Talk:Teen Titans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Comics / DC Comics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by DC Comics work group.
 

TPB summaries[edit]

We don't need a summary of every trade paperback for the current series (and even if we did, then we'd need one for every of the TPBs in this article). Andromeda mentions that other articles have summaries of their TPBs, but I don't know which ones that would be. I think if we're going to have plot summary it needs to be done for every section, which makes me note that practically every part of this article is publication history. We could definitely benefit from splitting off into separate articles for each series to have both publication history and plot summary. Otherwise I'm just a goddamned idiot, which I'm sure someone thinks I am. KramarDanIkabu 18:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Team Titans[edit]

I propose that Team Titans be merged into this article considering it is just a list stub. --waffle iron 06:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

sounds good. i'm bored, so i'll do it.--Exvicious 19:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Team Titans[edit]

I second that proposal of merger. it would be more coherent.

Starfire[edit]

The article says Starfire never returned from space - wasn't she in one of the splash pages of IC #7?TheronJ 13:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That was a representation of the events of 52. There were a number of characters on those pages who do not yet exist. --Chris Griswold 18:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

U know what u are not wrong

Cool boyz (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Title and Redirect[edit]

I think this article should be called the Teen Titans and Titans (comics) should be the redirect. Most of this article refers to a team that was originally, is currently and has usually been called the Teen Titans Rorschach567 16:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Chris Griswold 18:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Section Stubs[edit]

The Team Titans, Teen Titans, and The Titans sections all need some more information; rather than just the membership, some details of the storylined would be nice. --Chris Griswold 00:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Beast Boy limited series[edit]

I didn't read all of this, but Geoof Johns wrote it, and it has Beat Boy forming a new Titans West. I believe it is included in the Beast Boys and Girls trade. I would appreciate it if someone would add information from this storyline to the article. --Chris Griswold 00:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Present Tense[edit]

In regard to my use of the literary present tense in this article: Writing in the present when discussing events in a fictional narrative is Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction, Works of fiction are generally considered to 'come alive' when read and exist in a kind of perpetual present tense, regardless of when the fictional action is supposed to take place relative to "now". Thus, generally you should write about fiction using the present tense, not the past tense. See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Literary present tense--Chris Griswold 15:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Navbox Guidelines[edit]

Please follow this link Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates/navboxes to join in on the discussion . --Basique 12:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Un-Hip Language[edit]

I know that there is supposed to be a citation for that un-hip language remark, but how do you site every single comic written by that guy. Cause if you read them, you'll understand. User:002KFlash052 0:00, 15 Aug. 2006

Split: New Titans and Teen Titans (current)[edit]

i think that this article should be split up for the following reasons:

  • The article is too long. That's not an opinion of how it's written and what is written, it's literally too long for wikipedia's recommended standards.
  • The New (Teen) Titans obviously has enough history and events to warrant a seperate article, which would by default, include the Titans series from the late 90's
  • Likewise, the current Teen Titans has cultivated enough history, due to their importance the Infinite Crisis lead-ups and aftermath.
  • Dan Jurgen's Teen Titans and Team Titans should be treated as the footnotes in comic history that they are and should have their synopsis remain on the main page.

if you agree or don't agree, please state why. -- Semidelicious 19:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think some long-running concepts, such as The (Teen) Titans, which have had many incarnations does need a "History" and a "Current" page (not necessarily in those terms). Something that allows both a concise history and a precise history of the concept.
Where to draw the line for "current" is an issue, of course. "Young Justice"? "Graduation Day"? "OYL"?
So, yeah, I agree.
Duggy 1138 07:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
By current, i mean the current series that started in 2003. it's the first one to last more than 30 issues in a couple of years. Semidelicious 04:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I agree, it's just that there are arguements for the others too, so I figured it needed to be noted.
Duggy 1138 04:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree
I agree as well. Let's get to work on it.
  • Disagree, for now. I think a lot of cleanup could and should happen before splitting is considered. For example, the sections marked "Notable appearances" and "Trade paperbacks" should go away. CovenantD 02:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • And the various lists of members. There's already a separate article that covers that. CovenantD 02:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Should pages dedicated to specific series be added, and those cover the TPB bit?
Duggy 1138 09:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna start work ensuring the various members are mentioned in the article and removing the various lists. CovenantD 18:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost done, but am running into some problems with Team Titans, Teen Titans (1996–1998) and The Titans (1999–2002). Either they need to be fleshed out a bit more or we need to decide to get rid of the pics. Otherwise we're going to end up with a lot of white space. CovenantD 00:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
You could place them in a "minor incarnations of the Titans" type of page. Forlong

I'm of two minds about the spliting of the Titans/Teen Titans page. While the article is long the time line is critical for any new readers to understand the history of the series. I've followed the Titans in it's many forms since the 1970s and even I have a hard time keeping track of the different Title and numbering changes.

If the page is split a time line link to the other pages would be recommended. It would assist any new (or even old time) indviduals in tracking the many changes in this series.

If a split was made I'd recommend the older 60s and 70s series being on one page. The newer 1980s Perez/Wolfman series being the start of the next page. A third page would be with the restart of the Titans with the Young Justice crew as a third.

This way only the pre-Young Justice restart of the Titans would continue to grow in size. The other pages would be static in length (escept for adding information about TPBs).

As for the comment of the TPBs being clipped to reduce the page length I would recommend agasint it. The TPBs are the cheapest way to obtain key issues of a series that a reader may have missed and wish to have. Without that information web searches do not always turn up correct issue you wish to purchase.

As much as I've liked seeing the Titans all on one page I think a split might be for the best as the older series could have more detail added to them and then basically be locked down as no new information would be added to those pages.

Just my thoughts.


Maybe the problem isn't the long history of team (well, not completely), but rather, the fact that this article is trying to cover both the real-world history (of the comics) and the history of the team(s). Maybe there doesn't need to be a split, but rather "Teen Titans (Comic Series)", "The Titans (Comic Series)", etc to be created.
Duggy 1138 02:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

On cleaning up this article[edit]

  • My thoughts:
    • Split New Teen Titans into a new page. It's both notable as a series and a team to deserve its own page.
    • Split Team Titans into a new page. It actually had its own series, and I'm sure it could be filled out some.
    • Rename this article to Teen Titans. It even says so right in the introduction that the Titans was just a short lived name for the team. The current series is also called Teen Titans, and not Titans.
    • Remove the small sections of membership, since that is what we have List of Titans members for.
    • Start introducing title boxes for the seperate series.
    • Remove the story info from the TPB table and add ISBN#'s, creator credits, page numbers etc. just like on the Justice League/Justice Society of America page.
  • I'd do all of this myself, but an undertaking of this kind of thing really requires a collaborative effort as opposed to just a solo action. Thing is, though, clean-up is sorely needed. It will have to be done eventually, one way or the other. Kusonaga 09:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Time for an actual vote[edit]

Now, with the actions of Duggy, I think it's time that we actually vote on what happens with this article. We'll be voting on the following:

  1. Splitting the New Teen Titans into its own article
  2. Splitting the Team Titans into its own article
  3. Splitting the page into two pages, one dedicated to the series, the other to the team
  4. Renaming the article to Teen Titans

Kusonaga 08:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Is the New Teen Titans the current team or the team from series of the same name?
2. Can this be done without it being more than a snub?
3. Who said anything about spliting?
4. "Teen" is covers more of the individual groups and is current, but Teen-less incorporates all groups, not just the groups called Teen Titans.

Duggy 1138 10:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

1. No, it's the Wolfman series. I filed what you wanted to do under the third matter to be voted on. That could've been more clear.
2. Yes, it can be. It can provide a summary of what the Team Titans did in their title, what the title was about etc. Also stubs aren't neccesarily bad. Just because that needs to be done doesn't mean we shouldn't split it. I am however, perfectly okay with it not wanting to split the pages.
3. Well, it's rather obvious from the fact that you just made a new page titled Teen Titans (comic series).
4. And what is current is what we should go for. Besides that, one group of Titans sprung forth from the New Teen Titans (which would then of course move with the NTT if a new page is made for them) and the other was the only series that started the team out as the Titans. It's like Batman and the Outsiders. We call the page the Outsiders, even though two of the three series have held different names.

Kusonaga 10:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

3 (only) I don't see it as splitting or I would have none a whole lot more trimming from the main article. More creating a parallel page. Duggy 1138 13:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Then correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't that page, essentially, be useless, if there is no (or little) actual difference in content? Kusonaga 14:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Initially, yes, but as the page develops... writer, artist information, etc is added and the page grows a personality of its own, separate from that of the parent. Duggy 1138 14:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Votes[edit]

  • Kusonaga 08:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • 1. Yes.
    • 2. Yes.
    • 3. No.
    • 4. Yes.
  • Duggy 1138 10:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • 1. No. Although yes to current team.
    • 2. Yes.
    • 3. No.
    • 4. No. But reluctantly.
  • Hope this helps : ) - jc37 12:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • 1.) I don't think it's a good idea to split any of the Teen Titans teams. So far except for Team Titans, they're all from the original 3 (or 4/5) + The "new" Teen Titans (Raven, Cyborg, Starfire, Changeling/Beast Boy).
    • 2.) Yes, Team Titans is a wholly different team, though it should be noted in both articles mentioned below.
    • 3.) That's a good idea - splitting the characters/team from the media (comics and animation).
    • 4.) The media article would be The Teen Titans, adding (publication) if necessary. (Teen was only dropped once, and for a short period of time.) The character/team article should be The Titans adding (comics) if necessary. (See WP:NCC.)
  • Throwing in my 2¢ — J Greb 15:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • 1. No. I agree with Jc37, the team/concept history streaches from the first appearance through to the present. If the article is going to deal with that content, it should deal with all of it.
    • 2. Yes.
    • 3. Yes, provisionally. I'm a little leery that this might cause problems with the content article. I'd also be tempted to split the media article into 4 or 5 parts.
    • 4. No. It seems to be an unnecessary change.
  • Lesfer (t/c/@) 18:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • 1. No . I don't see a reason for splitting any of the Titans teams, except for Team Titans.
    • 2. Yes. Different team. Just like the "Titans Tomorrow" team.
    • 3. No.
    • 4. No. Can't see why.
  • No to all of them. CovenantD 20:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. No to all. Mikemoral 03:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

On the New Teen Titans split: We did it for Justice League International as well over in the Justice League article. A split will allow this page not to get too big while also allowing an even more in-depth article on what is largely considered the best Teen Titans run. Kusonaga 16:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at those two articles, and Justice League Europe, points up a problem or two.
Both the JLI and JLE articles appear to have been set up to address the comic book (media - publishing history, creative staff, sales, etc) side, where the JLA article was started to deal with the story details of the team (plot points, membership, guest character, retcons, etc).
I think that approach is worthwhile. However, it appears that the articles "migrated" a bit from intent, resulting in media information taking a large place on JLA and story detail doing the same on JLI and JLE.
For me, it makes sense that, for the JLA, there be 7 separate articles and one list:
  • Justice League of America covering the entirety of the story elements with very limited media information.
  • Justice League of America (vol. 1) covering the publishing history of the first comic book series.
  • Justice League (comics) covering the publishing history of the comic book series launched from Legends. This would also cover the title changes to Justice League International and Justice League America and the appropriate annuals and specials.
  • Justice League Europe covering the publishing history of the major spin-off series, including the title change to Justice League International vol. 2 and the appropriate annuals.
  • JLA covering the publication history of that comic book series as well as related annuals, specials, and limited series projects.
  • Justice League of America (vol. 2) covering the publishing history of the current series.
  • Justice League (animated) covering the history of the animated TV show. I would also include the publishing history of the tie-in comic book here.
  • List of Justice League members
There are a few other series that could be argued as needing to be in that list, but it puts forth my premise.
For the Teen Titans, I would see 8 articles and a list:
  • Teen Titans (comics) or Titans (comics) covering the entirety of the story elements with very limited media information.
  • Teen Titans (vol. 1) covering the publishing history of the first comic book series.
  • New Teen Titans (vol. 1) covering the publishing history of the comic book series launched by Wolfman and Perez. This would also cover the title change to Tales of the Teen Titans and the appropriate annuals and specials.
  • New Teen Titans (vol. 2) covering the publishing history of the second series, including the title change to The New Titans and the appropriate annuals and specials.
  • Teen Titans (vol. 2) covering the publication history of the Dan Jurgans comic book series as well as specials and limited series projects.
  • Titans (comics) covering the publishing history of that series, including appropriate specials and limited series projects.
  • Teen Titans (vol. 3) covering the publishing history of the current series, including appropriate specials and limited series projects.
  • Teen Titans (animated) covering the history of the animated TV show. I would also include the publishing history of the tie-in comic book here.
  • List of Teen Titans / Titans members

J Greb 17:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As it stands now, there is the beginnings of a Teen Titans (comic serie) page which only refers to the three series with that name. In the future, I think that if it takes, a "New Teen Titans (comic series)" covering both volumes and a "Titans (comic series)" page. If any of those three pages gets to unwieldly, then split them, but I don't think spliting immediately is the answer.
Duggy 1138 00:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
That works for me, especially since I'm not sure if some of the various series have enough to warrant anything beyond a "Start" class article. — J Greb 01:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
As I see it there are Teen Titans (3 series covered), The Titans (One series covered), and The New Titans (Tales of the New Titans) two series covered). There's also Teen Titans Go! but I'd put that on the Teen Titans Animation page if one comes about and if it needs to be mentioned at all. Have I missed a series?
Duggy 1138 02:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the split into 8 pages is a little overboard, and redundant in the long run. I think splits should only occur when they are necessary (as it was with the Justice League, and I completely agree with you on the Justice League/JLI/Justice League America thing. Think you can proposition such a thing on the Justice League talk page?). In this case, I think the New Teen Titans deserve a lot more than what they have, and the same goes for the other titles, so logically, the section which will probably fit the biggest page should be split. That's the way I see it, although I'm slowly coming around to some of the views you guys have.
I'm still a little unclear on what exactly you would intend to make the difference between this article and Teen Titans (series)? Would one only delve into the fictional history and the other into publication history? Is that the plan?
Kusonaga 12:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Like many other pages dedicated to a comic series over the specific character/team. However, "Teen Titans", "The Titans" and "The New Teen Titans" is 3 pages, not 8. - Duggy 1138 15:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Duggy, I believe he's looking at the list I put up, not the comment you made in response. — J Greb 15:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Titans vs. Teen Titans[edit]

Why is this page called Titans? It mentions they were briefly called the Titans in the lead paragraph, so why is that the name chosen. If we used "Teen Titans" it wouldn't have to have (comics) or anything after it. - Peregrinefisher 19:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It was part of the recent vote. The thinking, I think, is that both (Teen Titans) and (Titans) are covered by (Titans), whereas (Titans) isn't covered by (Teen Titans).
I mostly agree, but I don't mind if it changes.
Duggy 1138 00:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I guess if everyone likes it this way, OK. It just leads to these weird sentences where on the Titans (comics) page the first thing it says is "The Teen Titans, briefly known as simply The Titans" and on the Titan page it says "Titans (comics), more commonly Teen Titans, a group of DC Comics superheroes." Basically, evertime it has to be explained why the page isn't called what you'd think it was called. - Peregrinefisher 03:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
But they were originally the Teen Titans, they currently are the Teen Titans. I don't think the whole article should be named after a title they only briefly took rather than what they are most commonly and officially known as. The Official name should come above everything else. (DavetheAvatar 02:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC))

I agree, I agree, I agree. The current article title makes no sense. To quote WP:COMMONNAME, "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." 'Teen Titans':

  1. Is the most common name of the subject of the article.
  2. Is the original name of the subject of the article.
  3. Is the current name of the subject of the article.
  4. Does not conflict with the names of other people or things, unlike 'Titans'.

Keeping the title at 'Titans' because it is "more inclusive" would be like moving 'Christmas tree' to 'holiday tree'. As such, I'm adding the page to WP:RM.

comics template[edit]

Do we really need those comicbook templates for the Teen Titans and New Teen Titans series? --DrBat 18:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If we're trying to be as accurate as possible, yes. Kusonaga 19:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Titans (comics)Teen Titans — Per WP:COMMONNAME. 'Teen Titans' is by far the best-known, most-searched, and commonly-used name of the subject of the article. Even the article itself refers to its subject far more often as 'Teen Titans'. ryand 16:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Patstuarttalk|edits 21:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
  • Support Per ryand's 4 points in the previous section.  Anþony  talk  20:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. I think it's okay for the short lived Titans, Team Titans and whatnot to be covered by a parent Teen Titans article. The reverse, however, makes less sense to me. ~CS 21:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Titans can also refer to the greek demi-gods, and to inhabitants of the moon Titan. "Teen Titans" has only one meaning. -- Beardo 03:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I found the article easily enough as it is. The current listing works fine as far as I am concerned.Theplanetsaturn 09:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support — Good points. --Chris Griswold () 10:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - per the points above. I still think that I'd like to see "Team Titans" split to it's own article though. - jc37 23:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as per above — J Greb 23:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Discussion closed. Desicion is to mergeBrian Boru is awesome 21:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Duela Dent[edit]

For the time being I'm gonna take her off the roster, just because it's very possible Raven is just trying to trick her for a momentary advantage. If she stays on the team after the Titans East arc, let's add her back. Darquis 01:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back. There's been no sign that Raven wasn't sincere about letting her join.--Marhawkman 13:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
She left after the Titans East arc, so I pulled her again. Darquis 21:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup?[edit]

Since there was no explanation given, I took off the cleanup tag for now. If anyone wants to say what specifically needs done, feel free, but a non-explained tag isn't going to get us anywhere, IMO. Darquis 01:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Move article?[edit]

I suggest this article be moved to Teen Titans and the disambiguation page be moved to Teen Titans (disambiguation). I feel that it's far more likely for someone to be searching for this article than the video game or the movie. A case could be made for the TV show, but I believe the ongoing nature and long running history of the book trumps the five years the show was on the air. Darquis 01:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

agreed. --Chris Griswold () 03:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Presuming that the disambiguation link will be at the top of the page (as is typical), I agree as well. - jc37 09:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there wasn't any objection after a week, I'm gonna go ahead and do this now Darquis 09:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm late to the party, but I'm going to add my opinion anyway. There should not be Teen Titans (comics). The history of the characters should be the main article, not a disambiguation page.

"Teen Titans could very easily be about the popular cartoon or the team itself"

Yeah, but the same can be said about other properties. Batman for example, doesn't have a disambiguation to:

  • Batman (TV series)
  • Batman (1989 film)
  • Batman: The Animated Series
  • The Batman (animated series)
  • Batman (comic book)

All of these could reasonable be expected when you type in "Batman." If you want another similar example, what about Justice League, Superman, X-Men etc. Or Legion of Super-Heroes. They have a current series out (unlike the canceled Teen Titans) and yet they don't have Legion of Super-Heroes (comics). --68.79.57.76 22:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Teen Titans (comics)Teen Titans — I don't support this move, starting a discussion since Darquis requested it. TJ Spyke 04:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move[edit]

  1. Strong Agree The cartoon is over, and isn't coming back. The book has existed for years, and has an ongoing series, and is at least as popular as the cartoon, if not moreso. Darquis 20:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong AgreeThe video games, movies, tv shows, toys, costumes, party plates, all are based off of the comic series. The comic series is the most consistant and primary usage.Theplanetsaturn 09:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move[edit]

  1. Strong Oppose Teen Titans could very easily be about the popular cartoon or the team itself. I think the move done by Darquis (moving "Teen Titans" to "Teen Titans (disambiguation" and then redirecting "Teen Titans" to this page) should be undone. "Teen Titans" should be the disambiguation page. TJ Spyke 04:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong, Strong Oppose. As previously stated, the comic is both not the only usage, and is not by and large the most common usage. Teen Titans was a significant show on Cartoon Network, and lack of popularity was certainly not a factor in its cancellation. It spawned video games, movies, comic books, toys, costumes, party plates, etc. Really, the nom. treats the cartoon as if it's some rare and obscure alternative usage, when in reality it was a huge, huge show that made a lot of people a lot of money, is arguably more popular in the mainstream than the comic book, and is still popular even in reruns. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments:
In case they don't vote again, someone should count the votes from the previous poll that was up for a full week. Darquis 20:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that the cartoon is treated as some obscure alternate, on the talk page I said that the ongoing nature of the comic, the comic's decades of history and the cancellation of the cartoon were the reasons; I figured with the request not being in the controversial section, someone would come to the talk page and see the more detailed discussion, where there was no controversy. Darquis 16:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The cancellation of the cartoon, age of the comic, and longevity of the comic have absolutely nothing to do with notability or notoriety or popularity. Like I just said, Teen Titans is far more popular in the mainstream than the comic is, even while cancelled. It has presence in "The Batman" as well. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It has not been demonstrated that the comic book series is the primary meaning of the term Teen Titans. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. As a corollary, Teen Titans (disambiguation) will be moved to fill the gap at Teen Titans. We do not count opinions from previous discussions, because consensus can change, and in this case the two requests are not comparable anyway. --Stemonitis 11:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Titans1999.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Titans1999.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I think its fairly obvious what the fair use justifications are for this image.. these picture removal bots should really develop a "common sense" parameter. (Spanneraol 00:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)).

Membership - Blue Beetle[edit]

  • We really should not add Blue Beetle (or Supergirl) for that matter as Titans members until/if they actualy join the team. Issue #50 is not out yet and all we have is speculation from the fan press. McKeever's Newsarama interview does seem to state that Supergirl is going to join, but my reading of it is that Beetle is just a guest star in the issue not a member.. We really should wait till the issue comes out to find out. Spanneraol 00:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • fair enough. Teen Titan 17 August 2007

Actually, Blue Beetle is shown in promotional art for issues 52 and 53. So maybe it should be put in. Andraxx 22:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

      • I'd still like to wait till he actualy joins in the comics.. promo art can be misleading Spanneraol 23:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Supergirl was officially invited and agreed to join the team in Supergirl v.5 #22. Brian Kurtz 10:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Blue Beetle has so far not become an official member.--Marhawkman 00:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Movie[edit]

I'd like to point out that the link for the cite on a Teen Titans movie no longer works. 76.14.29.174 03:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Blue Beetle Pic[edit]

Hey, the current main pic for the page is awesome, but since it does feature the blue beetle I think he should be included in the roster.Supergrimm (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Supergrimm

He should not be included on the roster until he actually joins the team. As of the latest issue, he is still "just visiting." Spanneraol (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Annoying, but until he officially joins.....--Marhawkman (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Article Overhaul?[edit]

With the impending release of the new Titans series, starring the characters more traditionally associated with the team, it seems obvious that some changes will have to be made to the article. Do the Titans deserve their own navigation box, independent of the Justice League one? If not, how will the article juggle the two books? It would certainly help with organization. A new box connecting a string of articles, similar to the layout of the X-Men article group. As a stopgap measure I propose that we change the superteam box to reflect the new book's cast, and move the article to back to Titans (comics). --Blckng (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've said it before, I'll say it again. I think that there need to be pages based on the various titles. This page would be a summary of the team(s) in book-history with main links to the various titles.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I would agree. Right now this article gives short mentions of the previous series and almost an issue by issue summary of the current one... seems unbalanaced. Spanneraol (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that any restructure would address balance. Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Move/Restructure?[edit]

I tried bringing this up before, but didn't get the response I was looking for. With the release of the new Titans book, the article needs to be fixed more than ever. I'd like to move the article back to Titans (comics), and create pages for the various books currently being published. But article moves within the Comics WikiProject tend to create a lot of dead links, and I'm sure I wouldn't be able to get them all by myself. Anyone else interested in fixing this up? Blckng (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Move[edit]

The page is now protected from being moved, so as to (hopefully) foster further discussion. - jc37 22:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I moved the article, because I saw no discussion about it besides a very old one that resulted in no consensus. The move was made on the reasoning that people would be more likely to search for the comic, but why is that so? The cartoon was very well-known, was well-received, and had a ton of merchandising; it was one of CN's biggest original shows while it aired. No one's saying that people would search for the cartoon more (it may be true, but no one can establish this), but the comic is definitely not searched much more than the cartoon, if it is. The cartoon is far more mainstream, so it is fairly unlikely that the discrepancy is very significant.

I'm not going to accuse anyone of favoritism, but you've gotta accept that both are very popular, and it's too difficult to judge which is more popular. No one's getting the short-end of the stick, they're on equal ground. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I propose it be speedily moved back to Teen Titans (comic). The people who supported moving it to the main article were open to a discussion, until the discussions didn't go in their favor. At that point, the article was moved back in spite of that fact. Supporters of Teen Titans (comic) for this article's title followed conventions of naming disputes, we shouldn't have to do it again, the opposers of (comic) should have to. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the main article should point to the comic, as it's the source. Should the Lords of the Rings page direct to the movie, as more people are currently familiar with that particular iteration? Consensus is important, but not to the point where we hold source material equal to or secondary to the derivative works.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
If the cartoon can be suggested to be far more well-known, then that fact is irrelevant. I can suggest it by simple logic - Teen Titans, the animated series, was featured on the biggest cartoon network in America for many years, and was far more accessible by the public than comics. The odds that a viewer of the cartoon know of the comic are slimmer than the odds that a reader of the comics would know of the cartoon. And Googlehits clearly show that the cartoon is more searched - heck, the Wikipedia article for the cartoon is more searched than the article for the comic book.
Regardless of what is right, the only right is that the article should be moved back to where it was, and then you and others can propose it. If consensus sways your way, then I'm fine with it. However, it is not fair to demand of the people who "won" the previous discussion to get the short end of the stick in spite of that. In order to move an article, a significant consensus much be reached. There was no consensus to move it to Teen Titans, but it was moved anyway. We had to discuss it then, so why do you get to do this without discussing it with anyone involved? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but... when exactly did I move it? You brought up the discussion and I responded. When this was brought up previously, I responded then as well. Please don't assign the actions of others to me.
Again: Regardless of what is popular today, the comic is the original source (and the only active version). Various spin-off material is available, and this derivative cartoon is one facet. A link at the top of the article should be sufficient to redirect any confused people searching for information on either version of the cartoon.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
If you support the move to Teen Titans that was made without discussion, then it doesn't matter that you didn't do it, you support it. If you disagree with it, you must also agree with moving it back so that a discussion can be held.
The motives for this move are to give preference to the comic, not to help the reader. Help the reader go to the comics article, perhaps. At what point is it not convenient for someone looking for the comic article to go to it through a disambig? I've established that the cartoon is more searched on Wikipedia and Google, which clearly establishes that giving preference to the comic is not in the best interest of the reader, and naming conventions are there for accuracy and convenience. It's not inaccurate to not give preference to one or the other, so you can't argue accuracy. And it's not convenient to give the less popular entry preference, so you can't argue convenience. I don't think there's any guideline that says that the original inspiration for something must be given preference, so what guideline are you invoking? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Where did I ever give support to moving without discussion? You opened a discussion and I responded. Otherwise, I doubt I would have ever commented or participated in any way. I don't believe a consensus should override obvious common sense. But I never once bypassed or supported bypassing consensus in this instance. You've been showing a bias against those opposed to your perspective since before I joined the conversation, as seen clearly her: "The people who supported moving it to the main article were open to a discussion, until the discussions didn't go in their favor."
One person moved this article. Not "the people who supported moving it". As on of the supporters of the move who was open to discussion, guess why I find your statement objectionable?
As for the rest: Examples that spring to mind are the Batman, Spider-Man, Superman, X-men pages. All of these have experienced significantly wider exposure in film. Yet the pages direct to the comics history.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. People blocked my move, which was made despite consensus against it. There's an active attempt to prevent it from being moved back to what it was before the consensus-less move.
  2. Common sense? Google hits are common sense, Wikipedia traffic are common sense. Bias is not. Common sense isn't a guideline. You can't just say "common sense says that we should do this!" The only thing that matters are guidelines and policies. I've established that the reader isn't helped by giving preference to the lesser-known subject.
  3. And in every single case you provided, it was about the character (or team in X-Men's case), and even if they weren't, they're some of the biggest comic books ever created, leagues ahead of Teen Titans. But that's irrelevant. You can't cite precedence. If there's a guideline that supports this target, show me. If not, then the move is invalid. Naming conventions do not support it whatsoever. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. Don't care. Wasn't me. Please try to understand that and respond accordingly.
  2. You might have something there if I had based any actual action on an appeal to common sense. But guess what? I didn't. As the "common sense" argument was not the sole foundation or justification for my position, but instead just a quick explanation for my personal opinions, your objection is irrelevant.
  3. You're actually claiming in one sentence that my examples are all single character driven except when they are not? That's obviously a pointless objection. Furthermore, your appeal to popularity fails as the Teen Titans has been, at two different points in time, one of the most popular and influential comic books published. Do you seriously not know this? If you're that unfamiliar with the history and popularity of the comic, perhaps you should stay out of the conversation. Anyway, here's another example that is quite fitting. The Justice League. Probably now better known as a cartoon, but check out the page.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've asked SO many times what guideline supports the article being at Teen Titans, and you've never provided one single one. The only reason why you have precedence is that the comics have a larger fan base. Wikipedia, however, is NOT made for fans, it's made for READERS. It's designed to be convenient to the readers. Your suggestion helps fans, and at no point helps the readers. Both Wikipedia traffic and Google searches indicate people go to the animated series' page over the comics page, meaning that if either of them deserve the spot, it's the cartoon. However, neither needs it. Both are on a similar level of popularity. Age is not a criteria to move an article. Convenience and accuracy. Putting the comic under Teen Titans (comic) is not inaccurate, and convenience is in favor of the move.

Regardless, you never provided a reason why the move to "Teen Titans" shouldn't have to be discussed. You can bring up your arguments in discussion - however, you can't just say it's common sense and demand that the people opposing you have the burden. We "won" the first time, it's your turn to "win" the discussion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And again you assign a multitude of arguments to me that I did not forward. I never claimed that the comic was more popular than the cartoon. Quote me saying that. Go ahead. I never claimed that any move should not be discussed. Not once. In fact, I have stated the opposite. Over and over again, you assign opinions and arguments to me that I do not hold, all the while failing to address the relevant arguments that I have advanced. Regardless of popularity (popularity being your argument, not mine) we have a decades old comic series versus a few years of a cartoon. A cartoon that often adapted storylines from the comic. We have a precedent within many similar Wikipedia pages. So, in case you have somehow failed to notice (yet again), I AM bringing up my arguments and I have hardly limited my opinion to "common sense'. Either take the time to actually read and address my posts appropriately, or go find someone else's time to waste.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) $1.98 worth...

  • Naming conventions — (see WP:COMMONNAMES and WP:NCC) The nutshells are that 1) the article title should be the most likely term used to search for that specific topic, 2) if the subject isn't the most likely search, then the title gets a dab "suffix" and is noted either in a tophat or on a (disambiguation) page, 3) if two or more articles equally likely to be the target of a search, both/all get a "suffix" and a plain titled dab page is used.
  • Preferred dab "suffixes" — Within WikiProject Comics, and specifically related to this article the following "suffixes" would be preferred: (comics), (DC Comics), and (comic book). Of those (comics) is of the level or precision needed, if a "suffix" is needed at all.
  • Half measures — If this article is moved as "one of two or more equally likely targets of a search", then the move should be done in full. This means that those moving the article follow through on cleaning up the links to "Teen Titans" that refer to the comics subject and set up the plainly titled dab page. This is common courtesy, you move it, you make sure it hasn't created a mess.

Right now, there is a better chance that the topic "Teen Titans" will be used to search for is this one than either television incarnation or the video game. And to be honest, a move that leave the plain title redirecting to the comics article supports that premise.

Nice arguments have been put forward that the recent TV show is more prevalent and as such makes it questionable that the the comics would be the major target. And just as nice arguments have been put forward that the primary source is by definition the most likely. Frankly, I'm more swayed by the later and the lack of other popular/successful adaptations of comics properties to cause (comics) to be added to those article titles.

- J Greb (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've already established that the cartoon gets more traffic than the comic on Wikipedia.
This situation falls exactly under "no clear advantage to either subject". You point this fact out, so I don't see how you can deny this.
And at what point have I ever said "I will not fix the links"? You seem to have assumed that no one is going to do this based on me not immediately fixing the links the very moment I made the move. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
As I've said: Nice arguments have been presented. I find the one you put forward falls short.
What I've pointed out is that the bone of contention is is a search for "Teen Titans" most likely to be for this article or just a likely to be wither this one or the article on the television show. Pressure on that specific point runs both ways , so other points do come into play. Such as "Which, the comics or the show, is a sub topic of the other?"
Now, would you care to point to where you are finding the "no clear advantage..." quote? It certainly isn't from me, nor has it been used before in this talk page. I also cannot find the phrase in WP:COMMONNAMES, WP:NAME, WP:NCON, WP:PRECISION, WP:DAB, or WP:NCC. By the way WD:DAB does have an interesting point related to this entire situation at WP:PRIMARYUSAGE.
As for fixing links, based on how you moved this page — no attempt to recreate the dab and no attempt to move links that pointed at the redirect you created in preparation of making it a dab — and you comments here, you left the impression that you have no interest or intent in following through on what is entailed with moving this page. - J Greb (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
"I've fixed a few misdirected links in my time." = "I won't fix links." now? Interesting.
Fine, how about any advantage whatsoever? The comic cannot be established to have any.
And regardless, my point still stands that nothing argued by your side establishes that moving to Teen Titans in the first place is worth it. However, your side should have to argue why it should be at Teen Titans, not vice versa. None of your guidelines indicate at all that the comic needs the main article, especially in light of the fact that people look up the cartoon than the comic. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake to treat the animated series as bigger than the comic in a numerical sense. I will agree that the series has more current popularity than the comic, but we're talking here about the comic that was DC's biggest property in the 80s. It has generations of readers who read it and moved on - the animated series is, by its nature, a bit more ephemeral having only actively come out for a few years, and, while on the US's largest animated network, we're still talking about a cable network - we're not talking CSI numbers here. I think it's hard to make the case that one is more popular overall than the other.

Given that, and given the issues of priority, with the comic clearly being the source of the franchise, I am hard pressed to see why the article should be moved. Certainly, at present, the X-Men movies surpass sales of any of the X-Men comics in popularity. A Google search has the movies as the top hit for "X-Men." But I do not think that a proposal to move the pages so that the movie was the main page would survive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not about what deserves the main article spot. It's about convenience. Keeping this here helps fans, moving it to a disambig page helps readers. Wikipedia is made for readers first, fans last. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Phil Sandifer and J Greb (in particular) have it right: the TV series is recent and transient. "Teen Titans" is a changing team that has featured in dozens of comics for over 40 years. The "Teen Titans" team was created for the comics. They had a TV show 30 years before the more recent (and, currently, arguably, 'better known') series. (And that series actually followed the comics' characterisation to a considerable degree...)
However, I suggest that this debate over which is better known is an utterly irrelevent side-issue. The TEEN TITANS page should not, and does not refer to the comic or the cartoon. It refers to the TEAM. As such, it provides a rundown and (once they all have their own pages) links to the separate articles: Teen Titans (comic book) (60s series, and either also the other titles of the same name, of disambiguated links to them), New Teen Titans, Team Titans and The Titans, etc. It also should - and does - mention the filmation cartoons and the anime-ted series, with links.
The page links to the animated TV series at the top of the page, and that is all well and good, since (probably) that is often what people will be looking for. However, that people (might) think that that is the only use of the "Teen Titans" name should not influence the reality: Teen Titans refers to the team featured in all the incarnations.
I am going to 'fix' the Titans (comics) link however, since that should not re-direct to this page, but should disambiguate and list the different comics featuring the team(s). Including that based on the animation Teen Titans Go! and the more recent Tiny Titans, etc.
This should not persist - there is no argument: again, Teen Titans refers first and foremost to the team, not any particularl iteration using that name. ntnon (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Just because you WANT this article to be the team, doesn't mean it is. If it wasn't about the comics, it would direct the reader to an article about them if they were looking for them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. The animated cartoon wouldn't exist or have a title, were it not for the team. As many people have said (Emperor most recently) Lord of the Rings is the example here: "Teen Titans" refers first and foremost to the team, and has done for upwards of 40 years. Indeed, the page should be overhauled to reflect that, and the individual comics pared back and split off onto their separate pages, where appropriate. See Teen Titans (comics). ntnon (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with the main article being about the team. However, this article is almost completely about the Titans in the comic, with very little content related to the animated series.
Also, being the inspiration doesn't mean that it has to be the main article. That's an argument, but ultimately, convenience is the most important factor. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
As there are decades of comics versus a few years of cartoon, any article on the team is likely to skew in the direction of the comic. That's where the bulk of information can be found. In fact, a vast majority of the information forwarded in the cartoon is derived from the comic. Subsequently, there is very little original material in the cartoon requiring inclusion. It's largely an adaptation of pre-existing material.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact that the cartoon has almost absolutely no mention. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It's well enough covered in "other media" and the link in the opening sentence. What particular information original to the cartoon deserves mention that is omitted?Theplanetsaturn (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed - the cartoon does have it's own page... (Moreover, most of the comics as yet do not. Hence a possibility that there's additional skewing of focus - which I don't think there is - until the comics can be hived off as per Teen Titans (comics).) ntnon (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
As long as the article isn't so absolutely, predominantly dominated by comic content, I don't care. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's see... The cartoon has it's own page. A link exists in the opening sentence to said page. A section of the page covers "other media" which obviously includes the cartoon. Though popular, the cartoon IS canceled and only lasted a few years. Multiple cartoons adaptations exist. The comic has been published for decades and is the genesis for the bulk of material found in the cartoon, and so far the consensus within this discussion stands solidly against you. So what point is there in continuing to debate this?Theplanetsaturn (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Its cancellation was not the result of "reduced popularity". This was stated by one of the creators.
But tell me, if this is an article about the team, then at what point should the cartoon get little mention because an article exists, as if when the comics page comes up, it'll be a different situation. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Who said anything about the cartoon suffering "reduced popularity"? Who are you quoting? As for the rest, it's a bit difficult to parse your meaning. All I can really say (again) is that the bulk of encyclopedic information on the team is derived from the comic, not the cartoon. The comic is the primary source for most information on the team, and as the cartoon is canceled and their are currently three separate Titans related comics, this is unlikely to change.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

BREAK

We do have articles based on comics that have the spin-off as the main article but that is where it is overwhelmingly more likely to be the search term (see for example Road to Perdition) and one key thing is that quite a few people seeing the film won't even have realised it was based on a comic. That is the exception though, the situation here is very different as it is a major and long running title and has been said spikes in traffic are transient (do we move it back when the traffic drops off? We have to plan for the longer term). The Lord of the Rings example is a good one, and no one would suggest moving the Harry Potter books because the films are so popular. (Emperor (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC))
Since there's still a little contention, despite analogies such as those above...
  1. Unless there are strong objections (or someone gets to it first) I'll try and head through and make this a little more about the teams than the comics. (Hive off the comics titles to their own pages and leave links and short synopses, most likely.)
  2. I am curious - and slightly bemused - though, about why A Link to the Past is so keen that there be little comics-content on a page about a team created for comics, that have appeared in comics for forty years, and then produced a spin-off TV series featuring said comics characters. It would be impossible not to mention the comics, so that's a non-issue. Moreover, there have been comics for forty years. The animated cartoon ran for less than three. The cartoon in question is one incarnation; the comics have had at least seven main incarnations/teams. So it's 42+ years vs. 3 years; 1 vs. 7++ incarnations. To actively promote the TV series, as you seem to desire, would be absolutely wrong. (As would not mentioning it at all, of course.) A sensible median should clearly be found - but it will not sideline the comics, which have the weight of primacy, age, longevity, survival and numbers in their considerable favour. ntnon (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious, too, as to how "this article doesn't cover the Titans in the cartoon enough" means "this article should cover the comics less". The animated Titans are a legitimate team and should be covered. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
And they are.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
If that's coverage, then I'd hate to see what it'd be like to be overlooked. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll ask you again: What particular information original to the cartoon deserves mention that is omitted? You've been going after this with nothing more than a generic argument that the cartoon is not getting equal treatment. So what specifically is lacking?Theplanetsaturn (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I have to voice my strong objections to splitting off the comics to a new article. The animated series has its own full entry which deals with that topic. This is about the comic book and team and the two are intertwined as the DC animated universe need not correspond with the comic book one (which is why we have separate articles) and you can often get DCAU comic books based on the series (which are within that universe and, therefore, have a similar history). It'd be a mistake to make this a mish-mash of the two. For example, no one asks for equal treatment for the Batman cartoons on the main entry and mixing the two would be strongly rebuffed. (Emperor (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

Teen Titans should be about the comics and the team. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Restructure.[edit]

I'd like to suggest that this page be editted to reflect the various incarnation of the team and that spin-off pages be created to focus on the various comics (Teen) Titans comics that have existed. Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is/should be about the (many and various) Teen Titans teams, and should then equally link to Teen Titans (comics) (which lists the different comics titles, and then just needs the "main" pages for each to be given their own page/section of a page, largely - initially - from the information currently here), the TV series (and Filmation precursor), better mention of the videogames, and then a potential section for the allegedly-up-coming film. ntnon (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I know this article is lengthy, but if you are suggesting that each incarnation of the team needs its own page, I disagree. At that point you are just creating small articles or inviting extended plot summaries. Assuming that each section of the current article represents an appropriate amount of information on each "team," I see few areas needing to be split out like Team Titans is. The threshold for that should be that it achieves some improvement, meaning a particular section makes the main article unwieldy and should thus be split out, or a section "needs" expansion that would negatively impact the rest of this article. I'm just afraid we're going to end up with an article on Teen Titans Spotlight On, LOL. — TAnthonyTalk 02:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this would be a bad idea - the team and the comics go together, you can't tease them apart without massively replicating the information and having two confusing and half-formed articles. (Emperor (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC))
I agree that this is not the way to go. The history of the team is almost exclusively the province of the comic series, and exists as a mostly unbroken chronological sequence. Creating sub categories seems unnecessary.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The "Superman" title, "Superman: The Man of Steel" and "Adventures of Superman" articles don't replicate the Superman titles. You can talk about the different comic titles without talking going into depth about the history. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the various teams be split off. Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Um, in your original comment above you suggested that "spin-off pages be created to focus on the various comics (Teen) Titans comics that have existed." Are we misunderstanding? If you have specific ideas which areas you think need to be expanded, clarified or split off I'm sure everyone can agree on a course of action. — TAnthonyTalk 04:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Teen Titans (DC comic), The Titans, The New Teen Titans, etc, would be snubs (at least initially) that talk about the various comics, without talking too much about the contents. This, the team page, would focus on incarnations of the team and their history, while referring to the various comics that the teams appear in it would be about the teams (much as you can refer to the first appearance in B&B without duplicating the B&B title here.) As to the Teen Titans Spotlight On, or any of the various specials with the Teen Titans name, of course they won't get their own article, and if they do people will CFD WP:NOT them out of existence. Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required[edit]

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. It needs more references and I also think it needs a bit more "flesh" on it - the PH is "this happened then this happened" but what I'd want to see is why the changes. Unfortunately when this is included (like the "New Teen Titans and the Uncanny X-Men" section) it is unreferenced. So it needs more references but it also needs a bit more on the "why" not just the when. (Emperor (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

Main image[edit]

Seems someone removed the previous one [1] (presumably swapping it with one that got deleted) but that image is still there. I'd argue against replacing it with the very latest line-up and would suggest putting back the previous one for the time being. Personally, as we should go for the classic line-up, I think we should probably go for one of the New Teen Titans line-up, like File:NewTeenTitansVol2-001.png.

Also there seem to be far too many images on the page than can be justified by fair use - any suggestions on which can be removed? (Emperor (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

(sigh)
I'm really, really tires of the "New, new, new, not published yet but NEW team roster/character" images.
It almost looks like the 69 cover image was never uploaded. This is it at DC's site.
My 2¢:
  • Convert the main infobox to {{Infobox comics team and title}}, Primary focus on the team.
  • Limit the primary image in the 'box to the current team - the one pictured in the art for the 2009 Annual isn't set to appear until March (May cover date).
  • Strip out the "To be added" characters from the roster in the 'box - Even if they have been confirmed by DC. That is fodder for the text of the article, but they are not currently characters on the team.
  • Since the combined 'box allows for a secondary image for the comic book volumes, add the cover of Teen Titans vol. 1, #1 to that section of the ;box. Limit it to this as it is the first of the teams self-titled books.
  • Remove the secondary infoboxes - All of them. With the publication history, some of the covers can be used a supporting elements for the relaunches, name changes, and expansions to the "Titans Family" of books.
  • Review the images used in the article and reduce it. We can skirt WP:NFCC#3 by using some of the covers that also highlight the initial rosters for the runs. Beyond that, having multiple art-only roster images bucks policy and the guidelines for fair use. As for images currently in the article that can be lost:
  • Additional though on the team roster - Since there is List of Teen Titans members, there really shouldn't be a "Members" section, just the "Roster" one.
- J Greb (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh... and on a side note - I've reverted the "yet to be published" image.
I'd also submit that there may be a need to do one of 2 things:
  • If the primary for the infobox stay the team, tag the primary image with a note that changing it needs consensus, even if the roster has changed. (I'd argue this needs to be done across the board with the team articles.) Or,
  • Restructure the article so that the primary focus of the lead and the infobox is the comics, the real world item, not the team. That would limit the infobox to the initial cover.
- J Greb (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, looks like I just removed some of these very images as you were writing this, LOL. I didn't know about the 1967 cover; I merely uploaded a cleaner version to replace another one. But I do think the article should have some image of the original team.— TAnthonyTalk 06:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


what —Preceding unsigned comment added by Universal55 (talkcontribs) 23:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

there are many rumors  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.171.161 (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 

Team Portrait?[edit]

The team pic at the top of the article seems a bit outdated now, as Robin, Ravager, and Kid Devil are gone from the team. This pic here more closely resembles the current lineup. Can someone make it the new pic at the top of the article? http://www.titanstower.com/monitor/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/TT_Cv85.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamalfreeman (talkcontribs) 21:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, the image is from a solict for issue #85 of the current series. It shows every member of the current team save for Raven and Blue Beetle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamalfreeman (talkcontribs) 21:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Does anybody know where can I read this online? Thanks!--94.64.86.151 (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

list of members[edit]

there should be a list of teen titans members. categorized by timeline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.75.209 (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

See List of Teen Titans members - J Greb (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Teen Titans Picture[edit]

If someone with the proper authority could please put up this picture, the cover of Teen Titans #88 (http://www.dccomics.com/media/product/1/5/15721_400x600.jpg), which actually reflects the current lineup and the current creative team, that would be great. The current picture is over three years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtofWar11 (talkcontribs) 18:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

To be frank, no.
And to be even more frank, this has just about hit "No infobox image is appropriate".
The idea of the infobox image is to use an image of the most recognized representation of the topic. Not change it for each line up alteration. With the Teen Titans "the most recognized representation" would be a toss up between the "clasic" five, the Wolfman/Perez "new" Teen Titans, or Johns' reboot. And with those there is a very good argument to not use an infobox image but use spot images as appropriate and as allowed by NFC policy.
- J Greb (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, if the longstanding rationale that hasn't harmed the integrity of the article is to use the current lineup, then why change it? Apply your logic to every other team article on Wikipedia and then feel free to defend your position all you like. --CmdrClow (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
So... All of them have to change to bring them in line in stead of stopping the process here. Or is it a case of "Start somewhere else then come here last"?
And here is something to chew on: The covers of the various series provide two points of information: One is the identification of the publication in conjunction with the discussion. The other is to provide a cast image. The fist bit of information prevents all but one from being removed out of hand as an over use of images as an extension of WP:NFLISTS. And yes - showing the cast/members is a list function.
Side note: While the current lead is too long, hacking it to
"The Teen Titans, also known as The New Teen Titans, New Titans, or The Titans, is a DC Comics superhero team. As the group's name suggests, its membership is usually composed of teenaged superheroes."
Results in a lead that is short enough to get tagged with {{Lead too short}}.
- J Greb (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
[2]? that image is cool. Ganthet2814 (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the image at the top of the page should either be the best representation of the current line-up or it should be a generic picture of a large group of actual Teen Titans comics. Having a picture of the team from the 1980's is silly and not representative of what the book is now. Planeis (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Clean-Up[edit]

Just an FYI, I fixed the Teen Titans: Go! section header. The formatting was showing "Bold Text" there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachwulf (talkcontribs) 15:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Titans and Teen Titans[edit]

Just a suggestion but the page is getting too long and kinda messy. I think it would make more sense to create a new page for the grown up version of the Teen Titans - the Titans. There is more than enough material to create a new page for them.--2A02:8108:1440:2870:1845:E0D2:E07A:CA30 (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

teen titens[edit]

Kid flash is not on the team because robin thinks that Kid flash is a one trick pony

Cool boyz (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed section[edit]

I've removed the video game section after having warned folks and waiting for over a week for material to start getting cited, as it was entirely uncited. When it gets cited, we can start adding bits back in. Not before.
Removed material:

  • Artificial Mind and Movement developed two Teen Titans games based on the 2003 animated series. The first game was released on the Game Boy Advance platform in 2005, and the second Teen Titans game was released in 2006 for the PlayStation 2, Xbox and GameCube.
  • The Teen Titans appear in DC Universe Online.
  • Teen Titans members Nightwing (Dick Grayson), Raven and Cyborg are playable in Injustice: Gods Among Us. In Green Lantern's chapter, they are referenced by the alternate Cyborg and Raven as they torture the alternate Deathstroke where it was mentioned that most of their fellow Teen Titans members died in Metropolis five years earlier. It is also revealed that Damian Wayne was responsible for Dick Grayson's death and that he eventually became this universe's Nightwing. In the comic book tie-in, it is revealed to be Beast Boy and Kid Flash, while Superboy, Starfire, Wonder Girl and Red Robin are put into the Phantom Zone by Superman. There is also a DLC including alternate skins for Cyborg, Raven, and Deathstroke available that are based on their designs for their first appearances in the Teen Titans comic series. In Deathstroke's ending, a clan of assassins formed by him is named after the New Titans.
  • In Injustice 2 Cyborg is a playable character, Nightwing's staff is playable as a variation of Robin, and Starfire was added as a DLC character. Cyborg mentions in the story mode that he joined Superman's regime to avenge the deaths of Beast Boy and Starfire in Metropolis (even though the latter didn't die in Metropolis in the comic tie-in). In Cyborg's ending, he uses his powers to bring back the missing Titans members (Superboy, Starfire, Wonder Girl, and Red Robin) to aid him in restoring the thousands of worlds Brainiac stole. In Starfire's ending, she is the last of the original Titans as Dick Grayson and Beast Boy were killed prior to the first game while Cyborg and Raven have joined the Regime. To overcome her losses, she forms a new team of Titans with Blue Beetle, Firestorm, and Supergirl.

- Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)