Talk:List of Vertigo Comics publications

Fair use rationale for Image:140120046X.01. SCLZZZZZZZ .jpg
Image:140120046X.01. SCLZZZZZZZ .jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot 06:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Name
I think something like "List of Vertigo titles" would be more accurate and in line with similar articles. (Emperor 02:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

Merge

 * I think that Vertigo comic series and List of Vertigo publications need to be merged.  They are duplicate pages.  I think that the format and most of the content of "List of..." needs to be kept, and I prefer the name "List of..." but I can accept if the other name is preferred. Duggy 1138 (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What I could do is a page history merge, and then it would just look like there was one page which has been moved and been reformatted. Those are fairly uncontroversial things, which can more easily be discussed as and when. Thoughts? Hiding T 09:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to suggest that your work on the page you recently created be scrapped... but that's what I'm suggesting. (Did you even look to see if a similar article already existed?)  A Wikipedia article is a poor substitute for a database, and I don't think a Wikipedia list should try to capture that kind of detail (e.g. number of issues, months of publication) when resources such as the Grand Comics Database already do so much more effectively.  (Where are you getting this information?  Why duplicate it here?)  Finally, the bunch-of-tables format looks chaotic and certainly doesn't contribute to readability. I support a merger, and the title to keep is "List of Vertigo publications", but the article to use as the basis for the merged article is the original one.  - JasonAQuest (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This "List of..." page was created by removing all the Vertigo stuff from List of DC Comics publications and putting into its own page. Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC) PS: Most of the info I was getting is from Previews, the DC website, other contributors discussed having the actual issues in many cases. Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually kind of prefer having the number of issues and dates here, and don't see that as something not within our remit. It allows a historical understanding of the lists, to be honest. I would imagine one can garner this information from a vast number of places, for example the articles on the titles or even Mile High Comics webstore. It might be better to keep the accusations to a minimum and simply focus on the content. I favour the table format over the Vertigo comic series style, although I think there are formatting issues that might need work. Hiding T 15:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not that taken with the tables format either and WP:WTUT suggests we should use table sparingly, and while you could argue it parallels the album example, there is nothing here that can't be done clearer and simpler using lists - the bulk of the publication details are best dealt with on the actual article - years of the runs might be handy here but that is about it. I note the irony that Vertigo comic series contains lists and List of Vertigo publications doesn't. Basically this page shouldn't have been made - the only thing I'd suggest keeping is the name but that could have been done by moving the existing entry. I notice Duggy has also been tablifying List of Wildstorm titles and List of DC Comics publications and it might be we want to discuss the formatting of publications lists as part of a Project wide debate rather than this becomes a fait accompli. (Emperor (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Yeah, I tablified List of DC Comics publications in August last year and with (mainly) two other people refined and added to it. As that table got bigger we moved some of the non-straight DC stuff to other pages, hence the creation of the Vertigo page and the changes to the Wildstorm page.  There were a couple of other pages involved, I'll try to find them all so you can have a complete discussion and fix/remove/change it all at once instead of finding them months apart later. Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm one of the two-plus people who's been helping Duggy with the List of DC Comics publications. I tend to prefer the tabular format myself. Although the information that we list in the tables are available elsewhere, in a tabular format the info is compiled and makes for a handy reference. Trying to get the same information from the Grand Comics Database (or a similar reference site) for a multiple number of titles is a time-consuming task. Emperor could be right about the need to have a (comics) project-wide discussion, for it is inconsistent to have the DC Comics lists with a different appearance than the List of Marvel Comics publications and lists of comics from other publishers. Spiderboy12 (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As the third major contributer, with Duggy and Spiderboy12, to the DC Comics lists, I also prefer the table format as much easier to read than a simple list. I agree with Spiderboy's observation that the table format makes the information easy to read, and puts the all information on one page, while the databases mentioned involved going through a lot of links to get the same information.  The Marvel Comics list is, imo, very poor, hard to read, and not very useful. Jimtrue (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I have started a discussion on agreeing on a format over on the Comcs Project talk page, Hopefully we can agree a consensus that we can apply to all similar lists of publications so that things stay consistent, and then we can apply that to the new articles I want to make by splitting lists out from the articles on other publishers. (Emperor (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

Merge?
Does everyone agree the two pages need merging, regardless of the format that merged page takes? Hiding T 11:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes they cover the same territory. (Emperor (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC))


 * Yes, I agree. Spiderboy12 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sections for sub-imprints
Hello. As I mentioned in the talk page for the Vertigo Comics article, I'd like to remove the lengthy lists of titles from that article and rely on this article for lists of titles by sub-imprint to improve readability of the main article and slim it down a bit. Information about what sub-imprint any given title was published under appears on this article in the "Notes" column. However, there's not a way, so far as I can tell, to sort by sub-imprint, let alone to link to a list by imprint.

The List of Image Comics publications has an alphabetized list of most of the company's titles, followed by lists broken down by imprint. I'd like to add something similar here. However, I'm not sure what the best format would be. There was some controversy over whether to use tables or a straight bullet list here previously, and it looks like tables won. But that seems overkill for the imprint lists. On the other hand, it seems like it would look a little weird to have the tables followed by a series of bulleted lists.

Anyone have thoughts or preferences? Klintron23 (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)