Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (comics)/Proposals/Disambiguation

Comments

Any comments, thoughts, etc. would be welcome. - Jc37 13:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is helpful for those coming here to read the existing guidelines to compare them to this proposal: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics). Also, JC, I would recommend wikilinking all of the relevant existing examples in your proposals, i.e. Clark Kent and Superman. --SevereTireDamage 23:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added reference, thank you. This was originally going to be a post on that page's talk page. I'm avoiding wikilinking in this proposal for several reasons. First, I want the references to be easily noticed (imo, too much blue is not a good idea), and second, because many of the examples exist under less clear names (too much red is also not a good idea, imo).

Will all of these be real articles?

JC, it's not clear to me that there is consensus about whether these articles are needed. Are you suggesting that every different comic book publication have its own article, distinct from the article about its subject? I realize that this has become semistandard policy with certain books (e.g. X-Men and Uncanny X-Men [which I totally agree should be The Uncanny X-Men because it's the title] distinct from X-men), but I hesitate to assume that Generation X -- or, as an extreme example, the Adolescent Radioactive Black Belt Hamsters -- need separate articles for the team and for the comic. Who makes that call? -leigh (φθόγγος) 23:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In writing this, I'm more interested in what to do once that decision is made, than in the process of making that decision (Be Bold, concensus, or whatever). Wikipedia already has such processes in place.

What did you think of the rest? - Jc37 00:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough

I think I can support all of these. The one that troubles me is the heroic and secret identity disambig idea, but I like the proposals.

I'd go further and suggest we need to adopt a convention for creators too, some people are listed as cartoonists, but that doesn't cut it for writers, editors and so on and so forth. Hiding Talk 19:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For creators I would perhaps suggest comics artist, cartoonist, comics writer, comics editor. Thoughts? I can see a case for simply artist, writer and editor, but that may lead to confusion, I'm not sure. Hiding Talk 19:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it depends on the artist, writer, and editor. Many have become writers of film scripts, TV scripts (including, but not exclusively cartoons). - Jc37 22:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, it might be best to guide the use of writer, artist, editor and publisher, and add comics before it when further disambiguation is needed. Cartoonist might be better used for those people one would categorise as a cartoonist, if you see what I mean. Hiding Talk 23:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the more general (comics) is better, especially since so many people wear so many hats in the field. A person who worked in mewspaper comics might move to comic books, an editor can often be a writer, an inker might also be a letterer, and so on. If it gets to the point where a person has become known for far more than their work in the comics field, then a (comics ____ ) disambiguation won't make sense at that point, anyway. Of course, if you're someone who only works in one field, like Todd Klein, a single occupation is reasonable.

"(comics)" should be saved for comics characters. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only time this convention might be an issue is if there are two people in comics who have different jobs, and they don't have different first name spellings, middle names or initials. --SevereTireDamage 23:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and honestly, Julius Schwartz should be listed under that, not Julius Schwartz (editor), or Julius Schwartz (comics). If we have to dab, then I would presume it would be as you mentioned. - Jc37 02:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

1.) Regarding the use of The: it doesn't make sense to necessarily wiki-standardize this, it's really up to the books and characters. To take your example, Sandman is almost always referred to as the Sandman. Someone like Batman was once referred to as The Batman (and it's now used in that TV series, but in most cases the "the" is dropped.

Actually, no. That standard is pulled directly from examples at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name)#When definite and indefinite articles should be avoided. (Note the example of Joker, rather than The Joker.) - Jc37 02:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2.) Publications: it's too ambiguous. Comic strips, comic books, and novels often appear for the same character with the same name. The current guideline says to use (comic strip) and (comic book), I think it's fine.

a.) How is it ambiguous? b.)This proposal isn't discussing comic strips.- Jc37 02:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3.) As far as things like X-Men (vol. 2) goes, I think we should stay with the current (if vague, then specify) reasoning. Since only Marvel Comics publishes books called X-Men, no need to stick in the publisher. Are they any cases right now where multiple publishers publish a book with the same title, and then make separate volumes? For instance, it would be true if the various Captain Marvel pages had sub-pages for the different volumes by DC and Marvel, to propose an example, Captain Marvel (Marvel Comics, vol. 3).

Remember that this section is specifically about disambiguation. You don't need (vol. 1) added to every single volume comic book series. Each of those examples are for what to do if, and only if, the situation calls for it. - Jc37 02:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Identity: I don't really agree with this. Doesn't it make sense to just keep things on a minimal number of pages? (1 for identity, 1 for the hero) For instance, one for all the Spectres, all the Green Lanterns, but keep Hal Jordan and Crispus Allen's pages to themselves, don't turn them into DAB pages. No need to mark them as the hero they (currently) are. Heroes that go through identity changes or have multiple avatars tend to be known as their SIDs anyway (Jean Grey, Guy Gardner, John Stewart, borderline cases like Spider-Woman (Jessica Drew)) - I'm not entirely sure Wesley Dodds should be found at Sandman (Wesley Dodds). --SevereTireDamage 00:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These were examples. To show how to disambiguate when splitting articles that are too large (such as the reduce request on Hal Jordan).

Key sentence:"I suggest that we go to that standard anytime there is more than one character of the primary name."

So if we have a page on Dan Garrett's Blue Beetle, and another for Ted Kord, Then each page should be named: Blue Beetle (Dan Garrett); Blue Beetle (Ted Kord). THis also has the rather huge benefit of clarity. Especially when you consider that some comic book characters (such as the Blue Beetle) have had more than one publisher.

And we do "need to mark them the hero they currently are".

Wikipedia:Naming conflict-"A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:

Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)
Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)"

So the: commonly used, current, name, that presumably the subject uses to refer themself. - Jc37 02:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--- And thank you (plural) for your thoughts so far. I'm seeing several places that obviously need clarifying. - Jc37 02:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

I don't know if its really neccessary to go to the extent you are suggesting when it comes to individual entries. I don't really see the need for a Spectre (Jim Corrigan), Spectre (Hal Jordan) and Spectre (Crispus Allen). In the case of Jordan it realy seems like overkill to have an article for each identity. Especially since his version of the spectre already appears in Hal Jordan and Spectre (comics) -- the same could said for his other identities. Stephen Day 23:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is length and readbility. If a character, such as Hal Jordan, has a name change, often that means a fair amount of history will be associated as well. This means that we will either have a rather long article, or many focused ones. Both Spectre (comics) and Hal Jordan need better focus (as noted: reduce request on Hal Jordan and note that Crispus Allen already exists, separate from the main Spectre article.)

If someone with no knowledge of comics, buys a comic that has the Spectre in it, and wants to search for that character on Wikipedia, they could enter Spectre in the search box, and that should give them a dab page with all the spectre characters. From there, it's one click to what they want. Scrolling and page length is minimized. (All of which are some of the many reasons why there are disambiguation pages on Wikipedia.)

My goal is for us to have one single standard for all articles to minimize confusion. (Which is what a "naming convention" is.)

Thank you for your response : ) - Jc37 00:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I have just one more point. There is a problem in what the main article page be called exactly in some cases. There isn't a problem with Green Lantern for example as there are no brackets after the name in that title. Spectre (comics) is something else on the other hand. Presumably Spectre (comics) would become the name of a dab page. Would the article currently at Spectre (comics) become Spectre (comics - main article)? It seems like an unwieldy title but everything else I can think of equals it at best.

Nod, Spectre (comics) to be the dab page. Most of what is currently on Spectre (comics) should probably be renamed as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics)/Proposals/Disambiguation#Heroic name vs Secret ID disambiguation between a name or a group name, and a publication]] - Spectre (publication) or, if necessary, something more specific.

Simply ending the title with (publication) will work in some cases but not in others. Sticking with Spectre (comics) as an example, that article wouldn't work with the title Spectre (publication) as the article itself contains information on many differnet titles published over many decades. I'm open to hearing arguments about how it woulf be an accurate name though. :-)

You answered your own question : )

All of those listed were/are publications. It's a publication history of the character. It includes the creation of the character by it's creators, and a synopsis of the various publications that the character appeared in. - Jc37 04:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. :-) Stephen Day 04:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that (publication) be used when it can, but when it isn't accurate use (comic book {something appropriate]) instead. Spectre comics would therefore become Spectre (comic book character). I know its not the simple solution one hopes for. The problem is that the comic book medium contains so many different things from so many genres, there may not be a one stop solution. Stephen Day 04:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should hopefully never see Spectre (comic book character). (I can't think of an example in which we would.) The Spectre (comics) disambiguation page would list all the different Spectre characters pages and publications pages. - Jc37 04:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying this shouldn't be done, I feel the opposite in fact, you've convinced me. :-) I do think it should be kept in mind that there are alot of comics related articles that have titles that end with something in brackets for diambiguation purposes. These could create problems with this course of action unless things start off with the solution already in place. Stephen Day 03:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. And that was why I decided to write this. I was about to start in on the "to do" list at the WikiProject, and realized that we are in dire need of consistant naming. And I don't want to start splitting articles until we've set a standard first. - Jc37 03:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um. The Spectre page should not become a seperate dab page, there was discussion on this at the dab project and they were clear that the only dab page should be spectre or spectre (dab). Spectre (comics) can be the main article which gives an overview of the sub-articles, but the feeling is that it shouldn't be a dab page. Is that what you mean when you say dab page? Otherwise Spectre comics should just redirect to Spectre or Spectre dab, the main dab page. Hiding Talk 19:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- On the Spectre dab page, under "In fiction", a section called "In comics" would work. - Jc37 19:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second thoughts

I think the guidance may be overly specific on a few points.

With heroic names, it would be possible to avoid this somewhat through using WP:SS, which would allow a series of articles to be built on characters such as Green Lantern, and thus allow less rigidity in the naming. We would be able to have articles named Hal Jordan as Green Lantern and Kyle Rayner as Green Lantern, and again, by building the Hal Jordan article as the main article of a series, we could have Hal Jordan as Green Lantern and Hal Jordan as Spectre.

Hall Jordan as Green Lantern vs Green Lantern (Hal Jordan). Sounds like we agree, just not on final form. (and I don't see anything preferring one approach over the other in WP:SS.) - Jc37 19:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With publications, I'm thinking of "several titles of the same name from the same publisher, X-men (pub. vol. 1), X-men (pub. vol. 2), etc. should work as a suggested standard." It would seem easier to just name the articles X-Men volume 1 and X-Men volume 2. That's in keeping with WP:NC, "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors" and WP:DAB, "it's usually better to rephrase the title to avoid parentheses". I think the specific issues these conventions are looking to tackle can be avoided through other routes, and not over-complicate for the reader with dab page after dab page. Hiding Talk 20:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in WP:DAB and didn't see the quote about parenthesis. I did find this however:

"If there is a choice between using a short phrase and word with context, there is no hard rule about which is preferred. Both may be created, with one redirecting to the other.

For example, Mathematical analysis and Analysis (mathematics)."

Which leaves us back to both being created, and no standard as to which should be the redirect : )

I prefer the parenthetical secret ID, since I believe that Green Lantern, or Spectre, or Sandman are all more commonly known than Hal Jordan, Jim Corrigan, or Wesley Dodds.

as for publications, I think we should differentiate in the name between a publication and a character or characters that the publication may be named after. It's the whole point of disambiguation in the first place : )

And finally: "I think the specific issues these conventions are looking to tackle can be avoided through other routes, and not over-complicate for the reader with dab page after dab page."

I don't see how a single disambiguation page click "overly-complicates". Let's say you want to read the article about the Green Lantern named Hal Jordan. You enter "Green Lantern" in the search box. It brings up the dab page. You click on the link you want: Green Lantern (Hal Jordan). And you're there. How is this any different than any other dab page set up? - Jc37 19:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My main fear here was that we'd have layers of dab pages, for example Spectre dab, which links to Spectre comics which is itself a dab page. As to the point about what WP:DAB says, it does state what I quoted it as stating, that bracketed phrases are to be discouraged, so I'm not sure where we go from here. It's the third point under specific topics, from memory. Like you say however, we see different solutions to the same problem. I agree with the publication phrase though, if that's any help. Hiding Talk 20:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see our discussion as a "tug of war" : )

Also, I wasn't doubting you... just couldn't find it, and found what I already listed. Can you give me more specific directions? (Apparently I keep overlooking it.)

So let's figure out what we agree on.

How about this: next time you're on, Hiding, edit the publishing part of proposal page, if you would, and let's see. - Jc37 22:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice : )

I like the idea of the "secret ID" used as an overview page.

Is it a bad thing to have "vol #" not inside parenthesis? Looked odd at first, even though (again) that would be how it is listed inside the comics themselves (that miniature text, typically at the bottom of the first page/splash page). I added a comma, to reflect this (and for clarity).

I removed the word "excessive", in order to hopefully lessen future contention between editors.

So as it stands right now, do you have any further issues with the proposal? - jc37 22:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a part of me that rages against standardisation, I'll say that. But I accept this is a really thorny problem. What I don't want to see is lame edit wars break out over this stuff, but on reflection, this is Wikipedia: you can't stop lame edit wars. I don't want to see any standard imposed, but I agree this is as good as any other standard. Regarding the vol in brackets, as I've said before, disambig phrases should be avoided where possible. Also, as you say, this is what they are called themselves, and to me it has the benefit of an encyclopedic quality about it. X-Men, volume 1 is also shorter than X-Men (vol 1 pub), which is also a plus. Cases like Sandman are certainly going to be a nightmare, so it makes sense to try and have a bash at it. It's a shame no-one else is up for the discussion. I'd leave it a couple of days, and if we get no further discussion, add them to WP:NCCom, Further discussion may well then ensue. :) Hiding Talk 15:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's been over a week. I'll go ahead and integrate it. - jc37 00:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. You might want to copy this discussion over to the talk page there too, keep it all on the same page. Hiding Talk 00:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved both talk and main to a sub-page, with a link from the talk page. - jc37 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Integration

A couple things.
1.) As I was integrating the text of the proposal into the naming conventions page, I realized that a combination of Hiding's suggested changes and the existing standard of publisher names seemed to remove the need for the "publication" disambiguation phrase.

2.) I reorganized the exmaples to "make more sense", considering the sub-section each was in. (several examples were "leftovers" from several previous editings of the proposal).

Comments are welcome : ) - jc37 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]