Talk:Ashcan comic

"Aschan comic"
I came across this page while searching for a definition of the term "ashcan comic". My other searches seemed to imply that the term is also popularly used to refer to a one-off comic (i.e., not a series), but I'm not really sure. If "ashcan comic" is used interchangeably with "ashcan copy", and they can mean either the definition stated in the article or the one I'm implying, then perhaps the article should be updated to include this alternate usage. --Piquan 12:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The one you imply is usually "one shot". --93.34.8.98 (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Rhoades book
I'm not entirely sure the Rhoades book cited is an appropriate source. From what I've seen, it's a copy-paste job that doesn't attribute its original sources &mdash; it has quotes from Bernd Eichinger, producer of the 1994 Fantastic Four movie, lifted from Los Angeles magazine March 2005 without crediting that source. We need to use the original sources of quotes and claims, not the the copycat that may or may not have transcribed passages correctly and in context. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Question
The example doesn't make sense. In fact, I'm not sure the whole explanation makes sense. There is no copyright in a title -- many books have the same title, so printing a version just to gain precedence for a title makes no sense from a copyright point of view. It also makes no sense from a trademark point of view -- under the old law, you had to actually sell something in intestate commerce to gain a Federal trademark. Under the new law, you can register a trademark in advance of sale. In neither case does printing a few copies and throwing them out do you any good.

I'm probably missing something here, but that suggests that there is a problem with the article -- if it leave me, very familiar with both copyright and trademark, in the dark, where will it leave the average reader? . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 21:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Jim--under the old copyright law in the U.S., didn't something have to be published in order to receive federal copyright status? And the date of publiation, not the date of creation, was controlling, like a lien?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:E10D:4D1:B55B:78E0 (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Flash Comics
Whic company won out? This doesn't seem to have been stated clearly. Which one's ashcan copy failed to claim trademarks? That also wasn't stated clearly. ZFT (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

False equivalency
A copy of a comic is not a type of comic: it is a physical sample. Opening sentence rephrased to reflect this. Kevin McE (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 21 September 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved per reasoning below &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Ashcan copy → Ashcan comic – I would have done this as a straight move without this process if it were not for the forthcoming MP appearance (which as I type may be postponed). There has been some discussion at WP:ERRORS, where there seems to be consensus that this should be moved (you will need to examine WP:ERRORS history on this day, as it is frequently deleted).

Ashcan comic and Ashcan edition seem far more used other than in Wiki mirrors, and ashcan copy can apply to film and television as well, which would need explaining in the lead, and therefore diverting from the main topic. Ashcan comic would allow for reverting to the main contributor's favoured introductory sentence "...is a type of..." which I have edited today. Kevin McE (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. My original preference was for "Ashcan edition" (which seems to have the most usage), but it appears that some of the Google hits refer to a subtly different concept: comic books published with that designation in reference/tribute to the unpublished comic books that historically carried it.  "Ashcan comic" is sufficiently common and less ambiguous than the alternatives.  "Ashcan edition" is now my second choice (as I still regard it as preferable to the status quo).  —David Levy 23:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "ashcan copy can apply to film and television as well" - that's why film and television are mentioned at the end of the lead and get their own section toward the bottom of the article. That said, I have no strong desire to retain the current title. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


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

Pulled as TFA
I have pulled the article as TFA for tomorrow given the move issue mentioned in the previous section. It can certainly be nominated at any time and I'm sure that coordinators will smile upon it once the move issue is taken care of. Below is the relevant discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The article, and blurb, are about the concept of the Ashcan comic. An 'ashcan copy' is one specific physical sample of an ashcan comic, and as such cannot be "a type of American comic book". The phrase 'ashcan edition' is used far more often than 'ashcan copy' within the article.

The better solution, I would suggest, would be to move the article to Ashcan comic, although I can understand reluctance to do this immediately before MP appearance. Failing this, the opening sentence needs rephrasing to avoid a false equivalency: maybe "An ashcan copy is a comic book produced solely to establish trademarks on potential titles and not intended for sale." Kevin McE (talk) 09:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

There is an unclear pronoun opening the second sentence as well: "It was developed by publishers including...": what was developed: the copy as a physical object, the concept of trademark protection in a one off, unmarketed publication, or the ashcan comic as the application of this protection to this genre? Kevin McE (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Kevin: The use of "copy" in that context struck me as odd, but I attributed this to my limited knowledge on the subject of comic books. Upon seeing your report, I just gave the matter a second look.
 * I'm concerned that the article's title hasn't received sufficient consideration, most likely because this is a niche subject that hasn't attracted a great deal of editor attention over the years.
 * Many Google hits for "ashcan copy" are based on Wikipedia's article, which has used that phrase as its title since its creation in 2005. Nonetheless, a Google search for "ashcan edition" yields nearly 4.5 times as many results on my end.
 * I agree that a move may be appropriate. As you noted, the timing is problematic, so I strongly suggest postponing the article's main page appearance.  Pinging Dan and Wehwalt.  —David Levy 13:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Although we don't usually pull things at the last minute, I don't think I have a position one way or the other on this. I don't personally have any objection to pulling it. It's Wehwalt's call ... he hasn't edited today yet but he's around most days. If he's not around for another 6 hours, let's revisit the issue then. Comments are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am reluctant to pull it. Can this not be addressed through placing the alternate name in the blurb? The decision to call the article this presumably came through deliberation and I am reluctant to bypass normal article processes.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you mean have "An ashcan copy or ashcan comic is a type of..."? If so, we still have the same sort of false equivalency.  Is it possible to move the article to Ashcan comic (or the more common, apparently, Ashcan edition) and change the word in bold in the opening sentence accordingly?  That would solve the matter, and avoid too much rephrasing in the MP blurb. Otherwise, I revert to my proposal above (with some reservation, as the article gives evidence that an ashcan copy can refer to film, and therefore potentially other media, as well) Kevin McE (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt: My concern isn't that "ashcan copy" is merely less common than another name; it's that it might not even be among the common real-world names. The quantity of Google hits is low, with many (possibly most) directly or indirectly attributable to Wikipedia.
 * I see no evidence of deliberation regarding the article's title, which was selected by the first editor in 2005. Since then, the article has been edited 169 times and its talk page has been edited 21 times – exceedingly little activity.
 * The very first message (in 2006) was written by someone who'd sought the definition of "ashcan comic" and wanted to know whether "ashcan copy" referred to the same subject. Unfortunately, this didn't lead to a discussion of the article's title.
 * I'm confused as to what normal article process would be bypassed by delaying the TFA appearance to allow sufficient time for such a discussion to occur. —David Levy 14:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There seemed to be some suggestion that the article be moved on the basis of this discussion, rather than on the article talk. And I am looking for an article I can run without ticking people off. It will probably have to be one where I was the nominator.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There seemed to be some suggestion that the article be moved on the basis of this discussion, rather than on the article talk.
 * Ah, okay. I misinterpreted the statement as elaboration on "I am reluctant to pull it."  I agree that moving the article at this juncture is inadvisable.  It would be more appropriate to delay its TFA appearance (perhaps by roughly a month) and initiate a normal discussion on its talk page.  —David Levy 15:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article I am considering is Joseph B. Foraker and the blurb, which is based on the 2013 blurb when it ran for the first time, is here. People should feel free to mess with it. Unless there's a further difficulty I will switch them in a couple of hours and then move this discussion to the Ashcan talk page, if that's acceptable. How does that sound?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Featured Article
This is a Featured Article? It has less then 15kb, eight paragraphs, and no photos (despite the obviously visual nature of its subject). Even the picture used on the Featured Article box on the main page isn't in this article. (Yesterday's FA had close to 70kb and 14 pictures; it was far longer.) This seems to be the "ashcan" version of FA's. What gives? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with short articles being FAs if there isn't much more to be said about the topic, though honestly I feel like length is the only thing distinguishing most GAs from FAs and I would just merge the two classes together.

If there's anything more to be said about Ashcan comics though, you may have a point. -- occono (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

While the two are not equivalent, there's a distinct correlation between length and depth. I note that even now, with some pictures belatedly added, the article is shorter than its own talk page. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Length isn't a |Featured Article Criteria. If there's some specific failing you see in its comprehensiveness, please share it. A vague "this doesn't seem long enough to be complete" is pretty unhelpful. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Argento Surfer: One specific failing in its comprehensiveness was the absence of illustrative images, which you removed and .  I comprehend your rationale (and disagree, for the reason provided  by Headbomb), but I don't know why you removed both images instead of retaining the picture of an actual ashcan comic (as you you acknowledged in your September edit summary).  Its inclusion – if only to illustrate the general appearance of such a work – obviously enhances sighted readers' understanding of the subject.  —David Levy 20:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed it because I think, as far as 1940s ashcans go, the Thrill Comics example is awful. It failed to secure a trademark, which is the point of an ashcan. It also features original cover artwork, which is atypical for an ashcan. I feel the extra detail about changes from Captain Thunder to Captain Marvel are off topic and undue.
 * The previous images, which were non-free, showed a title that was trademarked with an ashcan that was obviously very different from the final product. It also has the added bonus of better name recognition among non-comic fans. (For those who didn't see them, this is the ashcan and this is the published work.) Argento Surfer (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed it because I think, as far as 1940s ashcans go, the Thrill Comics example is awful. It failed to secure a trademark, which is the point of an ashcan. It also features original cover artwork, which is atypical for an ashcan.
 * The image's inclusion is intended to show readers what ashcan comics (in a broad sense, not any title in particular) look like. For that purpose, even a fan-made mock-up (of high quality, released under a free license, and not infringing someone's intellectual property) would be useful, albeit less so.
 * "The point of an ashcan" is conveyed textually. The specific cover artwork is immaterial to the visual appearance of such works in general; it need only typify their basic style (which it does).
 * As Headbomb noted, the intent behind the work's creation was to secure a trademark. The publisher's subsequent failure in that attempt and decision to not make direct reuse of the artwork didn't alter the piece's fundamental nature, let alone its visual appearance.
 * As an analogy, imagine a rocket engineered with the objective of placing satellites in Earth's orbit. On the first attempt, it fails catastrophically and explodes on the launchpad, destroying itself and its payload.  When the malfunction is blamed on a serous flaw, the design is scrapped.  Despite the success of similar models (both antecedent and subsequent), the rocket never serves its intended purpose.
 * Now imagine that someone photographed the doomed rocket before its demise and released a high-quality shot into the public domain. Lacking any other free images of relevance, would it be suitable for use in illustrating the concept of a rocket (i.e., showing readers what one looks like), or would you argue that it's disqualified by the specific design's failure to do what a rocket is meant to do?
 * I feel the extra detail about changes from Captain Thunder to Captain Marvel are off topic and undue.
 * I disagree (as this information serves to identify the work shown), but that's a separate issue – addressable without the images' outright removal from the article.
 * The previous images, which were non-free, showed a title that was trademarked with an ashcan that was obviously very different from the final product. It also has the added bonus of better name recognition among non-comic fans.
 * If those images were free, I'd be 100% in favor of using them instead. Unfortunately, that isn't the case.  From a legal standpoint, the availability of a reasonable free alternative – not necessarily a perfect substitute – invalidates a claim of fair use.  Even if these particular free images didn't exist, the likelihood of obtaining suitable free images in the future arguably would preclude a valid claim of fair use.  —David Levy 23:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thoughtful response. It didn't change my mind, but I can tell the majority believe a picture is needed, and I'm more comfortable with it having revised the caption and added a citation. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Piledhigheranddeeper: The article previously contained two non-free images. Upon noticing this in September, I checked the Wikimedia Commons, found a suitable pair of comic book covers with expired copyrights (the existence of which invalidates the claim of fair use), and  the non-free images.  As stated above, Argento Surfer  the free images in December.  Srnec  them today, possibly after reading your message.  —David Levy 20:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)