Talk:The Sandman (comic book)/Archive 1

Storyline section
Would the storyline section be better organized into subsections based on the graphic novels? --zandperl 23:38, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In the summary section, its redundant to say "anthropomorphic personification". How about just personification instead. --Devin

Impact Section
Re: "The Sandman was one of the most widely respected American comic book series of its time" - Why classify it as American? Gaiman is English, as is McKean and a number of the illustrators? I'm dropping the word 'American' and replacing with 'English language', seeing as it's an inaccurate description of the series, and also unnecessarily weakens the statement. AmunRa84 11:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Word balloon styles
Removed this:


 * Less importantly, Sandman popularized individual typescripts for the word balloons of certain characters. For example, Morpheus’ word balloons were black with white lettering and Delirium’s were wavy and rainbow-colored. After Sandman became popular, this technique was often imitated in other comic books.

The technique has been used in Cerebus the Aardvark, as well as for the Marvel Universe character of Thanos, who was definitely around prior to 1988. Also for the character of Mr Gone in The Maxx, though I don't know when the initial publication was for that. grendel|khan 06:26, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)


 * Why was it removed? "popularized" does not require "invented"... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.246.115 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 14 April 2005 (UTC)


 * The Maxx ran from 1993 to 1998, and considering that it drew from The Sandman in many other ways, it's not much of a stretch to imagine Mr. Gone's lettering being somehow inspired by The Sandman. But regardless, the fact that Sandman was not the first to use individualized word balloons does not mean that it is irrelevant that the Sandman used individualized word balloons. It's at least an important feature throughout the series, regardless of its impact on later comics, so it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. I'm putting it back with a few changes, like mentioning Cerebus. -Silence 19:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Article title
It occurs to me that the title of this article probably isn't the best. "The Sandman (DC Comics Modern Age)" is too long and convoluted. If you're going to qualify a title with a bit in brackets, as we obviously need to do as there's so many Sandmen in comics and outside, it's better if it's short. Besides, the so-called "ages" of comics are a bit insular and self-aggrandising, and calling anything the "modern age" in such an ephemeral medium risks dating very quickly. Problem is, I can't think of anything better, so - how about a debate? Anyone have any suggestions? --Nicknack009 07:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * How about "The Sandman (Vertigo)" or something like that? – Seancdaug 02:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd support such a move if there were only two DC Sandmen to worry about. Then I could see I see this page being "The Sandman (Vertigo)" and the original DC Sandman being "The Sandman (DC Comics)". But the Silver Age one complicates matters more. I agree that the current page title should be shortened (possibly to "The Sandman (DC Comics 1990s)" or "The Sandman (Endless)"?) if possible, but any suggestions on this matter should take into account the other two articles. For now, anyway, these page titles work. -Silence 03:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The title of this page is ghastly. I say we move it to Sandman (Vertigo) or Sandman (Vertigo comics). Thoughts? Sean 21:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Possibly. I could see this page being moved to The Sandman (Vertigo comics) (though Vertigo is technically just a part of DC Comics... we'd have to change the names of all the other Vertigo comics under (DC Comics)..), the Silver Age one moved to The Sandman (DC Comics), and the Golden Age one moved to Sandman (DC Comics) (since apparently the original one didn't have a "the"). It might confuse a lot more people, but at least it'd be prettier, ne? But I'm much less convinced that moving's the right choice than I was a few weeks ago. Also, your first step should be taking up this matter at Naming conventions (comics), since these Sandman pages are actually being used as an example of what all of Wikipedia should look like!!! Obviously the worst of all worlds would be for us to make Wikipedia inconsistent, so try discussing the naming policy in a broader sense if you disagree with it, rather than fighting for any one page to be renamed when the other pages are still using the old system. K? I'd be glad to help join the discussion, if you're interested in starting one, on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (comics) or someplace perhaps. -Silence 21:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No, that's fine!  I stumbled across this page and was struck at the clumsiness of the title- I should have looked at the naming conventions again, sorry.  Looking at it now, it seems fine. S.I.G.:). Sean 22:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. It makes a little more sense when one looks at the big picture. Though there could still possibly be some improvements to the system; the current one one being used by Sandman requires that there be no more than one comic or character titled that per "age" of DC Comics history; if another Modern one shows up that's not just a subdivision of one of the past three ones, we're sunk. That plus the clumsiness and the disputability of terms like "Golden Age" and "Silver Age"... but in lieu of a better system, I certainly think this name is adequate, if not ideal. Improving the content should be the chief concern, of course. -Silence 00:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The page has now been moved three times today, with no discussion here on the talk page. That's a little disconcerting. Can we have a little discussion maybe before this gets any more crazy? Lord Bodak 18:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge all Sandman articles?
It seems there are 3 separate articles for DC's Sandman Character. This one the 40's incarnation and the 70's incarnation. Up till this moment i've never seen this. Every single other superhero has all their incarnations contained on one page, however disparate those incarnations are. Frankly i'd say they all need to be merged. Frankly its just a bad way to do things. You go to a wikipedia article about the sandman and expect to get a run down of the character starting with his original appearances and moving toward neil gaiman's reinvention. Not 3 articles about 3 different runs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.123.243.168 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It would be a tough merge, as the Golden Age, Silver Age, and Modern Sandmen are almost completely unrelated (well, Gaiman tried to tie the predecessors in with Preludes & Nocturnes and The Doll's House, but the tie to Wesley Dodds is tenuous at best and the connection to the Silver Age Sandman is a major retcon of that character). Are you volunteering?   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 05:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I would oppose merging them. They're not the same character. They're three different characters with the same name. --Nicknack009 12:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd oppose any such merge as well. Gaiman's Sandman does not only feature a distinct character, but also represents a major and identifiable creation in comic book history. Slymole 13:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above comments - they are different characters who happen to have the same name. There is a good disambiguation page Sandman (comics) as well as good page on the various DC characters Sandman (DC Comics). Merging them would be A Bad Idea and like the others I'd strongly oppose any such move. (Emperor 14:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Collection pages
I have a few questions about the ten Sandman collection pages (The Sandman: Preludes and Nocturnes, etc.):


 * 1) How does my reorganization of the first couple of those pages look? Any ideas for how to improve them further?
 * 2) Do the new, heavily-shortened summaries of the collections on this page look OK? I think they could definitely use some improvement, I had trouble adequately explaining a lot of the collections.
 * 3) The sequence infobox was in the middle of each page, which I thought was the worst place for it, so I moved it to the bottom. Would it be better if it was on the top, though?
 * 4) I noticed that The Sandman: Fables and Reflections is organized in an interesting way: there are distinct subsections for each issue in the collection. Should we (a) change that article to not be so subdivided, (b) change every Sandman collection article to be sudvided in the same way, or (c) use those subdivisions only for the collections with largely unrelated one-shots (rather than a continuous plotline) - and if c, what qualifies (does The Sandman: Worlds' End?).
 * 5) I was considering what images we could use to spice up the Sandman pages a bit without wading into any trouble or annoyances (does anyone know the copyright status of ?), and it occurs to me that one thing that might help is if I uploaded the covers of the ten Sandman collections and put each one in its appropriate page? Or would that be redundant or excessive?
 * 6) Should we generally use "Morpheus" or "Dream"? I've been using "Dream," but I expect some people would favor Morpheus... Thoughts?
 * 7) Can you think of any categories the Sandman collections would fit into? I tried searching through the comics categories, but I didn't find anything for "collections of comic books" or anything like that. The closest I came was a "DC Comics storylines" category, but the collections aren't all neatly divided by storyline...

Thanks for yer time. -Silence 19:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Answering your questions in the order asked:
 * 1) Can I assume it's you that's been moving non-spoiler material from the introduction into an "Analysis" section after the spoilers? Surely it makes more sense to include non-spoiler analysis in the intro, noting artist details, character appearances, matters of style and anything else notable that doesn't spoil the story before the spoilers, for the convenience of the general reader who hasn't read the book? Spoilers should come last.
 * 2) I think this, too, should come before the spoilers, so the general reader can click from book to book without having to scroll through the spoilers.
 * 3) Each book should be subdivided in a way which suits the book. Collections of short stories should be considered as collections of short stories and treat each story separately, but I don't see any benefit in breaking down a continuous storyline issue by issue. World's End is slightly problematical that way, but I'm sure a well-written article could surmount any problems.
 * 4) I expect a panel or two could probably be included in an article, with a copyright notice of course, under "fair use". Book covers are generally fair use, but how informative would they be about the content or character of the individual books to a general reader?
 * 5) I'd stick with Dream for the most part, but explain that he has other names where necessary.
 * 6) How about creating a "Sandman" category and putting that under "DC Comics titles" or "Vertigo titles"?

And one I'd like to ask:
 * Are separate pages for the likes of Rose Walker, Alex Burgess etc really necessary? Characters like Cain and Abel who have appeared outside Sandman can usefully have separate pages, but how informative is a page about a character who's only appeared in Sandman which simply summarises their appearance in Sandman?

--Nicknack009 10:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

-Silence 10:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, I'm the one who created the "Analysis" section because it worried me that some fairly POV (though quite interesting) comments were too integrated with directly factual information like release dates and storyline information. I didn't want to spend too much time trying to reword them to be neutral with obnoxious things like "Some people think..." or "Many agree that..." or whatever, so I decided to clarify it all in one swift blow by putting it a section that explicitly states their nature. I'm fine with basic information about the story being noted at the top of the page, brief noteworthy aspects of the issues and such. However, when it gets too long (and many of the Analysis sections are getting there...), it's simply a boon to anyone reading the page to put it in a category. And I disagree that spoilers should go at the end, especially in a page which is 90% about spoilers. I could see it for a page that's centrally about something that isn't spoiler-related, hiding the spoilers at the end to protect wary readers, but when more than 3/4 of the article is spoiler, to try to hide it is just silly.
 * Er, they can, and they do. Via the The Sandman (DC Comics Modern Age) page. I could see including a template at the top of each page with a list of all 10 Sandman collections on it, since that would make navigation easier than the current template (which only lists the collection before and after the one you're on), but wouldn't it be a waste of space to also include a description for every collection on every page? If that's what you're suggesting. Or maybe you're just saying we should have each collection's summary at the top of that collection's page. Still a little redundant though, but something like that could work..
 * 1) Alright. I'm still far from convinced that dividing the non-short-story-based collections by issue would be a bad idea, though. It would help divide up and organize the text, making it easier to read and add to, and would make it clear where each issue begins and ends in regards to the plot. Plus there are some storylines where most of the storyline is continuous, but there's one or two one-shots thrown in which would be easier to deal with if we divided the synopsis by issue..
 * 2) OK. I agree. Perhaps we could start a little talk on each collection's discussion page about which panel(s)/cover(s) we should pick for each article...
 * OK, glad we agree again.
 * 1) Sounds good. "Sandman Characters" could be a subcategory in that. (Oh, thought of one problem: unlike characters and titles with their own categories like Superman, Sandman is an ambiguous name with many different possible subjects, even within Comics. Should we merely name the category "Category:Sandman" or should we go to some length to ensure that it's not confused with the many other Sandmen?)
 * 2) Almost all Sandman characters have appearead outside of Sandman by now, simply because of the ridiculous number of spin-offs that's come out for so many of them, even a great number of very minor ones. :) Perhaps you mean "outside of the Sandman  mythos" or something... But as for your question: What do you mean "how informative is a page about a character who's only appeared in Sandman"? As informative as if it weren't on its own page, or as the summaries and synopses of the Sandman collections! I don't understand why "appearing outside of the Sandman should be a large factor in whether or not a Sandman character gets a page (though if that appearance is especially significant, e.g. Prez)... Instead, the biggest factor should be how important that character is to the Sandman. Rose is one of the more major characters, so I can understand her having her own page. Alex Burgess is mainly noteworthy for being a key player in the first Sandman issue and in that turning point in Dream's life, even though he doesn't appear as often throughout the series as Rose, Hob Gadling, etc. I'm surprised by the existence of some of the Sandman articles (for example, Bast (DC Comics), and that we had such long and involved articles for both Roderick Burgess and Alex Burgess), but others, and in some cases I was surprised that there aren't yet articles for certain key characters! (I'm thinking of The Three, Loki, Puck...) I've also been working myself on dealing with some of the character pages for too-minor chars, especially the really short ones. I've merged Remiel (Sandman) and Remiel (archangel) into Remiel, I've created a new article at Cluricaun for The Cluracan, and I've encouraged not making articles for every single insignificant character by turning former broken links into mere bold text for characters like Ishtar and The Fashion Thing. I agree with you that some reform of the Sandman character pages is necessary, but I disagree that a character of enormous appointance to The Sandman who doesn't appear outside of The Sandman doesn't merit its own article (if any character does - we always have the option of going crazy and annihilating all Sandman character articles, turning them into Headings on one or two gathered pages). But maybe we should handle this in an organized way. Why don't you list which Sandman characters you think are worthy of having their own pages? Based solely on their significance to Sandman and other series, not on the current content of their pages (since I can easily expand or create a Sandman page if there's a consensus that it should exist).
 * 1) Almost all Sandman characters have appearead outside of Sandman by now, simply because of the ridiculous number of spin-offs that's come out for so many of them, even a great number of very minor ones. :) Perhaps you mean "outside of the Sandman  mythos" or something... But as for your question: What do you mean "how informative is a page about a character who's only appeared in Sandman"? As informative as if it weren't on its own page, or as the summaries and synopses of the Sandman collections! I don't understand why "appearing outside of the Sandman should be a large factor in whether or not a Sandman character gets a page (though if that appearance is especially significant, e.g. Prez)... Instead, the biggest factor should be how important that character is to the Sandman. Rose is one of the more major characters, so I can understand her having her own page. Alex Burgess is mainly noteworthy for being a key player in the first Sandman issue and in that turning point in Dream's life, even though he doesn't appear as often throughout the series as Rose, Hob Gadling, etc. I'm surprised by the existence of some of the Sandman articles (for example, Bast (DC Comics), and that we had such long and involved articles for both Roderick Burgess and Alex Burgess), but others, and in some cases I was surprised that there aren't yet articles for certain key characters! (I'm thinking of The Three, Loki, Puck...) I've also been working myself on dealing with some of the character pages for too-minor chars, especially the really short ones. I've merged Remiel (Sandman) and Remiel (archangel) into Remiel, I've created a new article at Cluricaun for The Cluracan, and I've encouraged not making articles for every single insignificant character by turning former broken links into mere bold text for characters like Ishtar and The Fashion Thing. I agree with you that some reform of the Sandman character pages is necessary, but I disagree that a character of enormous appointance to The Sandman who doesn't appear outside of The Sandman doesn't merit its own article (if any character does - we always have the option of going crazy and annihilating all Sandman character articles, turning them into Headings on one or two gathered pages). But maybe we should handle this in an organized way. Why don't you list which Sandman characters you think are worthy of having their own pages? Based solely on their significance to Sandman and other series, not on the current content of their pages (since I can easily expand or create a Sandman page if there's a consensus that it should exist).

Hey, you guys, how about adding a line or two about "the Sandman: The Song of Orpheus" issue, which is definitely part of the Sandman cannon, more that any of the other specials... -dyeote —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.32.62 (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Stupid Idea
I just want to say this comic is a stupid idea because how can a "Dream" exist for billions of years when human beings have only been around for an estimated 33,000 (and at the very most, 90,000 in the light of new evidence). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.81.187 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 September 2005


 * You do realize that by saying this, you're going against your own NPOV tag? Pentasyllabic 19:15, September 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * There are a few plotholes in the Sandman, yes, though that hardly makes it a bad series on its own. This is not one of those plotholes, though. First of all, how many of the supernatural details in the Sandman are actually intended to be taken as literally true even within the story-world is quite open to interpretation. There is evidence supporting the idea that the Endless are nothing but an elaborate metaphor or thought-construct with which to analyze the human condition. However, since you asked, I'll answer your question directly, with the explanation given in the series itself (in Endless Nights, in which the Endless are shown to exist long before life exists on earth): In the world of The Sandman (and the DC Comics cosmos in general!), there are numerous alien civilizations which predate human life, and even all life on earth, by a huge span of time. Dream is as old as the oldest dream, not necessarily the oldest human dream. So, there you go.
 * In response to your claims about the comic's level of quality: Have you actually read the series, or are you just basing your opinion on the summary currently on this page? Because one thing I've learned is that no work, no matter how amazing, sounds great in concept or summary alone, and many fantastic works, in fact, have pretty cruddy concepts if you try to isolate the basic idea from the actual telling of the story. I Don't mean to sound condescending, but you'll be able to much more effectively criticize this series after having read at least part of it - the Sandman does have genuine flaws; nothing is perfect. But a summary alone can won't tell you much about its strengths or its weaknesses.
 * Hope I didn't come across as too zealousy defending Sandman there, but I wanted to answer your question entirely. La. -Silence 23:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * to Pentasyllabic-if youd read carefully you would understand that Dream is lord of ALL dreams,not only Human (the Martian manhunter bowes to him in the first trade,as the god of sleep,so that means,he is also a god of Aliens dreams,and so,without saying it out full,Gaiman tells,that Aliens also have dreams,and lives,and it is more directly indicated in the second trade,in witch Dream explains to Rose of the dream vortex,and says that "eons ago and half the universe further"(i have the Czech trade,so i dont know the text exactly),about a world,that was destroyed through another vortex-and as the vortex is conected to dreams,this must mean that dreams are normal to other races.David Kartaš


 * Probably not so obvious, but if you read carefully, it wasn't me, but rather 24.179.81.187 who said the first part. (the proof) --Pentasyllabic 19:08, September 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * David, Pentasyllabic didn't make that comment. He was responding to it, just like I did. The person who made the original comment didn't sign it, hence the confusion. That person is 24.179.81.187. But yes, you are right that Dream is older than the earth because of the alien factor in Sandman. Of course, even if aliens didn't exist, Dream would probably have to be older than humans, because many animals that predate humans dreamed too! -Silence 19:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * How about the fact this series goes on to explain that each of the Endless came into existence before something that could even serve a purpose of the Endless. Something had to have a destiny before it could exist, and before something could live it needed to have the possibility of an end in death. Also the series went on to do such strange concepts such as as a city dreaming or that cats were the dominant life form on Earth before humans dreamed it out of existance. I think whoever wrote that wasn't exactly a patron of fine arts, maybe he should go back to stuff like Beavis & Butthead and Simpsons comics if he wants something more his speed. 72.57.10.124 05:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Humans aren't the only creatures who dream. This was clearly stated in 'Endless Nights' where Dream and the Endless congregate with the planets and stars and other such fantastical entities.  It isn't stupid, it's fantasy.129.12.237.219 (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely new to Wikipedia and needing help
Would be very interested in putting some research I have done on the Sandman's narrative structure (using Hy Bender's book, interviews and other sources) but unsure as to what is 'fact' and what may be sen as praise - if I put it on, will people be kind enough to be 'gentle' but firm with it? Was introduced to W by someone close and want to share in this experience...! Crescent 06:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If by "gentle" you mean "not being too hard on you regardless of whether your contributions will end up being kept around" and by "firm" you mean "honestly and thoroughly going through and editing your contributions to improve them in any ways possible" (or something like that, anyway), then: Of course!
 * One of the policies of Wikipedia is "be bold" - don't be reckless, but don't be scared to contribute just because you think it might be removed; we'll gladly look over any contributons you add, and if it does turn out to be unencyclopedic or otherwise not appropriate here, we can easily remove portions of it with no harm done. I also have the Hy Brener book, and think it's a fantastic resource, especially as a place to draw insightful Sandman-related Neil Gaiman quotes (or paraphrases) from.
 * Also, welcome to Wikipedia! If you have any other questions regarding getting acquainted with this site, I and others would be glad to assist you. -Silence 17:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably shouldn't be listed as a graphic novel
Because creator Neil Gaiman doesn't use the term graphic novel. In the past he's made the analogy "graphic novel: comic book, lady of the evening: hooker". (Unsigned comment dated 21:45, 12 October 2005 UTC by anon user, IP address  68.46.22.195.)


 * Ah. Whilst he has made that analogy, that doesn't per se rule out the usage of the term, especially when DC have marketed his works as graphic novels.  I don't think it is entirely true to state Gaiman doesn't use the term either:
 * For some reason the term "big thick collected or original comic published in book form" has never really caught on, while "Graphic Novel" did.


 * It's a sales category, and a clue to where in the bookstore (or comic shop) you can buy the story. Sandman was indeed 76 comic books, and you can still find those issues on eBay, and on the walls and back-issue bins at comic stores. But if you want to read the story now, the easy way is as a series of ten graphic novels. That's how they stay in print. From his February 2 2004 journal entry.


 * Note Gaiman refers to the collections as graphic novels, so he does use the term. Hiding talk 16:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Technically, books that reprint old comics are "trade paperbacks" not "graphic novels." --Scottandrewhutchins 12:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, technically, "trade paperback" is the format they're printed in. You could in principle reprint old comics in a hardcover format, rather than a trade paperback, though nobody seems to do so. But the content of such a book, whether paperback or otherwise, may be "graphic novel". AJD 14:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "You could in principle reprint old comics in a hardcover format, rather than a trade paperback, though nobody seems to do so.": You realize that The Sandman has been printed in hardback form twice now don't you? (First as 10 hardbacks and now as 4 hardback Absolute ed.)--SeizureDog 14:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done!
This article is superb, i would even recommend for a featured article myself. --Raddicks 15:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Good article, couple little things though, I came here to read about the character and this concentrates on the character, so one of those things near the top that redirects you might be nice. Also, didn't see it so if I missed it sorry, but this is one of the few rare comics that seemed to keep with real world time (usually). For instance in issue 21 he met with his family. in an issue in the 40s (can't remember which one exactly) he says its been 2 years since he saw Desire, or she says that to him. Anyways, keep up the good work Highlandlord 10:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Translation
I'm aware this is not the right place to put this suggestion, but I'm rather inexperienced with editing, so I'll leave it here at least for the time being. Anyway, what I wanted to say is: wouldn't it be nice to put the translations of Endless' names to other languages in their article, since in the original English they all start with a "D" and it would be interesting to see if translators succeeded in indicating that somehow? May-hem 14:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

And thanks to the person who created the title; I didn't know how to do it at the time. May-hem 14:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
The Sandman (comic book series) → The Sandman … Rationale: This is probably the primary use of the name as a title. The original folktlae character should be at some variant of Sandman, without The. —Septentrionalis 20:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Support as nom. If multiple choices show up, this should probably be made an approval vote. Septentrionalis 20:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, although it's already been done, apparently in a matter of minutes from the proposal, which doesn't seem quite cricket. The whole point of the disambiguation is that the Gaiman series is not the only comic called the Sandman. --Nicknack009 21:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support, as long as Sandman remains a disambiguation page. The phrase "comic book series" is obviously still ambiguous, so a poor choice. "DC Comics/Vertigo" doesn't help the person who isn't a comic book fan. I would prefer The Sandman (Neil Gaiman comic book) over other choices. --Dhartung | Talk 23:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. There are other things named "The Sandman", but this is by far the most popular one, so it's acceptable to use that as the name now that the article is part of the title. Plus all the parentheses choices are quite poor, for a variety of reasons. Once the move is made, though, we should have a very celar explanatory dab note at the top of the page. -Silence 00:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I dont think that the article (The) should be concidered as a part of a proper name. When serching through titles of movies and books, you always place them on the Letter that is "S", such as is the case of The Sandman.--Guille2015 03:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's part of the proper name by Wikipedia naming conventions. "The" is only removed from certain lists of titles for alphabetization purposes, not because it can't be "part of a proper name". -Silence 16:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose: At best, The Sandman can be its own disambiguation page, because there is also The Sandman (Doctor Who audio), The Sandman (film).  There's more than the comic book series. Kevin_b_er 05:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And both of those articles are stubs. Which proves the point exactly: there are certainly more than one thing named "The Sandman", but this is far and away the most noteworthy of those things, and by far the most likely one for people to look for as "The Sandman". Anyway, it would be absurd to have a separate dab page at "The Sandman", because clearly "The Sandman" and "Sandman" titles alike should be listed at the same dab page, Sandman. So "The Sandman" is either going to be a redirect to the dab page Sandman, or it's going to be the article for The Sandman series; those are the only two viable options. -Silence 16:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I think the current arrangement is best, though I'd be open to a different alternate title for The Sandman (comic book series) if people think that the current one is unclear. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The current arrangement is absolutely unacceptable, as it arbitrarily violates all of Wikipedia's established naming conventions for comics for no specified reason. If we are going to keep a parenthetical statement, it needs to be one like "(comics)" or "(DC Comics Golden Age)" or "(DC Comics/Vertigo)", not the absurdly verbose "(comic book series)". :/ -Silence 02:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. The current title of this article is too ambiguous. I know it was a compromise from the last go-round of renaming the Sandman comics articles, but I've never liked it. In my opinion, Neil Gaiman's The Sandman is the most notable item with that title, so I have no problem with renaming it as such. Failing that, I'd prefer Sandman (Vertigo series) or Sandman (Neil Gaiman series). -- GentlemanGhost 04:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember that most Sandman issues were originally printed under DC Comics; the Vertigo imprint was only invented late in the series' run. With that in mind, if we did mention Vertigo in parentheses, it would be redundant to mention "series" as well; The Sandman (Vertigo) would be the correct style (remember that the series is named The Sandman, not Sandman). As for your latter suggestion, I don't see any reason to mention the writer's name here when we do so nowhere else on Wikipedia. It also seems like an unnecessarily complicated and lengthy name. -Silence 02:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

I found this at The Sandman (DC Comics/Vertigo) which is undesirable; the character / should be avoided in article names, because it's used to mark subpages. Septentrionalis 20:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that subpages are disabled on the English Wikipedia, so if the slash is part of the name (e.g. OS/2) it's perfectly acceptable. But that is a mouthful of a disambiguator. --Dhartung | Talk 23:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, When you see names of things and books, especially in encyclopedias, you will notice that they are placed with the "The" part at the end of the name. Sandman, The. --Guille2015 03:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia practice, however, is to include The in titles without shifting it with a comma; we don't have to alphabetize. Septentrionalis 16:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move mk2
How about moving the page to The Sandman (Vertigo)? It's a lot less of a mouthful and it follows guidelines more closely. --Jamdav86 11:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. It seems more appropriate that way. May-hem 16:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

broken saints?
A small note, but the other night I was watching this series, Broken Saints, and wondered if anyone else had a. seen it, and b. noted Dream's appearance in it, as many characters have a section discussing where they're noted as appearing in other media. russ. 07:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I'm a big fan of both Sandman and Broken Saints. It was a review stating Broken Saints as the Sandman of animation series that drew me to watching. That actually wasn't Dream appearing in the series, it was a manifestation of the broadcasted God that appeared. .... I don't want to spoil it for anyone, but that person just happened to look like Dream. Also it's worth mentioning that the series quotes from the Brief Lives storyline. 72.57.10.124 05:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actions: Rationale (feedback requested)
A1437053 17:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. Shortened intro: Looking around, the intro should be a brief summary of what the article should be about.
 * 2. "The Story" Classification: The Story how has subsections, Plot, Setting, and Protagonist. They all need a brush up and I considered including a list (and summary?) of the main characters, with appropriate links to each character's page. Additionally, a clear link to the exhaustive Sandman Characters page.
 * 3. "Impact" Classfication: Re-organized according to topics. Moved "Art" subsection here, as it relates to the Impact of the series.

Reformatting The Sandman
A1437053 17:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it just me, or are the "Collections" and "Other books and series" and "Neil Gaiman - written Stories" sections hideous? Help?
 * Can we use Template:Spider-Man as a model for reorganization? The Sandman world is not yet over, this would allow for expansion.

The Sandman Movie - Development Hell
I was wondering why nowhere on Wikipedia (as far as I can tell) is there any mention of a Sandman movie and its place in development hell. According to wordplayer.com, the website of screenwriters Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio, the team wrote a script for a Sandman film back in 1998, which you can read here, along with a short introduction on why the script wasn't picked up. I think that if there was more public knowledge of the possibility of a Sandman film and its place in development hell, it might encourage fans to nag Hollywood into finally producing it. Or at least give it more thought. 71.240.203.131 05:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with a Sandman movie is that it would almost certainly be based on Preludes and Nocturnes, which even the best director and most devoted Sandman fan would have trouble making look much different from a standard comic book movie, with its climactic battle with JLA-foe Doctor Destiny, which to me, misses the point of what makes Sandman so good. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging
Consider: 1. Moving Sandman spinoffs to The World of The Sandman or some other, more inclusive title. The new page would focus on Sandman-related connections, including previous work (like PREZ and non-fiction work such as Bender's work. 2. Merging the The World of The Sandman section here on the The Sandman (Vertigo) page.


 * What do you think?

A1437053 08:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Awards section is based on rumours
The awards section contains a commonly spread rumour that the World Fantasy Award board of judges changed the rules when The Sandman won the award in 1991. However, on the World Fantasy Awards rules page, they clearly state that "Comics are eligible in the Special Award Professional category. We never made a change in the rules."

I am aware of that at least two of the Sandman albums' introductions contain this information but that doesn't make it true. Comic book/graphic novel lovers tend to get very defensive when discussing the quality of graphic novels as an art form. Maybe this section should at least be updated so that the text isn't stating this as a fact, rather a rumour? Alternatively, provide a reliable source that proves this is NOT a rumour.

Thezood 21:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Film headline
Neil Gaiman on Sandman Movie —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandman in Abre los ojos
I just saw the cover of The Sandman #1 in the Spanish film Abre los ojos (which was adapted into Vanilla Sky). Trivial, but interesting. Makes sense too, considering the films are about dreams. Anyways, I know this really probably can't help the article out any, but I just had to share this finding.--SeizureDog 01:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In the sense of this article and the comic book itself, I would agree that it is trivial. In the sense of the film, however, I would say it is quite significant.  Maybe someone should take their Sandman knowledge to the 'Abre los ojos' article and input this bit of information and why it is so important to the overall film?  I have only seen 'Vanilla Sky' myself, which is why I feel I can't do it.129.12.237.219 (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Neil Gaiman – written stories" section
I had removed the list due to being redundant (it's already mentioned which things Gaiman wrote and which he didn't, plus information is available at List of works by Neil Gaiman) and violating WP:NPOV for elitism. However, I was reverted. Thoughts please.--SeizureDog 21:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comics Project Improvement Drive
This article is the current focus of the Comics Project Improvement Drive. The aim is to focus the eyes of the project here and help bring the article up in quality.

The first step is to run through the article and throw and see if there are any minor fixes that can be done and then throw in thoughts on areas to address. There is also a sub-section below for people to add useful resources that can be added to the article to help flesh out the real world aspects. (Emperor 23:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC))


 * My initial thoughts are this does feel partly like a holding page for links onto further articles. This is partly due to the nature of it but this is also the best place for giving a good overview to the reception of the series as well as looking at the analysis of the series and the themes that emerge. So that is the area I feel needs expanding. I also think we can remove the spin-offs section as there is already a good section on this, Sandman spinoffs, and this is just repeating the information there and the link is already in the see also section. (Emperor 12:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC))


 * There's needs to at least be a subsection for the spinoffs that includes a "main article" link. WesleyDodds 21:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough but do we need the whole contents of the section which is done better in the other article? (Emperor 22:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC))
 * No, of course not. We need at most a paragraph that summarizes what's on the page being linked to. A common example is the "_____ in other media" sections used for characters, such as Batman. The information about Batman in other media is large enough to warrant its own page and is too large to go into the main article, so that subsections works effectively to concisely discuss "Batman in other media" while also providing a link to the main article that discusses the topic more in-depth. WesleyDodds 23:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK cool. (Emperor 00:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

Resources
If you know of any useful articles, interviews, studies, etc. then add then in here and we can work on integrating them into this entry. NB if they aren't easily accessible then drop in a note if you have it and a precis of the important and relevant bits would be a great help. It'd also be best if the references are templated before being put in the article. (Emperor 23:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC))


 * Carson Banks, Amanda & Wein, Elizabeth E. Folklore and the Comic Book: The Traditional Meets the Popular New Directions in Folklore 2, January 1998. (Emperor 12:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

Hatnotes
On my restoring hatnotes (as this seems to be an issue):

WP:NAMB doesn't mean that ever hatnote should be removed. This is discussed in greater detail here but it is a long discussion so to summarise. NAMB is a guideline and "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" and theuse here is an example of such an exception. I don't believe we should do away with NAMB because it would lead to disambiguating to general pages which aren't that helpful (sending someone to Sandman (disambiguation) could help them after some digging but could equally just be confusing). However, such specific disambiguation pages as Sandman (comics) can be really helpful in resolving tricky naming situations and using a hatnote to point to such a page is very useful. You can consider it as a tightened up and cleaner version of "This entry is about the Vertigo comic character for the Golden Age character see ..., for the other DC Comics characters see..." Which is consistent with general disambiguating policy - I'd prefer NAMB was re-written to be less proscriptive (as it implies all hatnotes should be removed from non-ambiguous pages) but such a rewrite isn't required to allow the inclusion of such hatnotes (which experience has show are very useful and do help). (Emperor 12:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC))
 * I don't see what's so vague about the guideline. Someone who looks up the Sandman from DC obviously isn't looking for "other uses". And using WP:IAR won't help your case (not saying that WP:IAR is your arguement, you are implying it however). Maybe you should see WP:OWN. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting accusations - I am not making WP:IAR claims (I can't think I've ever used it as I don't think it is that helpful - what I have done is highlight what a guideline actually is and am working within the definition) and I cannot see where you came up with WP:OWN from. Equally I'm not saying WP:NAMB is vague - I'm saying it is currently worded as to appear to proscriptive and is being used to remove all hatntoes from non-ambiguous articles when the discussion I point to clear shows plenty of cases where they make sense. (Emperor 16:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC))


 * I redirect Sandman (comics) to Sandman (disambiguation). There aren't enough entries to justify having a seperate article, especially since all of the entires are easily found in the relevent section.--SeizureDog 14:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with that page it is very helpful. (Emperor 16:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

Protected
I've protected the article for 48 hours - please take this time to discuss future edits to the page. Please do not continue to edit war after the protection expires.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  17:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems unnecessary. 5 edits over an aspect that doesn't even affect the article's content does not classify as a "edit war" to me. WP:3RR has not been broken and the issue was already in the process of discussion. Was this requested or something?--SeizureDog 18:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was requested by User:SesshomaruBrian Boru is awesome 18:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The timing is interesting Sesshomaru reverted my edit and 2 minutes later asked for the page to be protected (for edit warring - which, even if we assume it was going on, he'd just contributed to) despite my starting a discussion above about the hatnote hours earlier. One would think that, as there was no vandalism, this could be resolved there first. He then posts a reply to the points I made accusing me of having WP:OWN issues with this page (which I've edited half a dozen times in the last couple of years). I'll leave it up to other editors to draw their own conclusions on all that. (Emperor 16:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC))
 * I'm having problems with him too. Brian Boru is awesome 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because you guys don't like WP:NAMB does not mean that it is too strict. I'm not trying to be disruptive, honestly, I abide by policies and guidelines at all times. If you guys disagree with any rule, discuss before you revert. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thing is I don't have a problem with NAMB just the way some editors apply it.
 * And If you look at the edits you'll see I moved it to a discussion, you then reverted it and immediately had the page protected.
 * I'm sure you abide by the policies and guidelines but people can still do that and game the system. (Emperor 21:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

Ahem. Regardless of the above concerns about premature protecting or problems with people... However, such hatnotes may sometimes be used when it is not entirely clear for the reader which disambiguation is used for which article (for example Matt Smith (illustrator) and Matt Smith (comics)). (WP:NAMB) In barring this minor addition to the article we take for granted that everyone who makes their way to this article has done so along a logical path. Broken redirects, mistakes in disambiguating links, etc. could easily lead some one looking for the older characters to this article, or those looking for this one to the older characters. Not everyone is as good at internets as we are. Cost / benefit evaluation says keep DAB! - BalthCat 04:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * However, such hatnotes may sometimes be used when it is not entirely clear for the reader which disambiguation is used for which article (for example Matt Smith (illustrator) and Matt Smith (comics)). - This does not mean that one can add a otheruses-related dab to about every name that is somewhat titled "Matt Smith" or "Matthew Smith". Please read this guideline more carefully. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And very few people are arguing for the blanket use of hatnotes - NAMB is useful for reducing unnecessary clutter. Cases like the Matt Smith one (where there are at least 3 articles on people it might apply to - and at least one more I found while Googling this issue - I not that the Comic Book DB has also made the same mistake ) and the WotW films are clear examples of where a lot of confusion was fixed by using them as the common sense exceptions to NAMB (which is supported by the definition of a guideline). So NAMB cannot be used to justify the removal of every hatnote and in fields where there are a lot of similar named people/things (for example, politicians called John Smith) the use of tightly focused sub-disambiguation pages, like Sandman (comics), can help resolve this confusion quickly and easily. I know that one can be specifically helpful as it helped me get everything straight in my head. (Emperor 13:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:Sandman no.1 (Modern Age).comiccover.jpg
Image:Sandman no.1 (Modern Age).comiccover.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Reorganize storylines
The section on "Collections" should be split into two new sections. The first would be titled "Storylines" and the second "Collected editions." The "Collected editions" (the standard title for such a section) would be shortened to a list of trade paperbacks (complete with ISBNs, publication dates, etc.). The "Storylines" section would contain the links to and short synopses of the major story arcs of The Sandman. The reorganization will be accompanied by new articles for each storyline replacing the current articles for The Sandman Library articles. This reorganization should be done for the following reasons: I've created a sandbox with a rough draft of the first Sandman arc "More Than Rubies" that can be found here.
 * Story arcs reflect better the original form of the series and the creators' (particularly Gaiman's) original intent than the trade paperbacks, which were not organized by the creators.
 * Trade paperbacks are often replaced by newer TPBs often with different titles collecting the issues differently (as is the case with The Absolute Sandman) making articles on TPBs dated. Story arcs
 * The Sandman Library TPBs publish several issues out of order, again suppressing the Gaiman's original intent.
 * The Sandman Library TPBs sometimes contain multiple story arcs, with the current articles juxtaposing several different story arcs into the same articles.
 * The current article all lack infoboxes, as there are none for trade paperbacks. If organized by story arc, Template:Infobox comics story arc could be used making important information of the story arc (including the collected editions it appears in), easier to find.

--Marcus Brute (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do we have any official source for storylines? Or is that going to have to be OR? --Gwern (contribs) 00:24 27 December 2008 (GMT)


 * As the suggestion stands I'd be wary of doing this. For starters the articles on the TPBs are poor and creating more articles with the same content spread across them is only going to dilute pretty thin content. At this remove from the original publication we'd probably stand more chance of beefing up any sub-articles with "reception" sections using reviews, which would tend to be reviews of the trades, making the choice of basing the articles on the trades a sensible one. Also:


 * It is perfectly possible to create a good TPB article, see e.g. Batman: Anarky. The lack of infoboxes is, presumably down to no one adding them.


 * I'd be concerned about how you would define "major storyline" without veering into OR. (Emperor (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC))


 * The current articles already list which story arcs they contain (see Preludes and Nocturnes, "The first seven issues of this collection comprise the "More Than Rubies" storyline. The eighth issue is a more self-contained story, "The Sound of Her Wings."") If determining how storyline is defined is "OR," then you already have articles filled will OR. As for a source on the story arcs, how about the issues themselves, for example the covers to The Sandman #12 (seen here) and The Sandman #22 (seen here) both of which clear state the story arc. As for third party confirmation on story arcs, see here, here, here, here and here. I could provide more links but I think the point is made.


 * As for the concern that this change would only "dilute pretty thin content," I don't think saying that the articles aren't very good is a good excuse to not try to make them better.--Marcus Brute (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Um... looking at the TPB articles and the information they contain...
 * Preludes and Nocturnes is noted as containing 8 issues - "More Than Rubies" (7) and "The Sound of Her Wings" (1). The article states that the last issue acts as an epilogue for the first 7, making it 1 compete arc of 8 issues.
 * The Doll's House is noted as containing either 9 or 8 issues depending on the edition - "The Sound of Her Wings" (only in the older editions) and and arc consisting of 8 issues. Presumably the arc is also title "The Doll's House", though this is had to tell since the individual story titles lack chapter numbers or a unifying main title. Please note that this is also the case with "More Than Rubies".
 * Dream Country is noted as containing 4 issues - Each being a "done in one" issue.
 * Season of Mists is noted as containing 8 issues - Again, an arc of 8 issues, titled "Seasons of Mists". This was used as the primary title for each of the issues with a "chapter" subtitle.
 * A Game of You is noted as containing 5 issues - Also a complete story arc and, like "More Than Rubies" and "The Doll's House", with an assumed overall title since none was given with the comics.
 * Fables and Reflections is noted as containing 9 elements - 7 full issues and 2 partial. At best the 7 issues fall into 2 grouping "Distant Mirrors" and "Convergence" even though all 7 are stand alone stories.
 * Brief Lives is noted as containing 9 issues - A complete arc that, like "Seasons of Mists", had the title "Brief Lives" with chapter subtitles used in the comics.
 * Worlds' End is noted as containing 6 issues - Again, all "done in one" stories and the last one giving it's title to the trade.
 * The Kindly Ones is noted as containing 14 issues - One arc, following in the pattern of "Title - Chapter" in the comics.
 * The Wake is noted as containing 6 issues - One 3 or 4 issue arc and 3 or 2 remaining stand alones. The quibble point is where "An Epilogue, Sunday Mourning" fits.
 * Endless Nights which is an OGN not a trade.
 * Looking at it, the articles are already divided by story arc because that is how the trades were constructed. Is it not preferable to work with what is already there and improve the existing articles? or is the desire here to have an issue by issue plot summary, which is easier to justify in "story arc" articles?
 * - J Greb (talk)
 * The "desire" is to have the story arcs which are common to all editions of The Sandman including their original format to have articles because they are more notable than a later repackaging. If "the articles are already divided by story arc" in all but name, then a switch to story arcs proper should be not be difficult and the added notability would justify the change.--Marcus Brute (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So lets see then... of the 11 articles:
 * 4 of the articles - Season of Mists, Brief Lives, The Kindly Ones, and Endless Nights - do not need to be moved at all since the trades use the title used for the original run in the comics.
 * 3 of the article - Dream Country, Fables and Reflections, and Worlds' End - likely shouldn't or can't be changed. The TPB is how the collections of individual stories are handled in secondary sources. At best, additional material/information should be added into these articles. Otherwise they would become either 22 or 17 articles - 1 for each trade and 1 for each issue with a quibble over "Distant Mirrors" and "Convergence". And there is also a quibble about just how notable those individual issues are.
 * 2 of the articles - The Doll's House and A Game of You - which cover arcs that did not use a unifying title in the comics, and the only commonly used title is the one from the trades. So it is unlikely that those articles should be moved.
 * The Wake, which is a "clean up" covering the last arc and the "odds-n-ends" issues. I guess it may be an idea to create the additional articles. But again that would result in 4 or 5 articles, depending on how "An Epilogue, Sunday Mourning" is treated. And it also brings up the notability issue - are the odds-n-ends notable in and of themselves or only as part of the trade?
 * Preludes and Nocturnes also has the "added issue" issue with "The Sound of Her Wings". The sandbox example suggests that single issue be split off into its own article. Is it really notable enough on its own for that or is its notability as the epilogue for the first arc? And there is also the article title... whereexactly does the title "More Than Rubies" come from? It certainly wasn't the original comics since each of the 8 issues in the trade had its own, unique title. So I guess there is a notability issue there as well: Is the arcs more notable title that of the trade or the unsourced one?
 * So... on an article title front, it looks like we can ignore 6, ponder to split or not to split on 4, and argue notability on the last as well as to split or not to split.
 * As for content, again 6 of the articles may just be in need of additional information being added. If that. The other 5... is there really enough content to justify splitting the articles up? Side note: Such content should be more than just expanding the plot summaries. And for what is generally touted as a "critically acclaimed" series, these 11 articles have precious little other than plot summary.
 * On notability... as far as I can tell, the notability here resides first in the stories, second in the mass market presentation (the trades man, the trades), and then third the comics. Yes, there should be information in the article covering where the material comes from. The "collected issues" grid is one way to do this. Adding the Infobox comics story arc is another. So would adding a publication history section between the lead and the synopsis. But these are steps in adding information, not changing or removing it. And definitely not moving articles.
 * - J Greb (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The Sandman or Sandman?
As far as I remember, this series has always been simply "Sandman", not The Sandman. There has been no "The" in the title in any of the issues, so why is it "The Sandman" all the way through the article?

81.131.169.150 (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandman Inspiring Vertigo
"In 1993, the success of Sandman inspired DC comics to launch the Vertigo imprint, which specialized in this genre and published some of the most acclaimed series of the 1990s including Preacher and Animal Man."

The Vertigo article states,

"Vertigo was founded in the wake of DC's successful "mature" comics of the late 1980s, beginning with Saga of the Swamp Thing and continuing with Watchmen and The Sandman."

Now, as this article currently holds it seems as if Sandman was alone in giving birth to the Vertigo line. Whether this is true or not I have no idea, but as long as the Vertigo article holds differently it would seem in good taste to include these additional comics in the Sandman article.

I propose,

"In 1993, the success of Sandman (together with Saga of the Swamp Thing and Watchmen) inspired DC comics to launch the Vertigo imprint, which specialized in this genre and published some of the most acclaimed series of the 1990s including Preacher and Animal Man." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentius (talk • contribs) 11:23, 10 April 2005 (UTC)

Other books and series section
Possibly "Murder Mysteries by P. Craig Russell, Neil Gaiman" should be mentioned under "Other Books and Series" ? Also, wasn't there one or two miniseries about Destiny (similar to the Death ones) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by StefanLjungstrand (talk • contribs) 13:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Added NPOV
There is heavy editorializing on this page. It's like a fan write-up. Get some sources for the praise or exclude it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.179.81.187 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've read and re-read the article, and I don't see anything that was opinion rather than fact, except for "Fans disagree about the quality and legitimacy of these volumes, and most agree that while a few approach The Sandman in quality, the majority are of a decidedly lesser quality," and even that is clearly labeled as such. Until you point out where the editorializing is, I'm removing the NPOV tag. Pentasyllabic 19:37, September 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * On a nother note,it seems that the Vortex insident allthose years ago might be the reason that Dream takes his role and duties so serously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Kartaš (talk • contribs) 13:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Dream's Death
It is stated in this article that Dream died at the hands of The Furies, however, this is factually incorrect. Although it is true that their pursuit of him because of his violation of their laws (killing his son) was what created the circumstances for his death, it was ultimately his sister, Death, who killed him (mercy killing?) This is a very significant article, so I didn't want to edit it without generating discussion first. Any opinions? Miloluvr (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Archiving
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MizaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 60 days.--Oneiros (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Oneiros (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolute Sandman - Out of Print
I have removed text which read:


 * In late 2009, volume 2 went out of print and has remained unavailable since. In response to a question on his twitter page on January 19, 2010, Neil Gaiman revealed that "It's already been printed but is on a slow boat from China" and would be back in stores by March 2010. Despite these comments, the book has yet to become available again and further volumes have fallen out of print.

I had no trouble purchasing new shrink-wrapped copies of all four volumes of Absolute Sandman through www.amazon.co.uk this very week. Maybe its availability is limited in certain other parts of the world but I don't think this is noteworthy for the article as a whole. Kind regards-- Cala braxthis  (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

'Sandman' being adapted for TV
The Sandman, Neil Gaiman's acclaimed graphic novel series about the Lord of the Dreaming, may soon become a television series. Warner Bros. TV is in the process of acquiring the rights from DC Entertainment (Sandman was a success for DC's Vertigo imprint in the 1990s), and Supernatural creator Eric Kripke is in the running to helm the project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.149.1.36 (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Need citation for Angoulême International Comics Festival
I went through the Critical Reception section and added citations to everything except the Angoulême International Comics Festival award, which I couldn't find a reference for. If anyone knows where to find this, please add to finish up this section. Sutematsu (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect Speculation on Series Ending
This unsourced line is not only speculative, but also appears to be incorrect: "Gaiman's contract stipulated that the series would end when he left it."

In the interview in Prince of Stories, Gaiman says that he first suggested to DC ending the comic at the end of his run around issue #22 or #23. He was rebuffed. It wasn't until around issue #60ish that Karen Berger agreed to end the comic when Gaiman was done. See pages 478-479. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.220.52 (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

New source about how Sandman was created by Gaiman
That can be found from this RS. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Article's Title
The comic series is not and was not called 'The Sandman.' It's simply 'Sandman.'  Every volume ever released by Vertigo or DC has been under this title. Even the images on this very Wikipedia page indicate this. The title should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.65.7 (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not true. Every cover has a little "The" above the big "Sandman". --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. This should visually clear things up. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)