appealing to "common sense" would mean that an American writing an article on a British comic periodical would likely have disambiguated using (comic book). I even used to collect a number of British comics back in the 1980s, and I was not aware of "comic book" being un-British until you brought it up.

further, the more exceptions we allow the more of a mess things will be. Just 15 years ago, it would have been laughable to disambiguate using (manga)---even readers like myself, with shelves full of the stuff, always referred to them as "Japanese comics" when talking about the stuff to outsiders. If the manga bubble doesn't survive the next 15 years, will we be re-DABing the articles to (Japanese comics)? And then again re-DABing Franco-Belgian comics to (BD) when their turn comes, and then back again when their bubble breaks? And then again for (manhua), then (manhwa), then (fumetti), then (historietas)? We could solve it once by using (NATIONALITY comics) and have it done with---it'll remain comprehensible 15 years from now and 15 years after that, instead of chasing down every faddish, fleeting exception as it momentarily (but vociferously) pops into the spotlight. It would also serve the largest audience---the vast majority of the public who aren't, and never will be, "in-the-know"---this is an issue I see none of the editors here addressing, and I think it's one of the most important. Who is hurt or confused by (UK comics)? Who is helped by (BD) to the degree that they would be put out by (Belgian comics)? And who is going to maintain the mess, and keep on top of the changing fads to make sure all the articles are correctly DABed and reDABed for their moment in the spotlight?

I see an awful lot of effort being spent on arguing for what I only see as an overcomplicated, messy, exception-overloaded, hard-to-comprehend, error-prone recentist maintenance nightmare. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If an American disambiguates a British comic as "(comic book)", then it can be fixed so long as a reasonable range of alternatives are written into the policy, and no harm done. I think all we really need to do is add "(comics title)" and a section on disambiguating by nationality to the policy, and everything's more-or-less covered.

To my mind, "manga" has been a reasonably well-known term since the early 90s, when there was a UK newsstand magazine called Manga Mania, but as you've pointed out there is another WikiProject covering manga and anime so we should let them worry about their terminology. In any case, BD, fumetti, historietas, manhua etc are certainly not understood by the general reader, so they should be avoided. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There were an awful lot more than just one magazine in 1998 that used the word "manga" in the title, yet when talking to people who were not already fans, I found it was rare that people had ever heard the word at that point.

The perceived popularity at any given point of an insider term should not be the gauge we use for DABing. Use it in the article---it can be linked to, for people who require explanation. But if a word is not universal (I know my mother doesn't know the word "manga", and I'm a comics-collecting nerd raising a family in Japan!), and there is a universally understood alternative (who in the English-speaking world wouldn't understand (Japanese comics)?), then I can't see why we would go with the jargon.

I think it's a huge mistake to think what happened with manga will not happen with any other variety of comics---fads always come and go. After World War II, superhero comics became amongst the worst-selling comics in North America---most of the superhero titles died off completely, even as the market rapidly expanded. Later, the romance comics and fuzzy animals that sold millions in the 1950s became nearly forgotten footnotes in comics history. I think it would be a mistake to let fads dictate how we DAB.

Again, I'm not suggesting we start a war with the A&M crowd, just that we should make the guidelines clear that it's inappropriate to do that when the next fad tries to foist their jargon on DABs, which are supposed to be as generalized a possible---and (manga) is not. Nor is (comic book), for that matter.

And keep in mind that the A&M crowd has not deemed that (manga) will be used when (comics) isn't available (which is what has been suggested here), but instead of (comics), as if they are not comics at all (and many manga fans actually do argue exactly that). With that precedent, we could easily see the BD fans (for example---don't take this as a prediction) do exactly the same thing. It's a great ego-trip for the fans, but doesn't help the general reader in a search. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 20:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, maybe we're getting too specific here. If we keep any changes to the conventions at a minimum, I think we need to basically emphasize the use of "comics" as a standard disambiguation, and then add sections regarding nationality (specifically for "UK comics"), and exceptions for comics creators (with "artist", "writer", "cartoonist" taking precedence). The rest about publications and characters seems to already be pretty well covered by WP:NCC, unless we want to add specific terms for further disambiguation of comics articles related to media (such as "graphic novel", "manga", "manhua", "manhwa", etc), which would only be used in extreme circumstances when "comics" is not available. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this with the other opinions chiming in...

• Manga is off the table. We can walk away from that one now.
• If the general consensus is to move lesser used or niche terms to a case by case bases, fair enough. There is still going to need to be a good look at those that are currently in use to make sure they can be safely "bumped up".
• Having a list of examples of what are commonly used and a general indication of what compounds with "comics" are reasonable is a good way forward. This may take a little hashing, but it looks like there's a good base at the moment.
• We may also want to avoid general examples. If we can find specific ones already in use to illustrate a point, great. But pulling out Usagi Yojimbo or Dreadstar as "shifting publishers" doesn't work. Usagi Yojimbo is a unique search result which is unlikely to be split among the 3 publishers. Dreadstar is a similar case, though Dreadstar (comics) could be a prime example where (graphic novel) could, and likely should, be used since (comics), (comic book), (publication), and (comics publication) apply to both articles.

- J Greb (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, manga is off the table, as I've said myself. I bring it up as the prime concrete example of where things have gone wrong, not the target of a proposed change. There's no walking away from the issue it raises.

The primary reason for avoiding using publishers is not because characters switch publishers, but because the goal is to find something general, and understandable to people who are unfamiliar with, and couldn't care less about, which publisher published a particular character. Does your average person even know who Superman's publisher is? I think, if you asked around, you'd be surprised.

And here's a concrete example, as you requested. I've been doing a lot of work on Canadian comics, and adding a number of pages. One thing that came up in my research was the very first Canadian superhero---Vernon Miller's Iron Man. Being the very first Canadian superhero makes it potentially notable enough to create a page for it. Iron Man (comics) is obviously out; so is Iron Man (comics character). Next up would be either Iron Man (Better Comics) or Iron Man (Canadian comics). Someone who "heard something about a Canadian Iron Man" or "heard the first Canadian superhero was called Iron Man" would be far better served by Iron Man (Canadian comics) when performing a search, especially since that's almost certainly the context in which they would have heard about the character. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Wolverine a ninja?

Rather than edit war, what is your feeling on this? [1] [2] [3] 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reliable third-party source that clearly states Wolverine is a ninja? If not, then it's clear-cut: out it goes. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 20:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we even need a third-party source; it would be enough for the comics themselves to unambiguously (key word here) identify Wolverine as a ninja. Either way though, a source is needed. postdlf (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what I figured. I don't want to edit war with this IP though, as they are starting to get abusive with their comments. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Postdlf: If it can be source to a comic, and not the OHOTMU, it can be incorporated into the article in a reasonable way. Even if it can be sourced, if it isn't expressly and clearly noted in the article, the category should not be present.

- J Greb (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it then, but please someone keep an eye out in case this editor restores it again. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone please see if this is a valid source, as this IP is getting even more hostile. [4] [5] 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If an editor is making repeated personal attacks, you can always file a complaint at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:DEFINING. It says to concentrate on defining characteristics, and that "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining". Spidey 104 17:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a standard for the creation of categories, not for inclusion once a category is already created. Otherwise we'd have wildly underinclusive category membership, fluctuating based not on whether the category factually applies but on its relative importance to a given subject. The simplest standard applicable here is just that an existing category shouldn't be applied to an article that does not have a verifiable statement of fact supporting its membership in that category. postdlf (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

postdlf, that specific section I linked to is the standard for inclusion of a category on the page. "Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided." This was the reason why Category:Vampire was not included for the Spider-Man page. I opposed that removal, but it is a Wikipedia guideline. Spidey 104 20:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that this is turning into too much of a tangent from the main issue, but your interpretation is incorrect: WP:OCAT is about what categories should not be created ("To address these concerns, this page lists types of categories that should generally be avoided."). From WP:DEFINING: "Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic." (emphasis added.) Not the test for whether a category that has already been created should be applied to an article. "In cases where a particular attribute about a topic is verifiable and notable but not defining, or where doubt exists, creation of a list article is often the preferred alternative." Obviously that suggestion makes no sense if we were talking about just applying an existing category to a particular article rather than whether a category should be created. There are certainly other sound reasons why not to categorize fictional characters based on temporary plot points, but WP:DEFINING is still focused on category creation. postdlf (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

With further reading I see that you are indeed correct, but my analysis was initially supported by the lack of Wikipedia being clear and concise about their intentions for the page we were linking to, but that is Wikipedia's fault and neither of ours.

Off of that tangent: since WP:DEFINING does NOT say this category should not be included then I see no reason why it isn't included. The IP address has engaged in inappropriate personal attacks, but his inclusion of the template does seem correct under your arguments. Spidey 104 16:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where you get that from anything said above, particularly since WP:DEFINING (and WP:OCAT generally) has nothing to do with category application, only category creation. Silent on that issue, it's a non sequitur to say that because it isn't violated a category therefore should be added. The issue here is that there is no verifiable statement within the article supporting the application of the ninja category to Wolverine; that's rather more fundamental, a question of WP:V. Re: the Spider-Man vampire category, it is also sensible not to include that category if it was based purely on a transitory plot story. Fictional characters have a particular problem in that changes can be introduced that have no lasting effect on the character (see also retcon), unlike anything that happens in a real person's life that remains true regardless of it eventually ending. For this reason, many categories that might be appropriate for people (such as being prisoner, death-related categories) are not for fictional characters because they are mere narrative devices. Spider-Man has had a fifty-year publication history, in addition to other media adaptations, so categorizing the article on the basis of everything that has ever been done to the character, no matter how temporary, would just be bad editing. Spider-Man "is" obviously not a vampire any more than Superman "is" dead or Batman "is" a paraplegic. All stories they perhaps went through (The Death of Superman, Batman: Knightfall), but that's not integral to the characters (Spider-Man doesn't even include the word "vampire", a clear sign the category does not belong if there ever was one). An even more extreme example would be the characters in Family Guy, which uses multiple cutaway gags per episode that have nothing to do with reality or continuity; otherwise we'd be categorizing Peter Griffin in everything from people who have fallen from airplanes to people who were in hiding from the Nazis during WWII. All of which might be said that I'm talking about the same principle in WP:DEFINING applied to category application for fictional characters, but WP:DEFINING is still about category creation (maybe I'm being pedantic, but there it is). postdlf (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hal Jordan

I've noticed that the 2010 section of the Publication History is turning into a plot summary for the recent Green Lantern comics. It needs to be cut down and put into a smaller summary with just the basic and important details. -50.137.10.10 (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-breaking changes to Infobox comic book title

I made some non-breaking, backwards compatible changes to {{Infobox comic book title}}, which User:J Greb has now reverted twice. Could someone please take a look? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

He's also being uncivil, leaving messages like "You are doing a fine job as being disruptive" without explaining what has been disrupted. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

And this verges on forum shopping. You can use the templates talk page to discus the bold change that you want to make. Coming here to sell you case or paint yourself as the victem isn't appropriate.

Now, coming here to point out to the Project that a change to the template is under discussion and a possibly a short version of what the change entails would be.

- J Greb (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I brought it here because you kept reverting my changes without making any attempt at explaining why, and being aggressively insulting in the bargain. You were demanding I use the talk page there after I had already started a new section on the changes, so you obviously were not using the talk page yourself to communicate, and I had no reason to believe you would. I saw you aggressively verging on an edit war with {{Infobox comics creator}} recently, which, coupled with your aggressiveness towards me, gave me the strong impression you just weren't open to communicating, or being civil. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Science fiction comics

Anyone care to weight in on the merger proposal between Science fiction comics and science fiction graphic novel? There are currently 3 users in favor (myself included) and no one against.--Cattus ^talk 22:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Both articles are short, and I'm not aware of any other "GENRE graphic novel" pages, and I can't see anything in the article making it clear why science fiction graphic novels are in and of themselves notable apart from science fiction comics. I'd say merge. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring on Jean Grey

There is edit warring going on over the character's name, and while there has been an attempt at discussion on the talk page, one side has not participated in the discussion. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Forestlicious is preferring to discuss the issue in edit summaries rather than on the talk page. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if this is an overly harsh thing to say (please let me know if it is), but User:Forestlicious is also one of those people that seems to border on worshipping Jean Grey with his "Jean is Phoenix and Phoenix is Jean and they're one and the same and burn with cosmic fire and can resurrect people at will" comments and their almost-religious fervor. Am I correct in thinking that kind of thing doesn't belong on Wikipedia? DeadpoolRP (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this Brian Boru?

Just wondering if this is him - seems familiar to me. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe this one? I don't know, but they way they have been edit warring, and blanking warnings off of their talk page seems particularly familiar. BOZ (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I interacted with Brian Boru is awesome shortly before he was indef blocked, so I'm fairly familiar with his modus operandi. Just by glancing at the edit summaries it's very similar to Brian Boru is awesome. I'll open an SPI. - SudoGhost 04:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the SPI, if anyone has anything to add. - SudoGhost 05:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, 96.238.36.171 is definitely part of it, just did a bunch of edit warring. Will try to fix it. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Notability (web) criterion three

A discussion has been underway for a couple of weeks about criterion three of WP:WEB, "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". The debate is about whether or not this criterion is necessary, and if the guideline is changed it could affect AfD discussions on webcomics, flash games, and other online content. Editors are warmly invited to take a look and leave their opinions. The discussion thread can be found here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Comics will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in comics; as writers, characters, artists, publishers, etc. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquette: Moving inactive users' sandboxed pages into mainspace

I've been working on Canadian comics-related articles, and was hunting down information on Ted McCall to start a page with when I came across this page in Bookcats' sandbox. Starting a page myself would just be duplicating that user's own work, so I would have just left it at that, but it doesn't look like the user is very active---last user contribution was 27 December, and the last one before that was 26 October. The last edit to the sandboxed page was 18 June.

I left a message for the user about it, but haven't gotten a response. I was wondering how terrible it would be to just move the page into mainspace. I've got different sources than the ones Bookcats used, so I think I could probably expand the page somewhat, as well. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Go for it, I say; just leave a message on the user's talk page. Article drafts in userspace are, after all, valid only if they are intended for eventual transfer to mainspace, and there's no sense in duplicating all that effort. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Fictional characters who can size changeing

Category:Fictional characters who can size changeing, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)