Talk:List of DC Comics publications (A–B)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this complete?[edit]

Hi, I'm just wondering: Is this a complete list?

125.24.95.234 (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gross Point[edit]

hey, i know they had some kinda Gross Point comic , but where is it!!!

This page is incomplete. Please add any information you have about Gross Point, T-zero-zero-C-zero-zero-L.
Duggy 1138 02:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Categorization and publishing years[edit]

I think this list needs to be organized by genre: superhero, war, western, horror, science-fiction, etc. I'm having a lot of difficulty finding information on DC Comic horror characters. --Chris Griswold 03:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the imprints need to be separated out. Either to their own individual pages or to a single catch-all page.
Comics-published-by-DC-by-Genre an interesting idea, but at this point I think that this main page is woefully incomplete, and thus the genre pages would be also.
Duggy 1138 02:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bold?[edit]

Why are some titles in bold? (Emperor 03:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Updates[edit]

I have been collecting DC comics for over 50 years, and have much of the missing information. I will slowly be updating this page over time. Please feel free to jump in and help. Jimtrue 01:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links in Comic Name.[edit]

My thinking, and I've been doing this rather randomly is that the links should only be to articles on the comic book, not the character/team/etc.

That is Superman series 1 should link to Superman (comic book) and not Superman.

To that end, I don't think that a link should appear at all if the comic doesn't have an article. I understand the idea behind linking to an article that explains the character, but I'm against it.

What is the opinion of others here?

Duggy 1138 23:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As I go through my lists, I will change any links as appropriate. I think we should place the link even if the article does not exist, that way, if, in the future, someone creates an article for the title, then the link is already in place. Jimtrue 01:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the title in the "Series" column...[edit]

I'm not completely sure I'm comfortable with the "Annual", "Specials", "Secret Origins" and the like being put in the "Series" column.

It rips apart the name in many cases, makes that part of the title equal to the series number and it separate the annuals from the series, which sort of need to be linked...

Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas I find it emphasizes Annuals, Specials, etc., instead of hiding them in the Issues column. Technically, the Annuals, Specials, etc. ARE seperate series, each with its own numbering sequence. Action Comics Annual #1 - 9 is indeed a separate albeit related series from Action Comics #1 - present.
I also notice that you have switched columns Date and Issues in the "A" list. Any reason? Do you plan to extend that to all the tables on the page? Also, in the process, some of the entries have gotten confused...data appearing in the wrong columns. Jimtrue (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another alternative to the Annual, Special, etc. problem is to list them as separate titles, i.e., list "Amethyst Special" as a separate title than "Amethyst". I experimented doing this originally, but thought it made the title column too cluttered, which is why I settled for listing "...Special", "...Annual", etc. as a series within the title. Hidden in the Issues column makes them too hard to find, in my opinion. Jimtrue (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imprints.[edit]

As this page has begun to fill out and improved I am more and more of the opinion that a sub-page which lists the publications by imprints. Each imprint with a single table, I feel. This page just DC (maybe reabsorbing DC Focus, Johnny DC, or some of the lesser imprints that aren't really "separate"), broken up by letter.

Opinions?

Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think separating the imprints to separate pages is a good idea. Even limiting this page to just DC will probably require breaking it up into smaller pages by alphabet (A-M and N-Z, for example). Jimtrue (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reprints[edit]

This is a subject that has been worrying me for some time.

Reprints.

I think there are too many titles, they're not "original material", it would make things too messy... at the same time, certain issues of older titles were reprints, some things have reprints and original material...

Ideas? Or should we just pretend that it never happened?

Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think things like trade paperbacks and graphic novels should have their own pages. I created a page just for DC Archive Editions, for example, so they should not be on this page. Reprints like 80-Page Giants, 100-Page Super Specaculars, or reprint series like 4-Star Battle Tales, which were regular comic book format, belong here with the regular comics. Jimtrue (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that sounds good. I can't see any problems in that. But I'm sure some will turn up.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, something that is worrying me. The List of Graphic Novels page... I don't like the title. The page won't be listing Original Graphic Novels, but rather reprints/collections and as such the title doesn't quite work. Reprints doesn't work because of the discussion above... Trade Paperbacks is a certain size and doesn't include hard covers. The only word I can think of is "Collections" and that doesn't really work.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the page isn't created yet, so the name can certainly be anything. It doesn't even have to be one page...a page for Graphic Novels, another page for Collections, which would include Trade Paperbacks and hardcovers. Or maybe some other setup. Who knows. Certainly attempting to list everything on one page would be too unwieldly, and the usefulness of such a page would be greatly diminished. Jimtrue (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original Graphic Novels, I feel, should probably stay on this page, at least for now. I'm still not sold on the name collections. List of DC Comics Collections sounds like people telling us what they own... Maybe someone with more experience with the comics project has a better idea...
Duggy 1138 (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about giving the GNs their own section on this page? I just think they should be differentiated somehow from "regular" comics. Jimtrue (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is difference actually completely clear? I mean, what is the different between a Annual or an 80 Page Giant and a GN? Is a 2 part Prestige Format mini really two GNs?
Unless there's a clear definition that I don't know (and there could be) I'd rather leave them here right now. Possible with "Graphic Novel" in the series column. If that works and is clear, I'm happy to join you in the splitting.
This, doesn't, to my mind solve the reprint collection name problem, though.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are likely some ambiguities, but I think major differences between a graphic novel and an Annual or 80 Page Giant is that the GN is packaged and marketed more like a book rather than like a magazine. In general, GNs have no paid advertising, have an ISBN, the UPC code is on the back and not the front cover, has no issue number, is intended to be read and enjoyed as a single "complete-in-one" unit (i.e., is not part of a mini-series), and is available in book stores. GNs have more in common with TPBs than they do with Annuals or 80 Page Giants or even "one-shot" prestige format magazines. But we can try listing "GN" in the series column...The thing I'm concerned about more is the size of the list. If everything is on one list, it will be quite large when we are done. And if we are going to include GNs, we might as well include TPBs and other collections. If so, the listing for Batman related books alone will be quite large! I think major collections, like the Archive Editions and the Showcase Presents collections can easily and safely be segregated to their own pages, however. Jimtrue (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. Yes, the list will get too big... I felt the same thing about the Imprints, so I split them out first before suggestioning we make a new page.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-M & N-Z[edit]

I think we need to seriously consider splitting this page.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...I'm currently working on the L's, less than half way through the alphabet, and the list goes on and on. Jimtrue (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems we really need to split this page. Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page does need to be split; it is too large and takes too long to load. No one has commented on this in almost 3 years, but I'll bring it up one more time before actually doing it. Khaotika 13:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supernatural: Origins[edit]

Duggy, I removed this title from the DC page and placed it on the DC Imprint page under Wildstorm. I don't have these issues, but according to the Supernatural: Origins page on Wikipedia, it is a Wildstorm title. Jimtrue (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, I realised my mistake after I'd done it and re-reverted it. Sorry.
It certainly is a Wildstorm title. I have the latest Previews open in front of me which includes an ad for the Trade under WS.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I tried to re-revert it. Obviously didn't take.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millenium Editions.[edit]

Should we list these under "Millenium Edition: Action Comics #1", "Action Comics: Millenium Edition" #1 or assume that they are a later reprinting of the issue in question?
Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List them as "Millennium Edition: Action Comics #1." That's how the comics are named in the indicia. They are later reprintings of the issues in question, of course, except that the advertisements in the original comic are omitted. I'm not sure that completely answers the question, though. If you're listing reprints elsewhere (not a bad idea for the "Millennium Editions" and similar releases, like the "Silver Age Classics" reprints from 1992), they should definitely go there. Spiderboy12 (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collections have a page, but reprints that are regular comics are here.
If all else fails, go with the indicia. It'll enlarge M a little, but you have to expect that.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should, as much as possible, stick to "official titles" as indicated by the indicia. Even then, there are some gray areas...for example, if the indicia says, "Edgar Rice Burroughs TARZAN". The general practice among most collectors, I believe, where a creator's name is placed before the title, is to refer only to the title and not the creator's name. The other major stumblinb block is the use of the word "The." The first series of the Flash title was "THE FLASH" in the indicia, while the second started simply as "FLASH". MOst people do not make the distinction, and indeed, "FLASH" is usually referred to as the 2nd series. I believe we should, as much as possible, stick with the indicia title concerning the use of words like "The." Because I relied on lists that I have made over the years and lists made by others, and did not refer back to actual comics when adding to these lists, I am positive that I have made some errors in this area, errors which I hope will be corrected by me or others over time. Jimtrue (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the "The" is an issues, especially when "Flash" became "The Flash" with, IIRC, issue #140.
At the same time, Action Comics was, for a long time, called, on the cover "Superman in Action Comics" (mostly so when shelved alphabetically it would be with the other Superman titles, I'm sure). The indicia was almost certainly "Action Comics", but this is the sort of issue that will come up.
Some important items, right now, IMHO, is the New Years Evil one shots, which are officially NAME (Villains) but on the cover and in most people's minds New Years Evil: NAME or NAME: New Years Evil. I got rid of the note... which may be wrong... People are going to be more likely to look for NYE though I think. The other one is Countdown to Infinite Crisis, which in solits and indicia is "DC Countdown".
Duggy 1138 (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overstreet price guide, as well as the Comics' Buyer's Guide price guide, both list titles by the official indicia name, with occasionally having a listing for an alternative name with a reference to "see (official name)." In a list like this one, though, having two entries, one for the official title, and one for a commonly-referenced but unofficial title, could be misleading, causing some to think they are two separate books or series.
There has always been some confusion with some titles. I was a collector mostly in the 60's to the mid-80's, and most collectors did rely on the indicia for the title, not the cover. But it was easier to do so then. The indicia was always prominently displayed on the inside front cover or at the bottom of page one. Today, it seems each publisher does his best to hide the indicia so no one can find it. You have to really want to find it to even notice it. I've noticed that there is much more confusion among today's fans than in the past as to comic book titles.
If Countdown to Infinite Crisis is indeed "DC Countdown" in the indicia, then we should change it on the list for consistency's sake.
btw, The "Superman in Action Comics" was also to let buyers know that it was a comic that contained Superman stories, something that may not be obvious just from the title Action Comics. Jimtrue (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just rechecked Countdown to InfC... yeah, it says "DC Countdown". For accuracy and consistancy we'll use that title, but we need some way to indicate the normal title or every second visitor is going see there's a "missing" one shot and add it.
Yes, the "Superman in Action Comics" thing was also for readers, but the change from "Action Comics featuring Superman" was for the alphabetising.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes...[edit]

How much is too much? I understand the point of mention, especially with one-shots what they are or aren't connected to. But, honestly, that can explode. If, say, we say that Something spun off from countdown, should we mention that issue #xxx of Action Comics tied in as well? There's a lot of notes I've wanted to make but have avoided... I'm not really sure about this. I may make some changes, but I'll be happy with consensus...
Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing to remember is that this page is simply a list of titles and issues published by DC. It is my opinion that Notes should be reserved only for information necessary to clarify the lists, such as why a title starts numbering with #35 instead of #1, or if a title was continued under a different title or publisher, format of the title (giant-sized, digest sized, etc.), possible "unofficial" names the title might be known as, etc. Things like contents of issues, writers, artists, editors, etc., whether one title is a spin-off from another, why a title was canceled, why it changed format, etc. are better left to articles devoted specifically to the title, and not to lists. Of course, there will always be the gray areas...is the fact that a particular title was a limited series instead of an on-going series pertinent to a list? Maybe, although personally, as a reader of the list, I would generally only be interested in the fact that there were only four issues, and not necessarily in the fact that there were only four issues planned. But that's just me. Jimtrue (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think distinguishing between limited series and ongoing series is important because they are planned and executed differently by the publisher. Limited series are as distinctive in their own way as graphic novels. As a reader, I do have an interest in whether an ongoing series ran four issues, or whether only four issues were planned. And I'm often interested in just that level of detail (i.e., how long an ongoing series ran), not necessarily in knowing more about a particular series. That said, maybe distinguishing one-shots isn't necessary, since a "series" that lasts one issue is almost always planned as a one-shot. The notes may be better reserved for the handful of "ongoing" series canceled after the first issue. In most other regards, I agree that the information in the notes should be severely limited, and I may have started putting in too much. One question: Should all-reprint series be distinguished (e.g., LSH series 1, Boy Commandos series 2, etc.)? Spiderboy12 (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think the limited series/one shots were necessary, but there is certainly a case for it. Yeah, it is important to know if the ending was planned if it was cancelled. But is certainly a grey area.
For reprints... if we say yes to noting all reprints, then we have to consider series that became mostly reprints, and if we say yes to those, what about individual reprint issues? I'd rather not.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem per se about noting limited series/one shots. I myself have no interest in noting that because I tend to use lists to let me know what exists, and if a certain title has 4 issues, that is what I want to know. But I understand that others may want to know whether it was a planned 4 issue run or was a planned on-going series cancelled after 4 issues. I agree with Duggy about listing reprints. That can get pretty messy. And anyway, I consider that information about content, which, as I said earlier, more properly belongs in an article about the particular title, and not in a list of titles. Jimtrue (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Having a complete run of Tales of the LSH, I checked the indicia again this morning and confirmed the indicia title was Tales of the Legion at first, but changed to match the cover logo (always Tales of the Legion of Super-Heroes) starting with issue #332. I made a note of it, but I didn't create a separate entry because I thought it was too obscure a point to warrant it. I also didn't change the name of the entry. In an odd case like this, I don't know whether the table entry should match the first indicia title, or go with the second one, which matches the cover logo. Any opinions?

I also wonder about Metamorpho the Element Man. This is the cover logo, but is that what the indicia reads (I have no copies) or does it simply read Metamorpho? Most on-line references to this series (e.g., comics.org) just call it Metamorpho. I didn't know whether I should change the entry. Can anyone else confirm the indicia title? Spiderboy12 (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I think we should change it to the cover and note the indicia.
I have a feeling that The Flash is going to have same problem, the latest issue, at least, has the "The" in the indicia.
Of course, the big problem with the indicia vs cover thing is that you really need the comic in front of you to confirm.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went down to my storage and dug out my old Metamorphos, and you are correct. The indicia does indeed read "Metamorpho". I will make the correction on the list.
As for the change from "Tales of the Legion" to "Tales of the Legion of Super-Heroes", this strikes me as a legitimate change of title. Certainly not as significant as the change from "Legion of Super-Heroes" to "Tales of the Legion", but one that I feel deserves its own line. It strikes me as similar to the change from "Action Comics" to "Action Comics Weekly," or "All-Flash Quarterly" to "All-Flash". So I'm taking the liberty of creating a new line for the change. Jimtrue (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for a really simple and almost insigificant change involving "the", as with "Flash" and "The Flash", I think it might be wiser, easier, and less confusing to simply use the more frequently used title, and simply note the change in Notes. I have updated the Flash entry as an example. Jimtrue (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small names for incorrect titles.[edit]

Are we for or against the small names? President Luthor Secret Files and Countdown to Infinite Crisis are the two times I've used it. Hopefully we won't need it too many times...
Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My ancient eyes do not like the look of the small name. When I went to look at the two entries, it looked to me more like a formatting mistake than an attempt to distinguish the title for a particular reason. Another idea, to which I changed to President Luthor entry as an experiment, is to eliminate the column divisions for that entry (with colspan), to make the whole entry flow together. I think this makes the "see..." part more obvious, and better alerts users of the list that this is not the official title. We could do this either with or without the small tag (I left it with the small tag, but removing the small tag makes it still effective, imo). What do others think? Jimtrue (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks interesting, although the formatting is a little off.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps eliminate the separate columns altogether for the entry (set colspan = 6), with the small tags removed (I'm not a fan of the small tags, either). Use a colon (:) to separate the title from the redirect:
President Luthor Secret Files: See Secret Files President Luthor.
Spiderboy12 (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Colon sounds nice, except, that Comic book titles are full of them and, you could end up with something like "President Luthor: Secret Files: See Secret Files: President Luthor" (Not the Pres Luthor has colons, but you see what I mean.
I usually don't like the small, but I think it really highlights that this isn't a real entry in the list. However, I do agree that it looks more like something has gone wrong somewhere rather than a deliberate formating scheme.
Noting is possible "President Luthor...[1], but that isn't "clear".
I'm happy if one of you wants to play with it some more.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ see SF

Span-names[edit]

Is this worth keeping up? Or is it a silly idea. It's a big job to change everything, so I don't want to start if it's pointless...
Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on what use you think the span name will serve. Other than providing a tag in order to link from a different entry (as you did in the President Luthor case), is there antoher purpose for the span name? Most entries don't need to be linked to directly, imo. Jimtrue (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most don't. The ones I'm most interested in having names for are the ones that became Vertigo titles or previously were and the such so the "see vertigo list can be a link" so that you can link to the actual title rather than just a table of vertigo comics.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a good idea. I'll start fixing the entries. Also, thanks for updating the page's headings. Looks and reads better. Jimtrue (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Inevitable Descrepancies[edit]

1. What is the issue number and cover date of the change from Supergirl and the Legion of Super-Heroes to Legion of Super-Heroes? Jimtrue (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think #37, but I'd have to do more research.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The cover logo changed to LSH with the last issue, #37, but the indicia still reads Supergirl and the LSH. I've edited both entries to reflect that. I'll edit them again if the indicia title changes with the next issue, #38, which comes out on Wednesday. Spiderboy12 (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. The entry for Empire is not clear as to how the numbering goes. It says issues #1 & 2 were published by Gorilla Comics, but appears to say DC published #0 - 6. Jimtrue (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gorilla comics did an issue #1 & 2 of 6, but the company folded. I think Waid decided to add two more issues when it moved to DC, so it's #0 - 6 (second series) from DC and #1 - 2 (first series) from Image. I think there was an issue from DC that collected the Gorilla #1 & 2 (and a preview from another comic). #0 from DC may have been an introduction for people who hadn't read the previous issues. But all this is for memory. I'll check the issues tomorrow.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Duggy 1138 is correct, according to at the Grand Comics Database. Issue #0 reprints Gorilla comics issues #1-2. I edited the entry. Spiderboy12 (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetizing[edit]

I noticed that Spiderboy12 attempted to do some re-alphabetizing of some titles, but then reverted back bacause we do have conflicting alphetizing standards. I assembled a good part of this list from a variety of sources (my own spreadsheet of books I own from the 50s to the 90s, lists of some of my friends, and a couple of on-line databases), and will be the first to admit that each source alphabetized things differently, and as a result, the way things are alphabetized on this list is not consistent. So, if anyone wants to take the time and effort to arrange titles in a consistent alphabetized manner, please do.67.80.138.183 (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are the alphabetising issues, and what are our "standards" going to be (assuming that Wikipedia doesn't have their own stardards)?
Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we alphabetize word-by-word, or letter-by-letter? For example, if alphabetizing based on words, Super Friends comes before Superboy because super precedes superboy alphabetically. If you alphabetize based on letters (ignoring punctuation, including spaces), Superboy precedes Super Friends because b comes before f, i.e., superboy before superfriends.
There's also the question of how to treat punctuation. Punctuation doesn't really "alphabetize", but many word processing or spreadsheet programs sort based on character ASCII codes, so they sort punctuation as well. Look at the Superman titles, and note that they are sorted as follows: "Superman ", "Superman/", "Superman," and "Superman:". Ignoring punctuation when sorting (except to delimit words) would treat (for example) "Superman Secret" and "Superman: Secret" the same.
Finally, there's the question of how to treat numbers that aren't written out. Do you sort them as you would if they were written out, or do you sort them by numerals, with numerals leading any letters in an alphabetical sort? We do both on this list.
I prefer word-by-word sorting, ignoring punctuation when alphabetizing, and sorting by numerals. One exception is I'd treat "Superman's" (or similar possessive uses) as "Supermans" when alphabetizing, not "Superman s". I would treat hyphenated words as two words, e.g., "Super-Heroes" as "Super Heroes".
Spiderboy12 (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the surface I can't see anything wrong with your suggestions, and am happy to go that way. As the three of us are the big contributors, I think if we're all fine, go with it.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I definately agree with word-by-word. Super Friends DOES belong before Superboy. That is what I was taught in school. Unfortunately, most on-line databases or even printed price guides do it, but I still think it is better and the right way to do it. And I have no problem with ignoring punctuation. From when I first discovered this page, I have been bothered by the placement of 'Mazing Man way up there at the top, when I believe it belongs in the M's (that is where I have it in my own spreadsheet list of my collection). And treating numerals as their own characters before letters is also fine. So, if we are all agreement, we can start making rearranging the list as time permits. Jimtrue (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To tell the truth I've always been annoyed by # representing punction and not letters.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...I have alphabetized the B's according to the rules we have agreed to...still some areas of agreement needed. Obviously, when a title begins with "The" or "A", the article is ignored. "The Brave and the Bold" is sorted as if it were "Brave and the Bold". But what about things like "The Batman Adventures: The Lost Years" Does that belong before or after "The Batman Adventures: Mad Love"? And how about "Batman and the Outsiders"? Before or after "Batman and Superman"? In both cases, I think they belong before, but I want to verify what others think. Jimtrue (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I lean towards including the articles in subtitles, but whatever you guys want is fine.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, I believe articles are ignored when alphabetizing only when they are the first word. So "The Batman Adventures: The Lost Years" would come after "The Batman Adventures: Mad Love", "Batman and the Outsiders" after "Batman and Superman", etc. Spiderboy12 (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay...I'm outvoted. That's the way we'll go. Jimtrue (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think of yourself as outvoted, but rather consider yourself concensus' bitch.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should call these "guidelines" rather than "rules".
Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Losers Special...?[edit]

DC or Vertigo? Duggy 1138 (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Current Publications...[edit]

  • All the information exists on this page already, or will be added in regular updates. Merging isn't needed. Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect' (Emperor (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Hello. I'm surprised this hasn't been resolved. Anyone interested in the outcome should say their piece before we rap this bad boy up. (Emperor (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Golden Eagle By Alan Moore?[edit]

Deleting "Golden Eagle By Alan Moore" which was added by 71.97.164.36, because I found no evidence of this comic existing. Closest I could find was Hawkman: Rise of the Golden Eagle (written by Jimmy Palmiotti and Justin Gray). --EarthFurst (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of DC Comics publications. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of DC Comics publications. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_DC_Comics_publications_(A–B)&oldid=1203636366"