Talk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics)

= Request to move page to Shazam (character) =

Untitled
This page should be moved to Shazam (character) Captain Marvel isn't his name anymore. Marveldccomicsfan (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC) Marveldccomicsfan


 * I agree, it should be moved. Foreva000 (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Foreva000


 * Support - as pointed out in the previous RM discussion, the character has been marketed by DC as "Shazam" for 50 years now, and they officially renamed him as such 10 years ago. Along with that, it would seem that the 2019 film Shazam! (and the MCU film Captain Marvel, released the same year), has basically cemented the fact that he known, both officially and per WP:COMMONNAME, as Shazam, making this entirely appropriate. -  wolf  00:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:RECENTISM. The character gained notability as Captain Marvel, and his most notable achievements were done under that name. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - just wondering what part of wp:recentism supports your !vote? Thanks -  wolf  20:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The second sentence (writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view) and the section on article imbalace. The name change is recent compared to the character's age. The most notable thing he's done since the rename is star in a film, and this article is about the comic book character, not the film character. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. -  wolf  02:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Argento Surfer. See also WP:NAMECHANGES (sources published as recently as three days ago still use the name "Captain Marvel") JOE BRO  64  13:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , From the article you cited: "Mary first appeared in comics in 1942, three years after the debut of Billy Batson as the superhero Captain Marvel and a year after Billy got his first sidekick, Captain Marvel, Jr. But the characters are better known these days as the superheroes of the Shazam family." The article points out that he was known as "Captain Marvel" 83 years ago, and further confirms that he is now known as "Shazam", with links to two additional articles, one explaining the name change and other referring to the character family solely by the "Shazam" name, (with no mention of "Captain Marvel" at all). Hows does this support your !vote? If anything, it supports the change in article title. (Also wp:namechanges clearly supports a change here, not the status quo) -  wolf  20:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact they specify he was known as Captain Marvel for much of his history before addressing he's called "Shazam" now illustrates that the old name is still in use and the RECENTISM of the change. The name "Captain Marvel" is still frequently used to refer to the character in reliable sources, not to mention that he's still referred to as Captain Marvel in the ongoing Young Justice show and comics published as recently as 2016. The new name hasn't replaced "Captain Marvel" in the cultural consciousness yet. I'm also going to ask that you please refrain from WP:BLUDGEONING. JOE BRO  64  21:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Erm... I think you should actually read (or re-read) "bludgeoning". But other than that, thank you for the reply. I was simply looking for some clarification and, I think I got some. Have a nice day. - wolf  01:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with Argento Surfer. DC's use of an older character is barely notable, and the attempted rename has had little to no impact. Dimadick (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, just seeking clarification; who is the older character you're referring to? And (again, honest question) when you say "attempted rename", are you referring to DC's renaming of "Captain Marvel" to "Shazam"...? Thanks -  wolf  20:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't it obvious? Captain Marvel is a character from Fawcett Comics which was acquired by DC several decades after his World War II heyday. Dimadick (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, no... that's why I asked. I'm well aware of the character's history, it's just that your reply wasn't clear to me. Especially when you say "attempted" rename, because Shazam actually was renamed. But anyway, thank you for the reply. -  wolf  17:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As Joe pointed out above, the renaming has not been consistently applied in recent years. That's what I understood by attempted. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but... (since you mentioned it) there are several problems with his reply as well. And I would've addressed that, but he has made it clear he has no interest in any discussion. At. All. So, as I did with him, and you, I simply thanked Dimadick for their reply and I'll leave it at that. It's clear you guys are dug in here, and since this request isn't getting much of a response outside of fans, this change isn't likely to happen, even though facts and policy say it should. Again, thanks for the response. -  wolf  21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * COMMONNAME is a policy, and it says to give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change. As pointed out above, post-2012 sources still regularly identify him as Captain Marvel. Post 2012 comics still present him Captain Marvel. Scholarly and historical sources always note the character's history as Captain Marvel, even when they're about the recent movie, because they want to note how popular he had been in the 1940s before entering obscurity. Ergo, policy opposes the move to Shazam.
 * Perhaps you should reflect on the idea that we're no more "dug in" on our position than you are. Deriding people who disagree with you as "fans" is presumptuous and dismissive. If you want to see a discussion that goes against policy, I suggest you check out Talk:Spider-Man: Far From Home/Archive 2 and its repetitions, where the MOS on capitalization was ignored in favor of a movie poster. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, you guys seem pretty dug in, so (regardless of what you seem to have got wrong here, or on this other RM) there's no point in debating this RM any further, for even if you suddenly change your mind, this would still be a "no consensus", ergo "no change". The one thing I will address however is your comment about "fans". As a "fan" myself I take offense at the notion that you find the term "derisive". If you're not a "fan" then just say so. (In the future I'll just refer to you guys as "Wikipedia editors with a particularly strong interest in keeping this article title as is".) There's no need for this get any more negative than it already has. As it is, I simply asked for clarification, once, for some the responses here as they seemed flawed or just vaguely written, and I get accused of "bludgeoning" by one user and insulted by another. When I saw where this was going, I decided to just say "thanks for reply" and leave it that. So, again... thanks for the reply. I think we're done here. -  wolf  22:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing "no consensus" with "consensus not to move". I also think it's disingenuous to say all that you said, then to say "we're done here." But, since you're no longer discussing the issue aside from saying that everyone but you has things "wrong" here, I agree there's no point in continuing. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oy... No, I meant what I said. I don't think there is a concensus here (either way), and since there appears to be no consensus to move the page, it likely won't be moved. If I thought there was a consensus in favor of not moving the page, I would've said that. Other that than that, I don't see a point in further discussion because I don't think it will affect the outcome. If I thought that either you or JB were right, then I would be in agreement with you. But I don't, so I'm not. That's just stating the obvious, I don't see how you could have an issue with that. Since there's no point in debating this further right now, and I'm not interested in arguing just for the sake of arguing (eg: "no consensus to move vs a consensus not to move"), I decided to disengage (which I'm still trying to do). Unless this is a must-have-the-last-word sort of thing, I'd like to think we are done now. Have a nice day -  wolf  22:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This page should be moved from Captain Marvel (DC Comics) → Shazam (DC Comics). --Thefrobro (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC) Thefrobro
 * I agree Kevin  Talk 06:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - Per what wolf said. Higher Further Faster (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Unfortunatly this RM is almost two years old and likely not considered valid. Anyone that believes this page should be moved to "Shazam", should start a new RM (enough time has passed). Also note that there are previous requests and discussions on the matter, including most of Talk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics)/Archive 5, much of /Archive 3, and at several points on /Archive 2, dating as far back as July 2008. (fyi) - w o lf  22:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

= Fawcett vs DC Captain Marvel =

As the first appearance of this character is in the public domain, as well as a big chunk of the rest of the stories produced by Fawcett, have lapsed into the public domain due to not being renewed, derivative works of the character mean that the character itself is public domain. This means that the article claiming the character is the property of DC is not accurate, as they can only own the copyright to their own works involving the character and their trademarks. So really, Fawcett/Captain Marvel should be a separate article where that character is discussed as being in the public domain, and this DC/Captain Marvel under the Shazam Trademark, should contain the history of the DC version of the character. But being as the original works are in the public domain, they should be referred to as such a not as the property of DC—they belong to everyone now.

The early Captain Marvel works now considered to be under copyright by Warner and not in the public domain are: Captain Marvel Adventures nos. 3-6, 46-129, 131-141 and 143-150; Captain Marvel Jr. nos. 29-34, 36-106, 108-117 and 119; Captain Marvel Story Book nos. 1-2; Fawcett’s Funny Animals nos. 31-79; Hoppy the Marvel Bunny nos. 1-15; The Marvel Family nos. 1-3, 5-80, 82-89; Mary Marvel Comics nos. 1-28; Master Comics nos. 61-126, 128-132; Whiz Comics nos. 3-6, 64-98, 105-118, 130-153 and 155; and Wow Comics nos. 36-69 Best regards, ~Whig 11:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * While an interesting argument, in order to change wikipedia, one would need to find sourcing for this. ResultingConstant (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @ResultingConstant thank you for your response. All copyright renewals are a public record. Please see Whiz Comics copyright information. Whiz Comics #2 (not to mention a noteworthy chunk of Captain Marvel-related publications across multiple titles) was never renewed. In general, Fawcett had a spotty record on renewals. The one's I mentioned above were renewed, and therefore remain under copyright. Under US copyright law, if the first appearance is in the public domain, derivative works are freely allowed as well just like any public domain work. DC has the copyrights only to those Fawcett Publications which were in fact renewed, which does not include the first appearance of this character and so they only own the works that they hold the copyright for. So, there *is* a DC Comics version of the character, but also a public domain version. As an example, the character of the Blue Beetle also meets similar criteria, and also has separate articles as I am suggesting here.
 * So, my suggestion is that we maintain this article for the DC Comics version of the character and have a separate article, Captain Marvel (public domain), for the original works which have lapsed into the public domain--none of which were produced nor owned by DC Comics or any of it's parent companies. Of course, this article would only include the art from those works which are no longer under copyright. I hope this information helps. Please let me know what other evidence may be required to proceed. Best regards, ~Whig 19:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What you are doing above is WP:OriginalResearch, and at best reliance on WP:Primary sources. In order for wikipedia to state something, or reorgoanize our content to do something, it needs to be published in WP:RS reliable WP:Secondary sources.   In any case,  regardless of the copyright status, I would likely not support a split of a articles based on ownership. Its the same character. Just like many golden age heroes they've gone through multiple biographies, and they are generally handled within a single article, just as this one is. If reliable sourcing can be found which specifically states that the base character is in public domain, then the article can say so. I think this situation is very analogous to Sherlock_Holmes or Mickey_Mouse (where the lack of renewal is specifically an issue) where the initial character is now public, but subsequent plot points and character development are not, and such issues are described in the article, but the article is not split based on that status (and note that there are a plethora of reliable sources discussing the copyright status of those characters) .  ResultingConstant (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * reping because I used the wrong name above ResultingConstant (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, a character cannot be public domain or proprietary. Works can be under copyright, or public domain. So, it is not possible for there to be sourcing for an underlying character, only the works they appear in.
 * The Library of Congress (the definition of a reliable source) only has only the above-referenced works listed as being under copyright. I am only summarizing what the LoC says, and since they hold the records of all copyrights and are public record, this is not original research, it is a well-sourced fact from a very reliable source as per your above-referenced policy. I shared the copyright renewal information above from an academic source which is also by definition a reliable source. So no, this is not original research. Since the first appearance is PD, derivative works are PD (or in other words, when the colloquialism is used to state that the "character" is in the PD). Moreover, any discussion of whether to call the character "Shazam" or "Captain Marvel" would, by necessity, only be a debate within the confines of changes made to the character in DC-published material and not the character as a whole since the entirety of the published works are not under copyright and the first appearance is in the public domain.
 * What type of evidence would you need to be convinced? The first appearance lapsed into the PD decades ago, the Library of Congress contains no record of a copyright renewal. So please, be specific about what documentation is required to make this necessary change because there is no affirmation that any character is public domain as you described above. Best regards, ~Whig 01:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * While the initial appearances of the character certainly seem to be public domain, that's not actually a good reason to split the article. The article is about the character, from Fawcett through DC. The title of the article is a separate issue, but existing guidelines and conventions for article naming would seem to support the parenthetical "DC." But, that doesn't mean you can't make (supported by reliable sources) changes to the article that clarify the situation; say, something like "DC purchased the remaining rights to the character, with some early appearances having lapsed into the public domain" and/or a section on public domain appearances. 03:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I personally am convinced. But that is irrelevant. The encyclopedia requires reliable sources. You going to the the relevant law, and looking at the registry is by definition WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and WP:SYNTH. Please read those previous two links. If you want the encyclopedia to say the original character (or works) lapsed into public domain you need a reliable secondary source explicitly saying specifically that these fawcett works are public domain. At a minimum you would need someone WP:NOTABLE on the topic of copyright to be stating their opinion of such in a reliable source, and then we could quote them. As per the examples in Mickey Mouse and Sherlock Holmes. To my knowledge, there is not a single reliable source making this argument, though there are various blogs and forums that do so.  (which is a bit of a surprise actually, with the movies).   ResultingConstant (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @ResultingConstant commenting again because I did not mention you. See above, how Wikipedia treats other public domain superhero characters from the Golden Age of Comic Book Heroes. Best regards, ~Whig 17:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @ResultingConstant:
 * As a model of how Captain Marvel should be treated, I suggest using Stardust the Super-Wizard, a character known to be completely in the public domain.
 * From the article: "The character of Stardust the Super Wizard is in the public domain. As such, he can and has been used by a host of creators over the years [34]"
 * Please see citation 34 from the article associated with the character "Stardust the Super-Wizard". It reads the following:
 * "The copyright on the character Stardust the Super Wizard has expired. The character appeared in comic books originally published in the U.S. by Fox Feature Syndicate between 1939 and 1941. Fox established the original copyrights to the two publications in which Stardust appeared: Fantastic Comics in 1939 and Big 3 Comics in 1941, respectively. The original copyrights lasted 27 years from the end of the year of their first publications. The copyright holder was free to renew the copyright any time during the year 1977. Fox Feature Syndicate, who went out of business in the mid 1950s, did not do so. The character's creator, Fletcher Hanks, died on 22 January 1976 and never established legal claims to his characters. All copyright renewals after 1977 can be searched online at the United States Copyright Office."
 * Technically inaccurate as works have copyrights but not characters. However, it works for a general understanding which is what an encyclopedia is intended for, so it works. I suggest we mark Captain Marvel as public domain in much the same way, and it can read something like this:
 * "The copyright on the first appearance, and many other early appearances of Captain Marvel has expired. The character appeared in comic books originally published in the U.S. by Fawcett Publications between 1940 and 1953. Fawcett established the original copyrights to the publications in which Captain Marvel first appeared: Whiz Comics in 1940 and Captain Marvel Adventures in 1941, respectively. The original copyrights lasted 27 years from the end of the year of their first publications. The copyright holder was free to renew the copyright any time during the year 1977. Fawcett Publications, who stopped producing comics in the mid- 1950s, did not do so. The character's creators, C.C. Beck, who died on 22 November 1989, and Bill Parker, who died 31 January 1963, never established legal claims to their characters. All copyright renewals after 1977 can be searched online at the United States Copyright Office. DC Comics and its parent company Warner Brothers Discovery, are know to own the copyright on the following golden age comics: Captain Marvel Adventures nos. 3-6, 46-129, 131-141 and 143-150; Captain Marvel Jr. nos. 29-34, 36-106, 108-117 and 119; Captain Marvel Story Book nos. 1-2; Fawcett’s Funny Animals nos. 31-79; Hoppy the Marvel Bunny nos. 1-15; The Marvel Family nos. 1-3, 5-80, 82-89; Mary Marvel Comics nos. 1-28; Master Comics nos. 61-126, 128-132; Whiz Comics nos. 3-6, 64-98, 105-118, 130-153 and 155; and Wow Comics nos. 36-69"
 * After we have done this, we can continue the discussion on changing the article name from Captain Marvel (DC Comics) to Captain Marvel (comics) or Captain Marvel (Fawcett Publications) or something else. But the first appearance and a huge portion of the other golden age appearances have lapsed into the public domain, and so it is not accurate to say DC Comics owns anything more than the version of the character they have under copyright, no more no less. Disney has lost in court trying to use trademarks to claim ownership over public domain stories such as Aladdin and his Magic Lamp. It would be wrong for them to sue Netflix of releasing a Pinocchio film in the same year as their recent remake with Tom Hanks, for example. DC Comics has made a lot of changes to the character and thus only own their version which they hold under copyright.
 * Best regards, ~Whig 15:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As a model of how Captain Marvel should be treated, I suggest using Stardust the Super-Wizard, a character known to be completely in the public domain.
 * From the article: "The character of Stardust the Super Wizard is in the public domain. As such, he can and has been used by a host of creators over the years [34]"
 * Please see citation 34 from the article associated with the character "Stardust the Super-Wizard". It reads the following:
 * "The copyright on the character Stardust the Super Wizard has expired. The character appeared in comic books originally published in the U.S. by Fox Feature Syndicate between 1939 and 1941. Fox established the original copyrights to the two publications in which Stardust appeared: Fantastic Comics in 1939 and Big 3 Comics in 1941, respectively. The original copyrights lasted 27 years from the end of the year of their first publications. The copyright holder was free to renew the copyright any time during the year 1977. Fox Feature Syndicate, who went out of business in the mid 1950s, did not do so. The character's creator, Fletcher Hanks, died on 22 January 1976 and never established legal claims to his characters. All copyright renewals after 1977 can be searched online at the United States Copyright Office."
 * Technically inaccurate as works have copyrights but not characters. However, it works for a general understanding which is what an encyclopedia is intended for, so it works. I suggest we mark Captain Marvel as public domain in much the same way, and it can read something like this:
 * "The copyright on the first appearance, and many other early appearances of Captain Marvel has expired. The character appeared in comic books originally published in the U.S. by Fawcett Publications between 1940 and 1953. Fawcett established the original copyrights to the publications in which Captain Marvel first appeared: Whiz Comics in 1940 and Captain Marvel Adventures in 1941, respectively. The original copyrights lasted 27 years from the end of the year of their first publications. The copyright holder was free to renew the copyright any time during the year 1977. Fawcett Publications, who stopped producing comics in the mid- 1950s, did not do so. The character's creators, C.C. Beck, who died on 22 November 1989, and Bill Parker, who died 31 January 1963, never established legal claims to their characters. All copyright renewals after 1977 can be searched online at the United States Copyright Office. DC Comics and its parent company Warner Brothers Discovery, are know to own the copyright on the following golden age comics: Captain Marvel Adventures nos. 3-6, 46-129, 131-141 and 143-150; Captain Marvel Jr. nos. 29-34, 36-106, 108-117 and 119; Captain Marvel Story Book nos. 1-2; Fawcett’s Funny Animals nos. 31-79; Hoppy the Marvel Bunny nos. 1-15; The Marvel Family nos. 1-3, 5-80, 82-89; Mary Marvel Comics nos. 1-28; Master Comics nos. 61-126, 128-132; Whiz Comics nos. 3-6, 64-98, 105-118, 130-153 and 155; and Wow Comics nos. 36-69"
 * After we have done this, we can continue the discussion on changing the article name from Captain Marvel (DC Comics) to Captain Marvel (comics) or Captain Marvel (Fawcett Publications) or something else. But the first appearance and a huge portion of the other golden age appearances have lapsed into the public domain, and so it is not accurate to say DC Comics owns anything more than the version of the character they have under copyright, no more no less. Disney has lost in court trying to use trademarks to claim ownership over public domain stories such as Aladdin and his Magic Lamp. It would be wrong for them to sue Netflix of releasing a Pinocchio film in the same year as their recent remake with Tom Hanks, for example. DC Comics has made a lot of changes to the character and thus only own their version which they hold under copyright. Best regards, ~Whig 14:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The citation in the other article is original research, and it should be removed. Please read the links I sent you. What you are trying to do is very very clear cut original research and synth. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Fawcett Comics
We have owned our home for 42 years and was changing one of the ballasts in our finished basement and a bean bag fell out. It said Mary Marvel Toss Bag, and Mary Marvel has a cape on like a super hero. We were wondering if you would like us to send you a [ 96.19.107.229 (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Academic evidence: Captain Marvel is a public domain character, DC only owns their IP.
Evidence suggests that the first 2 issues of Whiz Comics were not renewed as required by law then. This means that the character and derivative works are in the public domain in the United States. DC would own the remaining issues still under copyright, DC-produced works, and their associated trademarks (which does not include the Captain Marvel moniker) Best regards, ~Whig 18:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)