|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the DC Comics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|DC Comics received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- Got any fair use images of the current logo for that? If you have non-copyrighted images, I don't see any reason not to change the infobox.Weegeerunner (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
What is the rationale for putting Batman ahead of Superman as an "icon" in the introduction?
Hello, I see DC's intro was changed from "iconic characters like Superman, Batman" to "iconic characters like Batman, Superman" for no particular reason, and I don't really believe it is truly appropriate, even as a Batman fan. Yes, today Batman is probably DC's best seller and most appealing character (just like Iron Man has been for Marvel since 2008), but Superman is the first modern representation of the "superhero" foundations, the "most iconic" and recognizable product DC ever manifactured, and it has been like that at the very least for way longer than Batman. Supes is arguably the face of the whole DC industry as a whole.
- I placed the hidden note in hopes that the pointless edits would stop. It's ridiculous to argue about which character is mentioned first. It also clutters the revision history, which is discouraged. I believe there's at least a dozen edits where a user switches the order and that is silly. I don't give a crap who gets mentioned first but if you want to gain consensus for one way or the other, that's fine. The silly edits need to stop. —DangerousJXD (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the edit war, just a passerby here. I personally think that, all things considered, it makes more sense to put Superman first and Batman second, at least when put in the context of general "icons" talk. Yes, there are a lot of arguments all potentially valid to say that Batman is a more valuable asset as of today than Superman, even more popular (after all, we have a "Batman v. Superman" upcoming, not a "Superman v. Batman", we had a comic series called "Batman/Superman/Wonder Woman"; in general it's because Batman outsells Superman by a considerable margin). But when you try to look at the bigger picture of "iconicity of their characters", I support the notion that "Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman" should be generally more acceptable and more reflecting of the DC Comics and Universe as a whole. Superman is almost used in the everyday dictionary nowadays, and not necessarily in Nietzsche's overman declination, but in the sense of person with "superhuman powers". It clearly transceded to something more than a simple "fictional character". I'd like to hear more opinions about it too, anyway. It would be most beneficial to reach a consensus. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Unless it was written by a Batman's fan, I can't fathom this "Batman ahead of Superman" arbitrary shtick. Almost 100% sure that every single publication available for reading, i.e. IGN, puts Superman ahead of Batman in the "top comic book characters of whatever". Heck, it's even directly referenced on Batman's page! :/ 21:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)188.8.131.52 (talk)
Citation needed for the "1934 founding" claim
A while ago there was a discussion and an edit war between an IP editor and User:Tenebrae regarding the year of the establishment of the company. Tenebrae defended the "1934 founding" claim: "per article text, footnotes and citati[o]ns, it's 1934; please see references." I just intervened in the debate by switching the year to 1935 as per WP:BURDEN and WP:V. Tenebrae's claim is not satisfying for the following reasons: the article text of Wikipedia is not a reliable source, while the purported citation (Gerard Jones 2004) is not a real citation since no page number of/quotation from that book is given in the article to support the claim (the only citation that was ever provided by this article's editors is one to an unreliable and non-informative source (DC Comics Silver Age chronology). I do not actually doubt that Jones or Fifty Who Made DC Great may indeed give 1934; however, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who restores contentious material and verifiability involves a full citation to a reliable source (preferrably accompanied by a quotation). I myself provided the following source: Maggie Thompson, Michael Dean, Brent Frankenhoff, Joyce Greenholdt, John Jackson Miller (editors), Comics Buyer's Guide 1996 Annual, Krause Publications, 1995, p. 81: "Beginning as National Allied Publications in 1935 and becoming National Allied Newspaper Syndicate the next year, it changed to National Comic [sic] Publications in 1946 and National Periodical Publications in 1961..." --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's good to have discussion and I'll look into a properly done 1934. The fact that New Fun #1 had a Feb. 1935 date suggests 1934 is correct, given the lead time to buy, write, draw comic-book content. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Your argument is plausible, Tenebrae.
- Unfortunately, tertiary literature is not helpful: The Cambridge Companion to American Science Fiction, 2015, p. xix gives 1934 (but I wouldn't exclude the possibility that the editors copypasted the date from Wikipedia), The Oxford Companion to the Book, Vol.1, 2010, p. 627 contains factual mistakes ("Late in 1934, the New York-based National Allied Publications (later DC) launched ... a series consisting wholly of original comics, New Fun Comics..."), while the International Directory of Company Histories, Volume 25, 1999, p. 138 gives 1935; all of these sources do not cite their own sources and none of them is a source specialized in comics history. I suspect that the only helpful sources would be Jones 2004 and Fifty Who Made DC Great. The result of this discussion should also affect Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson#New Fun and National Comics Publications#History. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ron Goulart in his 1986 Ron Goulart's Great History of Comic Books says, "Sometime in the middle of 1934 the major...got a notion. ... After renting office space of Fourth Avenue, Nicholson began recruiting artists and writers and seeking financing. What he made in mind was a line of comic books that would feature nothing but original material. The company the major founded would eventually, under the name DC, earn countless millions."
- Benton in The Comic Book in America: An Illustrated History writes, "In the late fall of 1934, Major Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson ... was carefully charting the appearances and sales of Famous Funnies.... [He] reasons that a comic book featuring original material would sell even beter than one reprinted from the Sunday pages. In February 1935, [his] New Fun Comics appeared from his company, National Allied Publications." This seems to conflate cover date with on-sale date, but either way, it would have to have been 1934 in order to gather the material, art direct it, edit it, etc. Les Daniels similarly conflates in his authorized DC book, writing, "In February 1935, a writer known as Major Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson determined the destiny of the American comic book when he launched a publication called New Fun, subtitled "The Big Comic Magazine." An image of the cover on the next page shows the cover date as "February, 1935."
- Marx, Barry, Cavalieri, Joey and Hill, Thomas (w), Petruccio, Steven (a), Marx, Barry (ed). "Major Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson DC Founded" Fifty Who Made DC Great: 5 (1985), DC Comics
- Goulart, Ron (1986). Ron Goulart's Great History of Comic Books. Chicago: Contemporary Books. p. 55. ISBN 0-8092-5045-4.
- Benton, Mike (1989). The Comic Book in America: An Illustrated History. Dallas, Texas: Taylor Publishing. p. 17-18. ISBN 978-0-87833-659-3.
- Daniels, Les (1995). DC Comics : Sixty Years of the World's Favorite Comic Book Heroes. Bulfinch. p. 14. ISBN 978-0821220764.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on DC Comics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100317010956/http://money.cnn.com:80/2008/10/10/news/companies/siklos_marvel.fortune/ to http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/10/news/companies/siklos_marvel.fortune/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830202046/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=81341 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=81341
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100221121229/http://dcu.blog.dccomics.com/2010/02/18/for-immediate-release-dc-entertainment-names-executive-team to http://dcu.blog.dccomics.com/2010/02/18/for-immediate-release-dc-entertainment-names-executive-team/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
Archived sources still need to be checked
Why doesn't DC Entertainment have it's own page, like Marvel Entertainment? Or DC Films like Marvel Studios? DC's slate and portfolio is the same size as Marvel's so I don't see why everything is merged onto DC's comics page. I think it should be split to acknowledge DC's growing size and separate productions like Marvel, for organization's sake. The sections alone don't provide much detail and if more were added it'd be excessively detailed for a section. So splitting them off into their own pages makes sense. —Jman98 03:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)