Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics/Archive 3

Request for Comment: Quotes and italics
Currently, Manual of Style/Comics specifies that "comic book series, comic strips and comics publications should be italicized. For the titles of comic book storylines, chapters, comic strip episodes, an individual editorial cartoon or gag panel, editors should use quotation marks." It give as examples: "* Identity Crisis, the title of a DC Comics limited series, should be italicized. "Identity Crisis", the title of a Spider-Man storyline that leads to the creation of the Slingers, should be in quotation marks. [...]
 * In 2006, Marvel published the "Civil War" cross-over event. The flagship title of the event is the limited series Civil War."

The MOS does not specify comic-book features. These currently appear generally in quote marks, i.e., the feature "Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD" in Strange Tales as opposed to the series Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD. But this is not formal MOS. How should the MOS address features? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If something is part of a larger whole, it should be in quotes. IE, television episodes, chapters, or storylines. So features, such as Nick Fury, Agents of SHIELD should be in quotes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed that "features" should be listed to the list of things quoted. "The "Let's Eat Some Lobster" installment of Goodwin and Simonson's "Manhunter" backup feature in Detective Comics is consider the apex of comics homeopathy.'' --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with the editors above that features should be in quote marks, and offer as an example this excerpt from Ernie Hart...
 * "Hart also worked on "Pookey the Poetical Pup" and "Ding-a-Ling the Little Bellboy" in Krazy Komics; "Wacky Willie" and "Andy Wolf & Bertie Mouse" in Terrytoons Comics; "Skip O'Hare" in Comedy Comics; and the heroic-adventure feature "Victory Boys" for Timely. Other Golden Age comics work includes "Egbert and the Count" and "Marmaduke Mouse" for Quality Comics' Hit Comics..."


 * which I believe would be highly confusing to the average reader if rendered
 * "Hart also worked on Pookey the Poetical Pup and Ding-a-Ling the Little Bellboy in Krazy Komics; Wacky Willie and Andy Wolf & Bertie Mouse in Terrytoons Comics; Skip O'Hare in Comedy Comics; and the heroic-adventure feature Victory Boys for Timely. Other Golden Age comics work includes Egbert and the Count and Marmaduke Mouse for Quality Comics' Hit Comics..."


 * --Tenebrae (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not that hard to understand. In the world and on Wikipedia, italics are used for titles of longer works. Titles of shorter works are enclosed in double quotation marks. Ongoing comics features are major works that belong in the list of "comic book series, comic strips and comics publications". That is why Nick Fury, Agents of SHIELD, Little Annie Fanny, and Krazy Komics are in italics, as they are major titles. Any minor works shorter or less significant than features or series don't belong in that list. We're not going to set up a rule that directly contradicts the style rules of the overall MOS or the style rules of the wider English language. Perhaps can also comment. —Prhartcom ♥ 12:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The obvious case the commenters above have missed is when there is an ongoing feature in a publication with individual titled episodes (which is normally the case, no?). Given a periodical titled Comics Monthly, you might have an ongoing series The Adventures of Talky the Duck, whose first episode is called "Talky Learns to Talk".  Both the periodical and series get italics and the episode gets quotemarks.  This may or may not be "confusing", but it's the way it is, and quotemarking the series would not make it less confusing.  It's not the "being featured in a periodical" that determines whether it gets quotemarked, which is irrelevant—after all, something like Ranma ½ ran as its own series in North America, but as one of many features in Weekly Shōnen Sunday in Japan.
 * Check out what the Chicago Manual of Style says: "8.194 Cartoons. Titles of regularly appearing cartoons or comic strips are italicized. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble!'' 13:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd have to respectfully disagree with Prhartcom and my good and longtime colleague Curly. I do find the second graf in the Ernie Hart example confusing, and I believe we should strive for clarity. I think saying, essentially, that " Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD was in Strange Tales until it became Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD " isn't the clearest way of expressing this.


 * I do agree with other longtime WikiProject Comics editors Favre1fan93 and Nat Gertler, the latter of whom is certainly an expert on comic strips. A comic strip really isn't the same thing as a comic-book feature. Indeed, that distinction in the early days of comic books helped define the new medium itself. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae: I think you need to consider my example again. How is
 * The first episode of The Adventures of Talky the Duck, titled "Talky Learns to Talk", appeared in Comics Monthly #238.
 * any more or less confusing than
 * The first episode of "The Adventures of Talky the Duck", titled "Talky Learns to Talk", appeared in Comics Monthly #238.
 * ? It's six of one, half dozen of the other.  Regardless, italicizing series is what is done throughout Wikipedia, and is what styleguides recommend. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I did a quick Gnews search on "Little Annie Fanny" Playboy (and, to be clear, quotes there are to tell Google to distinguish the phrase, and not to search for quotes), and checked through the first two pages of listings, skipping those where the term referred to the character or a book collection of the strip


 * Quotation marks used in
 * The New York Times
 * Knoxville Mercury
 * The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles
 * Boing Boing
 * Comic Book Resources
 * Title case but otherwise unmarked in
 * Haaretz
 * Seattle Weekly
 * Comics Beat (quoting the Society of Illustrators, where it is also unmarked
 * OColly.com
 * Comic Book Resources
 * Italicized in
 * Pop Matters
 * A.V. Club
 * Newsarama
 * Comic Book Resources
 * So this sample suggests that:
 * mainstreamy sources lean toward quotation marks,
 * comics or pop culture specialty outlets lean toward italics, and
 * the folks at Comic Book Resources have been smoking funny papers.
 * (And, with an appreciative tip of the hat to Tenebrae, I'll note that what expertise I have in strips takes a steep dip once one gets away from the topic of Charles M. Schulz's "Peanuts".) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nat Gertler—note also that
 * the NYT article also puts Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book in quotemarks
 * the Jewish Journal also puts Superman Is Jewish?: How Comic Book Superheroes Came to Serve Truth, Justice, and the Jewish-American Way in quotemarks (and that's the book the review is about!)
 * The BoingBoing article ALL-CAPS periodical titles, rather than italicizing them
 * We could say these sources follow different standards than Wikipedia (in which case the examples don't apply), or we could say they screwed up. Here's a Comics Journal article, by the way, that italicizes.  Fantagraphics also italicizes it in their Humbug book. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, I would advocate following how it's done in the mainstream, to avoid Wikipedia looking arbitrarily contrarian. To answer Curly's question above, it's rare to given the title of a story and the name of the feature together — we do but rarely mention specific story names — while it's extremely common to say such-and-such feature ran in such-and-such comic-book series. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, I would advocate following how it's done in the mainstream, to avoid Wikipedia looking arbitrarily contrarian.—you seem to be suggesting that the way we do things at Wikipedia is not mainstream. It is, as I've demonstrated—I mean, it doesn't get more mainstream than Chicago.  Questions:
 * Can you find a style guide that suggests serials should be quotemarked?
 * Do you suggest quotemarking Little Orphan Annie as well?
 * How do you suggest we handle Ranma? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me quickly add that I should've noticed and noted that the Boing Boing invocation is actually quoting from a Society Of Illustrators press release, so may reflect that group's style rather than Boing Boing itself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Can you find a style guide that suggests serials should be quotemarked?" Yes, the AP Style Guide, although it does not specify comics separately but uses them for series of other sorts. However, the AP Style is built around not using italics at all, so that explains the NYT usage, but also suggests that our general usage is closer to Chicago. I'm looking solely at summaries of Chicago, and not seeing 8.194 in context, so I'm left wondering whether strips are being discussed strictly within the context of newspaper features; it's interesting that Chicago offers a different answer for newspaper columns, which gets neither italics nor quotes, even though they seem a similar situation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Just answering questions that were asked above. In addition to Nat's note about AP Stylebook:
 * Little Orphan Annie is a comic strip, and MOS is to italicized comic strips, so I'm not sure why the question.
 * Manga is something entirely different. It's not the same form or in some cases even the same medium as American comic books.
 * And actually, as most journalists will tell you, Chicago Manual of Style is not as mainstream as the much more widely used AP. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Little Orphan Annie is a comic strip"—as is Little Annie Fanny.
 * "the much more widely used AP"—in newssources, not publications such as books (and encyclopaedias). More important, AP gives a rationale: "italic cannot be sent on AP news wires"—AP thus has Little Orphan Annie, Action Comics, and A Contract with God in quotemarks (and look!  NYT does put Contract in quotes!)  If we are going to follow AP, then we'll be at odds with the whole rest of Wikipedia without even solving the problem you have that the titles are "highly confusing" when they're formatted the same.  In sum: what you're proposing does not follow the AP styleguide, nor any other.
 * "Manga is something entirely different"—except that it's not, neither is serialized prose fiction or anything else in the case of title formatting. You're proposing a change that has no support from styleguides, is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia, and is needlessly complicated. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, two good and longtime editors can agree to disagree, particularly on the post immediately above. In hopes that we can get more editors than us few here, I've posted a nuetral invitation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics for other editors to weigh in. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've notified WP:MOS as well. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinion either way. I would put a feature in quotes, but only because it seems more natural to me. I think some examples could be given to show where either method breaks down, but that just means the sentence structure needs to be reworked for clarity. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think a hard and fast rule that applies in all situations is the best way to do it. If you're discussing The Adventures of Talky the Duck in the context of it being a feature in Comics Monthly, then it would be appropriate to italicise Comics Monthly and put "The Adventures of Talky the Duck" in quotes, but if you're talking about The Adventures of Talky the Duck as a series and Talky Learns to Talk as an instalment of the series, then italicise The Adventures of Talky the Duck and put "Talky Learns to Talk" in quotes. The idea, it seems to me, is to indicate that these are two different "levels" of publication - the higher level is italicised, the lower level is in quotes. Obviously there are going to be contexts where you're using all three levels, which is where the problems come in. But there is the option of referring to Talky the Duck as a character, neither italicised nor in quotes, and that might be a way of resolving the problem while retaining the distinction between levels: Talky the Duck first appeared in the story "Talky Learns to Talk" in Comics Monthly #238. But be flexible, and think about what it is you're intending to convey when you use italics or quotes. My thoughts, anyway. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It's been over a week with no new comments, so in order to kickstart the discussion let me offer a suggestion: British and continental European punctuation is different from American punctuation, and Japan uses a different writing system entirely. What would my fellow editors say to acknowledging these distinctions and making this RfC solely about American comic books and not British comics, Franco-Belgian comics or manga? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see the value in that—sounds like instruction creep to me. Why would we want to make things so complicated?  What do we gain from distinguishing Little Orphan Annie from Little Annie Fanny?  Why would we want to distinguish where it was published?—whether newspaper vs magazine, US vs Japan, XXX vs YYY.  We should stick strictly to what it is, which is immutable, rather than where it appears, which always changes and is irrevelant from a typographical perspective.  Do we speak of "From Hell" appearing in Taboo until it became From Hell appearing as its own series?  What advantage is there to that?  It's the same From Hell—nothing has changed other than whether it appears with other material or not—which is utterly irrelevant.  Compare to something non-comics: "Foundation was originally a series of eight short stories published in Astounding Magazine between May 1942 and January 1950." Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Disagree. "Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD" (in Strange Tales) is factually, literally, not Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD the comic-book series.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with attempts to compromise or reach a middle ground. Label it derisively all you want, but it's a fact that British punctuation and American punctuation are different. I see no reason for American punctuation to be forced onto British topics, and vice versa. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD" (in Strange Tales) is factually, literally, not Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD the comic-book series—did anyone say it was?
 * Label it derisively all you want—I don't know what this is in response to, Tenebrae. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Curly. Well, maybe we're on our way to finding a middle ground, if we're really agreeing that this punctuation differentiates between "Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD" the feature and Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD the series. But more importantly, to address your second point, I see where I erred. Read on:


 * The label I was referring to was "instruction creep." Y'know, you and I have worked together many years and I genuinely, very much so, respect your work. In fact, I'm proud to be part of a group that includes the longtime WPC editors in this discussion. I made my suggestion because I thought, "Well, he's right — punctuation isn't the same where he comes from," i.e., the UK, and I was (inadvertently, not immediately remembering that fact) pushing something that really only applies to American punctuation. For that, I apologize — I should have considered WP:WORLDVIEW. So, yes, if other editors agree, I'd like to own up to that and reframe this RfC as applying to American comic books only. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm Canadian, and most Canadians follow American punctuation—not that that's relevant, as WP has its own punctuation standards (MOS:PUNCT), which is not subject to WP:ENGVAR. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I apologize for misinterpreting your British spellings as meaning you're British. And I'm very disappointed to see you disregard my larger point about trying to be cognizant of cultural differences that seem to be impacting this discussion. Now back to Mtminchi08 below. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you saying there are differences in the ways the British italicize titles? You'll have to demonstrate that. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm saying punctuation is different — single quote-marks where Americans use double quote-marks, and no placing a period after "Mr.", for example. My point is I was trying to be respectful that British English and American English aren't the same and to acknowledge worldview. I'm sorry you seem to be denigrating my effort.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you understand what "denigrating" means. You certainly missed the point: (a) Wikipedia has its own punctuation conventions that are neither American nor British. (b) You've failed to demonstrate that British and American rules for italicizing titles are different, but talk as if it were a fact. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

As stated by several others above, I believe that features should be in quotation marks and titles of series or standalone works (one-shots, graphic novels, trade collections, etc.) should be in italics. For Example:
 * The Hulk was the star of "The Incredible Hulk" feature in Tales to Astonish until issue #101. As of #102, the series was retitled The Incredible Hulk.
 * "Tales of Asgard" was a backup feature in Thor in the 1960s. Two different Tales of Asgard one-shots were published, the first in 1968 and the second in 1984.
 * "Generation Zero" was a serial in Epic Illustrated in 1984-1985. A Generation Zero trade paperback was published by DC in 1991. Mtminchi08 (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Concur with Mtminchi08 as well as with Favre1fan93, Nat Gertler, and Argento Surfer.


 * "Little Annie Fanny" is not a comic strip by any means — it's not a strip of three of four panels, or slightly longer on a Sunday newspaper page. No one would ever call "Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD" in Strange Tales a comic strip. Multipage comic-book features are not comic strips. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae, "strip" is exactly the word used to describe shorter multipage comics works, such as Crumb's ("The most infamous was a six-page Crumb strip, 'Joe Blow' ...," etc). This isn't new, and I know you're not ignorant of the fact. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That's an outlier example very much in the minority. I would say we both know that Peanuts is a comic strip, and no knowledgable person would ever call "Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD" a comic strip. In any event, I've offered some thoughts above.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's no outlier, Tenebrae:
 * "... sixteen-page, coverless insert, consisting of a lead seven- or eight-page Spirit strip by Eisner, and two backup strips: Lady Luck ..."
 * "Another classic parody of a beautifully rendered comic strip is "Prince Violent!," Kurtzman/Wood's stab at Prince Valiant (Mad 13, July 1954)."
 * "... the Picasso of all comic artists is Carl Barks, who drew Donald Duck strips for Walt Disney in the 1940s and 1950s."
 * "Little Annie Fanny was the ultimate comic strip, production-wise"
 * "Before this, comic books bore titles like More Fun, Action Comics, Adventure Comics, Detective Comics, and so on. These rather generic-sounding designations were purposefully vague, because in those days each comic book housed five or six short features, which could be any combination of humor, adventure, Western, or any other kind of strip."
 * "One of [Captain Marvel Jr.'s greatest selling points was undoubtedly Raboy's elegant, exquisitely drawn artwork, which was far more realistic than the Captain Marvel strip."]
 * "That will demand a comparison of each strip ... Fawcett's strip, which [DC Comics asserts does so closely copy that particular strip ... strip ... strip ... strips ..."] (from the DC vs Fawcett lawsuit)
 * "For the latter, all ten pages of it plus a four-page strip by Chris Ware, we must be pathetically grateful."
 * "It struck me that, because the third issue will contain that long, twenty-page strip ..."
 * "... Maus, which had come far since its early days as a three-page strip in Funny Aminals."
 * "I would do spot drawings for him, and at some point he says, “Do me a twenty- four-page strip and we'll make it into a comic book.” And that's what I did"
 * "Just as Stan Lee and Jack Kirby had already made an appearance in an issue of Fantastic Four previously, a three-page strip here showed Lee and Steve Ditko creating a Spider-Man story."
 * Should I keep going? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * And I could go online and find even more things that don't conflate Peanuts with a 10-page "Iron Man" or "Captain America" story in Tales of Suspense. But I'm not that obsessive. [NOTE ADDED Sunday, June 5: Looking through this thread, I can see I'm going to have to be a little obsessive and list some examples. They are toward the bottom of this RfC.]


 * Virtually every other editor here who has expressed an opinion one way or the other disagrees with you. Are you saying every single one of us is unequivocally wrong and only you yourself plus one other guy are unequivocally right? Seriously?


 * I've tried to reach out, compromise, reach a middle ground. But you're going for a scorched-earth policy even though the bulk of the other editors here disagree with you for reasons they've all intelligently and in good faith laid out. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae, I've refuted your every point with facts, not opinion. Please don't ignore that.  You're demanding MOS:COMICS be changed to something neither the real world nor the rest of WP conforms to.  The onus is on you to demonstrate the validity of this change.
 * "And I could go online and find even more things that don't conflate Peanuts with a 10-page "Iron Man" or "Captain America" story in Tales of Suspense."—this is conflating nothing. This is well-established usage.  Do I seriously need to load this page up with more evidence?  How many links will satisfy you?  Fifty?  A hundred?  I can do it easily enough: I mean, check ou the results for "annie fanny" strip alone.  You can't seriously continue denying this is standard usage. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * NOTE ADDED Sunday, June 5: Looking through this thread, I can see I'm going to have to be a little obsessive and list some examples to show there is no single "standard usage", and one should not be suggesting there is. We're seeking the best, most logical usage. The examples are toward the bottom of this RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * And incidentally, Nat Gertler above at 16:33, 17 May 2016 gave a brief list of publications' choices of quote marks vs. italics. The New York Times uses quote marks and that is as standard and mainstream as one can get. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae: I've already responded to this—NYT also quotemarks "A Contract with God". It's hard to discuss things with someone who ignores everything you say. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Just because you want to take hours to obsess about this and wikilawyer with cherrypicked facts doesn't mean the rest of us have to throw common sense out the window. "Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD" in Strange Tales is not a comic strip. And the fact remains that the bulk of the editors in this discussion — who have been here for years and know WIkipedia guidelines and MOS perfectly well -- disagree with you. Is every one of us a stupid idiot except for you? No. There's been a reasoned difference of opinion and yours is not where consensus is leaning. Please show some respect for most of the rest of the editors here. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, obviously no amount of reliable sources will convince Tenebrae. I think both parties can agree this RfC never became a worthwhile discussion but instead devolved into an endless argument between only two people. It never gathered any support for their position, so I don't see a problem ending this discussion, as there is no consensus to implement their wishes. —Prhartcom ♥ 13:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow. Just ... wow. What you are saying is completely untrue. I'm floored that someone who disagrees with the consensus of the vast bulk of the editors who expressed a preferece would claim that there is no consensus. You're showing incredible disrespect to me and other longtime, well-versed WPC editors: Mtminchi08, Favre1fan93, Nat Gertler, and Argento Surfer. It's not like we're voting; instead, These five editors all gave detailed reasons why quote marks are absolutely appropriate. That is the definition of consensus, which does not mean unanimous. For goodness' sake. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nat Gertler stated he's on the fence. But don't let the facts get in the way of your fantasies. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Once more, you let "your fantasies get in the way of the facts", to use your phrasing: Nat never says he's "on the fence". At 21:35, 11 May 2016, Nat says:
 * "Agreed that "features" should be listed to the list of things quoted. "The "Let's Eat Some Lobster" installment of Goodwin and Simonson's "Manhunter" backup feature in Detective Comics is consider the apex of comics homeopathy.""


 * And he reinforces this with post 20:28, 13 June 2016 post below. You know, your having made what seem like deliberate misstatements, combined with the occasinal personal attack ("But don't let the facts get in the way of your fantasies.") is very disheartening to someone who respected you and offered two different compromises, which you rejected. I am being factual — and so are all the seven or eight other editors in consensus on the opposite side of your stance.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Because "I am not in an adamant mood" is a code for "I adamantly support Tenebrae's proposal", right? Whic only further demonstrates your utter contempt for evidence and policy—they contradict you entirely, so you hope to pull the shades over the closer with this count of hands, which you already know is against policy.  You might want to be careful whom you accuse of "deliberate misstatements", Tenebrae, when you keep repeating the same statements that have been thoroughly proven to be false: e.g. the way you keep bringing up the NYT, and that multipage comics are never called "strips", and screw the evidence.
 * Not that evidence means anything to you, but here's how it works with features in TV shows: The Itchy & Scratchy Show in The Simpsons, Dudley Do-Right of the Mounties and the other shows-within-shows in The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show, and on and on ... the real world contradicts you again, Tenebrae. You've still failed to respond to virtually all of my evidence, as well.  Why do you hate evidence and policy so much, Tenebrae?  Why is it so important to you to disrupt Wikipedia with this petty crusade? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow. Wow, wow, wow. So all seven or eight experienced WikiProject Comics editors who have gone against your position don't live in the "the real world"? Mtminchi08, Favre1fan93, Nat Gertler, Argento Surfer, Nightscream,  Jhenderson, myself and, I believe, Darkwarriorblake are all wrong, and only you are right? Wow. You're actually claiming that evidence means nothing to any of us solely ... because an overwhelming number of editors in this RfC reject your position?  Wow.


 * Two different compromises were offered, and you rejected each with insults. I and other editors have responded to you and given plenty of examples of comics features being in quote marks. But you refuse to listen. Why do you hate evidence and policy so much? Why is it so important to you to disrupt Wikipedia with this petty crusade, since virtually no one here agrees with you. And you reject compromise. Rejecting compromise is the definition of a "crusade." You're the one crusading. I'm the one who reached out twice with compromise suggestions. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * given plenty of examples of comics features being in quote marks—right, from the NYC, etc., and despite being shown multiple times why they do it and why that style is both rejected by the Wikipedia community and conflicts with your own proposal, you keep bringing it up. You are aware enough of WP:ICANTHEARYOU to link to it, so you can't claim ignorance.
 * You're going around in circles again, Tenebrae—ignoring policy and all the evidence raised. A single point (we'll go through these one by one so you can't ignore them again): please tell the world why you have so little respect for R. C. Harvey, Maurice Horn, Denis Kitchen, Groth & Thompson, and all those other established professionals—you've dodged this long enough. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, untrue: I gave plenty of examples at 01:47, 6 June 2016, and Nat Gertler gave additional ones after that. And if you were reading my posts rather than skimming and being snarky, you'd have seen my answer to your point above. I'll say again what I said at 13:09, 4 June 2016: In common usage, the average person simply does not confuse the the 9-page Howard the Duck backup feature in Giant-Size Man-Thing #4 with the Howard the Duck comic strip that appeared in newspapers. As at least seven other editors have pointed out, and as anyone can easily see, those are two very different media and two very different things. But all seven or eight editors who disagree with you must be idiots, then. Would you stop and listen to yourself? "I refuse to compromise! I refuse to even consider the possibility that these seven or eight other editors might have a point." You act as if if were impossible — impossible — for you to be wrong. That is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia works through consensus and compromise. But your refuse to compromise, and you refuse to recognize very clear consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae: You didn't answer the question. Again.  And of course you never will. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I answered it twice. I even gave the timestamp of the other time. You don't want to hear it, and you can't even conceive that the seven or eight editors who respectfully disagree with you aren't idiots. Most reasonable people would look at the sheer number and at least ask themselves if maybe those seven or eight had a point. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae: Neither 01:47, 6 June 2016 nor 13:09, 4 June 2016 even address the question. Why are you doing this? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm admittedly no expert in grammar or punctuation. However is it possible that neither italics or quotation marks are incorrect and it simply boils down to a stylistic preference?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there is something to be gained by consistency, at the very least within an article, but even within the encyclopedia. Having said that, the outside world does not alway have a consistent standard to rely on. My instinct comes down to italics being used for a publication and quotes being used for an item of content, and that includes a serial across many publications, but that we also need not reflect the origin but how it is most commonly viewed. (I.E, we can italicize From Hell, even though it was originally serialized, because it's more frequently seen as the completed whole.) But then there are also a lot of fine line calls in nomenclature; among the comicsing crowd, I can recall "Little Annie Fanny" being referred to as a comic or as a strip but never a "comic strip". If you say "I do comic strips", you do newspaper work or something very much in that format; "Trots & Bonnie" might qualify, but not Fanny. Certainly, we're seeing seemingly arbitrary from the Chicago manual, where prose newspaper feature is quoted but a comics feature is italics, but at least it is specified. So my own writing instinct may not be the best guide here. Yes, my answer is fuzzy, I am not in an adamant mood. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nat Gertler: but never a "comic strip"—A Google Books search for "annie fanny" "comic strip" gets 833 hits alone, including Maurice Horn, R. C. Harvey, several Fantagraphics books, Kurtzman's latest biographer. It's also the term Kitchen and Buhle use in their Kurtzman book (p. 230).  It's really not in the slightest bit rare, and I'm shocked to see so many people here claim it is. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Tenebrae, as his description of when to use italics and quotes is not only consistent with MOS, but dovetails with how I'm constantly copyediting comics-related articles that incorrectly format names of comics series, storylines, etc.

As for consensus, I think this is a valid consensus. Even if it is considered stylistic, there should be consistency in formatting, shouldn't there?

And on a related note (though we can start a new discussion if you think it necessary), can someone tell me who keeps referring to storylines as "events"? I'm constantly fixing this bit of wording. In the first place, it's unclear whether it refers to an in-universe event in the story, or an out-universe event, as the word "event" sounds like it may be an external references (i.e., the way a crossover is an "event" for the publisher). For another, it could be seen as promotional-type wording. Another problem I see is when editors refer to storylines as "crossovers", without the word "storyline", which is just mind-boggling. Such material should be written with utmost clarity, particularly with the assumption that the article will be read by the uninitiated, and not the comics-savvy aficionado. Such a casual reader will not know what is meant by "event" or "crossover". Can we put it in the MOS somewhere to abandon such vague wording? Nightscream (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Its industry jargon, but I agree the terminology could be lost on anyone not familiar with it. We should use more explanatory language for our readers. Also you may wish to check out Publication history of DC Comics crossover events and Publication history of Marvel Comics crossover events.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Italics for titles and quotations for content. I use a similar setup for Video Games and their "Downloadable Content", and I think it is a style that works best. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Darkwarriorblake: So how would you handle both Little Orphan Annie and Little Annie Fanny? It's not clear from your comment. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tenebrae originally when I read his initial comment on this thread although Curley Turkey did bring up fairly decent examples of something (that even led to debate over what a comic book strip is) that could lead it to debatable on certain topics that I am uncertain of yet. Still I am familiar with Tenebrae's way as the correct way to do it for most examples. Not just in comic books. Television series/ episodes etc. Jhenderson  7 7 7  23:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Television series/ episodes etc.—it works exactly the same with TV and comics: series such as The Amazing Spider-Man, Little Orphan Annie, and Little Annie Fannie are italicized, while individual episodes are quotemarked, such as "Superduperman", "A Death in the Family", and "Master Race". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe the above is a smokescreen to draw attention away from the fact Jhenderson777 agrees that features should be in quote marks. (" I am familiar with Tenebrae's way as the correct way to do it for most examples.") TV clearly does not have "features" the way anthology comic books do, so the distinction is: overall, italicize; specific, quote mark.

At least seven veteran, years-long editors, who know Wikipedia MOS and know comics, agree that features should be in quote marks, as opposed to two who do not, one of whom has outright rejected offers of a compromise. After more than three weeks into a month-long RfC, I think any reasonable observer would say consensus strongly leans toward quote marks.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The "smokescreen" is in the user who steadfastly ignored all of the factual points that have been raised to push a personal preference that has no basic in real-world or wider WP standards. WP:CONSENSUS (which is policy) explicitly states "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns" (which you refuse to address) and "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)"—again, we've seen no arguments from you beyond simple WP:ILIKEIT.  Per WP:Local consensus (also policy): "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."—this has been a serious problem with WP:COMICS, and a number of local consensuses here have been overturned.  If you can't be bothered to engage with the discussion—instead resorting to ad hominems as you have—then you shouldn't be surprised if the closer closes by maintaining the WP-wide status quo.  If this is not the result you'd prefer, then your only option is to start engaging with the actual arguments raised. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I would like to think your statements are simply in error and not deliberate falsehoods. Nat Gertler, as I mentioned before, gave plenty of publication examples of features given in quote marks, so this is not a personal preference and it is deliberately misleading to say so.


 * Second, no one is "voting" but each have given quality arguments. Just because you disagree with the arguments of at least seven longtime, veteran editors who know Wikipedia policy and style perfectly well does not mean only you have quality arguments, and that all these other seven veteran editors are misguided dupes.


 * Third, exactly what MOS or WP-wide status quo do you mean? There is nothing about the punctuation treatment of comic-book features published within an anthology. To falsely suggest that there is — when the entire purpose of this RfC is to establish one in the first place — is, again, deliberately misleading.


 * And saying there has been no "effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns" is, and I'll say it, an outright lie. I have offered two compromises to address your concerns, one here and one on your talk page, and you rejected both in favor of your "my way or nothing" approach. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nat Gertler, as I mentioned before, gave plenty of publication example—and here's what I mean, Tenebrae: I've already shown that most of the examples that use quotes also use quotes for publications. Not only that, but I've pointed that out to you twice.  Here is the third time you've ignored that.  Please tell everyone why you're ignoring this, Tenebrae—it's horribly disrespectful, especially when you're insinuating I'm spreading "deliberate falsehoods".  Then you can exlplain to eveyone why you have ignored virtually every other point I've raised—but let's deal with this one first.  Please don't dodge it again. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 19:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, for goodness' sake. First, even assuming "most" in Nat's sample is correct, you're now acknowledging that some mainstream publications do differentiate between a comic-book series and an internal comic-book feature by italicizing the magazine name and using quote marks for the feature.


 * Second, Nat did a quick survey to show proof of concept, and he did not cherrypick but was honest enough to show results on both sides of the issue. Conversely, you only looked for what you wanted to find. (I went through a couple of your own examples and they did not even support your point; for example, "Another classic parody of a beautifully rendered comic strip is "Prince Violent!," Kurtzman/Wood's stab at Prince Valiant" is talking about Prince Valiant being a comic strip and not saying the multi-page parody is. And if I wanted to be obsessive and spend an hour adding to Nat's work, I could point out that more than 50 years ago, it was routine to refer to individual features within a comic book as "features" and not "comic strips": the cover of Tales of Suspense #59 refers to "Captain America" and "Iron Man" as features.)


 * In common usage, the average person simply does not confuse the the 9-page Howard the Duck backup feature in Giant-Size Man-Thing #4 with the Howard the Duck comic strip that appeared in newspapers. As at least seven other editors have pointed out, and as anyone can easily see, those are two very different media and two very different things.


 * I'd also note you didn't respond to my 14:33, 3 June 2016 requests for information to back up some of your specific claims. And that bring up a point you have not responded to except in the most sour-grapes way: Seven longtime, veteran Wikipedia editors who are well-familiar with policy and MOS, and gave specific and in some cases very detailed reasons, all disagree with your view. It's fine — reasonable people can disagree. But it is not reasonable to say, "I refuse to compromise! All seven of you are wrong, only I am right, and if the closing admin is smart, he'll see this!" That's not really the way RfCs work, and I think it would be proper to acknowledge where, by far, the consensus is leaning. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, TT. I would disagree, however, that it's industry jargon. The word "event" is not used as a synonym for "event", even in the industry press. And "crossover" is a modifier. While I have no problem with "crossover storyline", I am frustrated when some editors, in deciding to use only one of those words, actually use the first one instead of the second one. Nightscream (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nightscream: I think you meant to reply to someone further up. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I was responding to Triiiple Threat's 19:46, 1 June 2016 post.


 * Also, can we stop using asterisks to indent posts? Asterisks are to itemize individual short-form things in a list. Using them for mere indentation (which is what the colon is for) makes the thread look more cluttered than it has to be. Nightscream (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You know, I had a little free time on Sunday night, and without getting crazy about it and searching for more than a short amount of time, I found numerous examples in reliable-source publications of features in quote marks and comic-book series in italics or, in one case, all caps. Here are quoted passages from:

1) The Collected Jack Kirby Collector, Volume 3 (TwoMorrows Publishing, 2004, ISBN 978-1893905023. p. 131)

The backup feature called "Tales of The Inhumans" (Thor #146-152)…

2) Stan Lee’s ‘Silver Surfer': His Most Daring Comic of the Silver Age at ComicsAlliance.com, by John R. Parker, February 23, 2011

The Silver Surfer … with "Tales of the Watcher" as the backup ….

3) How “Tales of Asgard” Changed Everything, Sequart Organization, by Julian Darius, 4 November 2013

And then we get to Journey into Mystery #97 (Oct 1963). … And then comes the back-up: the very first "Tales of Asgard" story.

4) Modern Masters Volume 1: Alan Davis by Eric Nolen-Weathington and Alan Davis (TwoMorrows Publishing, 2007, ISBN 978-1893905191, p. 102)

…the first ten pages of "Killraven'" in his first appearance in Amazing Adventures #18. … My first thought was to maybe do a sort of "Killraven: Year One'"…  [Note: When they're discussing Alan Davis' Killraven series, the comic-book series name Killraven is italicized.]

5) Marvel Bullpen Bulletins in comics cover-dated May 1970, as noted at official blog of Bronze Age comics legend Tony Isabella in his piece "RAWHIDE KID WEDNESDAY - WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2014", reprinting portions of the Bulletin including:

Best Regular Short Feature - "Tales of the Inhumans", by Stan Lee & Jack Kirby, in The Mighty Thor (Marvel)

6) Path of the Black Panther: A Retrospective Pt. 2, Jim Beard interviewing Don McGregor, Marvel.com, Jun 4, 2014

"Terry backed me on 'Panther’s Quest' [in MARVEL COMICS PRESENTS, as the site writes it] every step of the way."

McGregor’s time with the Black Panther didn't end with "Panther's Quest." The writer returned once more to helm the 1991 BLACK PANTHER: PANTHER’S PREY four-issue limited series….

7) Heritage Comics and Comic Art Signature Auction #823 catalog (Heritage Auctions, Inc., Jan 1, 2007, ISBN 978-1599671048)

…this splash notes that the "Tales of Asgard" feature….

8) Obituaries in the Performing Arts, 2015, by Harris M Lentz III (McFarland, 2016, ISBN 978-0786476671, p. 352: Herb Trimpe obit) [Note: Does not quote the names of features but also do not italicize them]

…Ka-Zar in Astonishing Tales … Ant-Man for Marvel Feature, Killraven for Amazing Adventures…

9) Comics through Time : A History of Icons, Idols, and Ideas [4 volume set] by M. Keith Booker, editor (Greenwood, 2014, ISBN 978-0313397509, p. 666)

Though published in Marvel's Amazing Adventures title, the series' covers would read either "War of the Worlds" or "Killraven, Warrior of the Worlds" …

--Tenebrae (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Example 9 is a extremely poor example, as it is not quotemarking a series name but quotemarking words as words—presenting the words as they appear on the cover.
 * And as you are aware, I've already provided not only example after example of ongoing series being presented in italics, but actual style guide recommendations (Chicago—NYT and APA have already been shown to be incompatible with WP practice), as well as the fact that that's how it's done outside of comics (pulp fiction, etc). To overturn the standards as they are, you have to demonstrate that quotemarking series is a standard.  You still have not addressed why Little Orphan Annie and From Hell would be italicized but Little Annie Fanny quotemarked.  And what about Hey Look!?  A one-pager that appeared in several different comic books.  Would that be italicized or quotemarked?
 * Seriously, instead of causing headaches with all these complicated rules you're proposing, why don't we just stick with established practice? I seriously can't see a single advantage to gumming up the works with a rule that requires dozens of exceptions based on "gut feelings".  "Italicize series titles" is the only rule we need, and it's the one we've already got. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Really, I am extremely concerned that someone I respected would resort to deliberate misstatement. Read the compromise proposals I suggested: They were not based on "gut feelings" but on objective criteria. And I've certainly responded that "Little Annie Fanny" is a multi-page comic-book story, not a comic strip. But you've become so obsessed with defying seven other longtime editors simply to get your own way that you've resorted to flat-out misrepresentation. Please: Take a step back and look at how you're behaving.


 * As for "standards" ... haven't you looked through WikiProject Comics? There are a couple hundred articles or more that already put features in quote marks. It's already the de facto standard. I would ask that you not go around changing the status quo of those articles while this RfC is ongoing. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There are a couple hundred articles or more that already put features in quote marks. It's already the de facto standard.—and any number more that follow the wider Wikipedia standard, as you are well aware (Little Annie Fannie, Mr. Mystic, Nelvana of the Northern Lights, and on and on and on).
 * "Little Annie Fanny" is a multi-page comic-book story, not a comic strip—you harp on about how I've "defied seven other longtime editors", but you don't seem to be in the least concerned that "comic strip" is exactly what longtime professionals have called it for generations. You can't continue to assert that multi-page stories aren't called comic strips—that bizarre assertion has been absolutely and thoroughly debunked.  But Maurice Horn, R. C. Harvey, Denis Kitchen, et al. don't know jack about comics, do they?
 * The one who's "obsessed" is you. Facts appear to mean nothing to you—you keep repeating the same assertions that have been shown to be ridiculously false.  This is unproductive, disruptive, and annoying.  Please take a step back and look at how you're behaving.  Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * So "facts mean nothing to" me, Mtminchi08, Favre1fan93, Nat Gertler, Argento Surfer, Nightscream,  Jhenderson, and, I believe, Darkwarriorblake?


 * Many examples have been given of different accepted styles of punctuating comic-book features in print ... and the consensus is not for the style you personally prefer. And incidentally, in any form of common usage, no one conflates a multi-page feature in a comic-book with a Peanuts or Blondie comic strip. Saying that only you have The One True Way and that at least seven other editors who disagree with you are all misguided and wrong ... well, who's the one who sounds obsessed? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick note on comparisons to TV: while some have said that TV doesn't have features the way that a comic book does, it actually does. That's why we can have: "That’s because “Stephen Colbert Gets All Up In Your Faith” is the direct descendant of Colbert’s “This Week in God,” a popular segment he did as a correspondent for Jon Stewart‘s The Daily Show on Comedy Central." (Mediaite) or "“Weekend Update,” still hosted by Colin Jost and Michael Che, has settled into utter mediocrity after its horrendous start."(The Atlantic) or "This process accelerated in 1998, when Elmo began hogging an entire quarter of Sesame Street’s hour running time, first with the regular “Elmo’s World” segment, then with the new “Elmo: The Musical.”" (Vanity Fair) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nat Gertler: Yes, it's easy to find examples of both styles, and other sources simply capitalize the segments—and you'll notice that Weekend Update is italicized on Wikipedia. The standard at Wikipedia is to italicize, as can be seen with the shows-within-a-show in The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show.  Tenebrae wants to make an exception exclusively for American comic books—did you not notice how he had no objection to features in Japanese and European comics magazines remaining (per Wikipedia-wide standard) in italics?  And everyone still ignores the case of newspaper comic strips, as well as The Spirit.  Why the exception for only a sub-selection of American comics? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Summary
So where do we stand?


 * Context: this all blew up when Tenebrae changed the formatting of Little Annie Fanny from the italics it has had since it was created in 2005 to quotemarks.
 * We can't claim there's a real-world working standard of using quotemarks for ongoing series—we've seen the evidence that there is no such standard. In the real world, there's a mess of quotemarks, italics, ALLCAPS, and simple capitalization.
 * We can't claim quotemarking series is a WP standard, as we've seen that they're absolutely not a standard outside of American comics—and even within American comics, they're not, as nobody here would propose using quotemarks for The Spirit.
 * We've also established is that there is a standard at Wikipedia—one that applies to pulp fiction, manga, Euro-comics, shows-within-shows, etc. The established standard is to use italics, and nobody here has proposed to override that standard anywhere but in a sub-selection of American comics.
 * Wikipedia style follows closely the standards found in appropriate style guides, such as Chicago; Wikipedia does not rely on AP or other news-related style guides, as Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS.
 * The policy WP:CONSENSUS explicitly disallows vote-counting to determine consensus.

I presented a list of examples of ongoing strip features in italics, but Tenebrae appears to be presenting it as if I were arguing that only italics are used in the real world—obviously I've argued no such thing, but that would explain why he presented his counterexample links (which are otherwise entirely nonsensical). My examples served no more purpose than to dispell the assertion that quotemarks is the way it's always done—that's now inarguable. Let's just pretend this was a Good Faith misunderstanding and let Tenebrae back down on it.

So what concrete arguments do we have that series in American comic books and magazines—with certain exceptions like The Spirit—should be quotemarked rather than follow the Wikipedia-wide standard of italicizing? Absent such concrete arguments, the closer will have no choice but to close by maintaining the status quo, as per policy, regardless of how many hands are raised to the contrary. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * An apt summary. Closure can be requested at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, but if I were the closer I would avoid this one. I know which side has presented the much better arguments here, though. And all over a couple of extra tick marks. Please try to refrain from continuing this discussion; I'm sure you both have better things to do. Status quo for now, guys. —Prhartcom ♥ 13:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We've also established is that there is a standard at Wikipedia—one that applies to pulp fiction, manga, Euro-comics, shows-within-shows, no, I don't think we've established that. You've given examples, but while you point out that Weekend Update is italicized in its own article, one can counterpoint that it is quoted throughout the SNL article, and we can head over to, say the 60 Minutes article and see it flip=flop between the two for "Point/Counterpoint". I haven't seen "appropriate style guides, such as Chicago" cited, merely one style guide, Chicago itself, and Wikipedia is clearly not beholden to Chicago (otherwise, we could spare all the effort of building our own MOS.) I think both sides could here could apply a bit of cooling to their adamancy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've ever seen as blatant an attempt to smokescreen from the clear consensus as I see here. The overwhelming number of editors say that comic-book features should be in quote marks. And the response is, "Oh, well, that doesn't count, since this isn't a vote." By that argument, anybody on the losing side of any consensus discussion can say, "Oh, well, it doesn't matter that four times as many editors want something — because that's voting!" No. Voting is a simple yes or no. Each one of these seven or eight experienced, veteran WikiProject:Comics editors have given rationales, in some cases quite lengthy ones. No "policy" is being violated whatsoever.


 * "In the real world, there's a mess of quotemarks, italics, ALLCAPS, and simple capitalization." Exactly. Anything goes. So this has always been about simple consistency for WikiProject:Comics Manual of Style. Period. And the vast majority of editors here have chosen quotemarks for comic-book features.


 * "Nobody here would propose using quotemarks for The Spirit." The Spirit is a comic book. It is unique in the history of the medium in that it was a 16-page comic book published as a newspaper insert. And the titles of comic books are italicized: The Adventures of Superman, etc.


 * "We've also established is that there is a standard at Wikipedia": No, we haven't ... as a multitude of the editors here agree. Indeed, that's what this entire RfC is about: Establishing a style for comic-book features, which the MOS currently does not address. Read the actual wording of this RfC.


 * As Nat Gertler points out, "Wikipedia is clearly not beholden to Chicago (otherwise, we could spare all the effort of building our own MOS.)"


 * And I'm sorry, but for the two sole holdouts to echo-chamber each other as say, "Yep. All seven or eight other experienced editors are wrong and let's twist logic around to say up is down, right is wrong and two holdouts trump the arguments of all those others because we disagree with them" is just as inappropriate as can be.


 * The 10-page comic-book feature "Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD", published in the comic-book Strange Tales, is not the same as the independent, solo comic book Nick Fury, Agent o SHIELD.


 * And finally, here's the thing: Even though I could see the majority of my fellow editors favored quotemarks, I still offered two compromises. One is that this MOS apply to American comic books only; the other is that it apply solely to comic books and comics magazines and not to other media, such as prose magazines that may happen to have a comics feature in it, i.e. Little Annie Fanny in Playboy. But a fanatical, my-way-or-the-highway, I'm-right-and-everyone-else-is-wrong editor insulted me for eve broaching the idea of a compromise. What do you think a closing admin would say to that utter refusal to compromise? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming number of editors say ... Voting is a simple yes or no—you've done it again, Tenebrae. Why do you have such contempt for policy?
 *  The Spirit is a comic book—no, The Spirit was one of several features in an untitled 16-page newspaper insert. This fact is not in the least obscure—Eisner is one of the best known names in comics, and The Spirit is his most widely read work.
 * that's what this entire RfC is about: Establishing a style for comic-book features—as long as they're American, and exclude every other nationality. No, that's a violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.
 * The 10-page comic-book feature "Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD", published in the comic-book Strange Tales, is not the same as the independent, solo comic book Nick Fury, Agent o SHIELD. —which is exactly like saying: "The 20-page comic-book feature "Ranma ½", published in the comic-book Weekly Shōnen Sunday, is not the same as the independent, solo comic book  Ranma ½ published by Viz Media.  Except for the fact that they contain the same content."  But we're talking American comic books, which get special treatment, right?  No, we don't do that at Wikipedia.  Unless you're going to bring another such RfC to WP:MANGA and everywhere else, why should we take this LOCALCONSENSUS-violating RfC seriously?
 * And there we are again—arguing that American comic books require special treatment, because ... well, just because. All in favour, raise your hand! Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Japanese manga has got nothing to do with other kinds of comics. They're issued as 300-page books. They don't even read in the same direction. You're obfuscating. And only a fanatic tries to makes reasonable compromise sound like a terrible thing. I was suggesting a compromise even though the overwhelming majority of editors in this discussion have a consensus you don't agree with. Because I believe in compromise and want everyone to be represented as best they can. Yet just because you, personally, favor a different style than all the rest of the editors, you're throwing out a million straw-man arguments. As for "status quo", WPC MOS doesn't mention comic-book features, and hundreds of articles here use quote marks for them. There is not status quo. That's the whole point of this RfC – to establish a style.


 * Incidentally, I saw how you added "policy" to the Projects notified of the RfC, along with, IIRC, the original media and maybe art. And it's gotten no traction there — no one from that Project has come here to comment. So your claim that something must be violating policy because you disagree with it ... well, it doesn't appear to be true. If you're so sure that all seven or eight experienced, veteran editors — who each have been here for years and know Wikipedia policy and guidelines — are all wrong and solely you are right, then it should be crystal clear to everyone and you can stop arguing, secure in the knowledge that any closing admin will recognize that immediately. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Japanese manga has got nothing to do with other kinds of comics. They're issued as 300-page books. They don't even read in the same direction.—my God, you said that out loud! It's obviously not going to be possible to discuss things with you.  I'm leaving this RfC to the show of hands, which will be overturned as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS yet again (that keeps happening in these parts). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That's basically what I said, that after roughly a dozen editors have weighed in over the course of more than a month, we leave it to a closing admin. I know it's not much, but I'm glad we agree on something, at least. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Checking via Facebook
I posted this question on Facebook, and got some interesting answers:
 * Two of the editors of the Comics Buyer's Guide noted that for them, serialized stories within comics and ongoing backup features would be placed in quotes. This was supported by others who wrote about comics.
 * For some of what we've been discussing, there exist a MOS standard at Manual_of_Style/Titles that actually complicated matters: "Descriptive titles for media franchises and fictional universes (including trilogies and other series of novels or films) should not be placed in italics or quotation marks, even when based on a character or feature of the works (Tolkien's Middle-earth writings, the Marvel and DC universes in comics, Sherlock Holmes mysteries)." Some backup features have a definite title: "Tales of the Watcher", for example. But others don't really, or at least not consistently. If there's a regularly backup featuring Sidekick Lass, it won't always display Sidekick Lass as a title, although it might says Sidekick Lass in "The Obvious Brownie Adventure". In this case, calling it a Sidekick Lass backup series would be descriptive, and thus neither quotes nor italics would be used. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you ask the CBG folk how they'd handle The Spirit, V for Vendetta, and Ranma ½? And Annie Fanny, since that's the one that set this off?  Let's keep in mind, though, that a magazine like CBG is more likely to follow AP-like style than Chicago-like, and the Wikipedia MoS puts weight on style guides used for book sources rather than periodicals and news sources—and, indeed, book sources such as the Comics Journal Library's volume on Kurtzman and Bill Schelly's Kurtzman biography italicize Little Annie Fanny (as does Elder's biography.) Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that there is anything relevantly AP-like going on here, as both editors were clear that they title of the comic book series would be italicized (with John saying that the cover title would be italicized and Maggie corrected him that it was the title in the indicia that would be so used.) John did agree with the comments of another person (a comics creator) that  once the serial is published as a "book," it would be in italics. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Once again, to answer questions for which Curly Turkey is doing "I can't hear you": The Spirit is a comic book — uniquely, one done as a standalone newspaper insert — and as for Ranma ½, I've already said Japanese manga is a completely separate entity from standard comic books, using a completely different language system involving pictographs. I have no idea what the issue is with V for Vendetta, so that needs explaining. And Little Annie Fanny is a comics feature appearing in a magazine, so like "Pussycat" it would be in quotemarks while, as Nat Gertler noted, the collected edition published as a comic book is The Adventures of Pussycat.


 * Isolated, and I feel nitpicky, examples aside — there are always going to be unique exception-to-the-rules examples no matter what field or discipline is involved — the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of veteran WikiProject Comics editors, each giving detailed reasons, believes comic-book features are properly rendered in quote marks, while comic-book magazines themselves are in italics. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As you are well aware, The Spirit was a feature in an untitled newspaper insert. You've been told already, so I have to wonder what's motivating this outright dishonesty. The rest of your comment is similar gibberish. Manga is not comics? Jesus Christ ... Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't you dare make false, ad hominem attacks. The insert was known colloquially as "The Spirit section" but just like Thor, which also had backup features, the title of that unique newspaper comic book was the same as that of the series. But hey, don't believe "dishonest" me — believe the Grand Comics Database, here. And Jesus Christ, indeed, anyone reading this can see very well that I never said, "Manga is not comics" — now that is a straight-up lie. My 16:11, 20 June 2016 post says, and I quote, "Japanese manga is a completely separate entity from standard comic books, using a completely different language system involving pictographs." --Tenebrae (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The V for Vendetta situation is not that difficult. There were "V for Vendetta" installments in Warrior; those were colorized for reprinting in the DC series V for Vendetta, which followed up with new material, and the story was collected in the trade paperback V for Vendetta, which would seem to be how most people experienced it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Very easy to disagree with, but whatever---I'm still waiting on the answer to the others. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Everything's answered. And despite your falsehood against me, I caught you in a lie and provide timestamp and quote to prove it, in my post just above.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * And in any case, you're making the same arguments over and over again that seven or eight other editors have rejected. You're beating a dead horse. The consensus is overwhelmingly against your position and in favor of quote marks for comics features. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Post-RfC comments
I was off somewhere else during this. If it comes up again, count me in for "once the serial is published as a 'book,' it would be in italics." This answers the question of Ranma 1/2; the fact that it was published as a book as well as a feature means italics (except in a case where the serial version within another work is explicitly being referred to). A serial/feature in a book should be in quotes as a minor work within a major one (which has to do with quantity/size not quality/significance; it's not a value judgement). This is not a new question and is not specific to comics in any way, not even when it comes to episodes within features within books. Many novels are divided into "books" or sections, meta-chapters if you will, with titles, and further divided into chapters with titles. Both the big sections and the little chapters get quotes. Various progrock albums have long "epic" tracks on them (Rush's "2112", Kate Bush's "The Ninth Wave") further divided into "sub-songs" (which are tracks in the technical sense on the CDs). Both levels get quotes, the album gets italics. Frequently, magazines (italics) have major articles (quotes) that have inset sub-articles (sometimes by different authors) with their own titles (they get quotes, too). And so on. It is less potentially confusing than using italics for the "middle" level because the number of cases of just a book title and a feature vastly outnumbers the cases of all three levels being present and needing to be referred to in sequence. [The OCD dork in me would have liked to have seen a convention evolve to use single quotes for the episode-inside-feature-inside-book level, but it has not, and WP isn't going to make one up.]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish: So how does this apply to Little Orphan Annie and Little Annie Fanny? They're not "serials" with an end "book" in mind—they're open-ended features. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The first seems to be a strip, not a feature, and the second a feature, so both seem like quotation marks cases to me. Anyway, I'm trying to provide additional rationale backup for the RfC outcome, not second-guess. It allows for "some exceptions", and I suppose cases could be made for these two to be italicized. LOA has been republished in book form, and so has LAF. However, I suspect that both of these are mostly thought of as strips/features.  I would make the opposite argument about Liberty Meadows, which is probably encountered in book form by at least 19 out of 20 people familiar with it.  Style matters like this almost inevitably run into some kind of minor complication, some edge case. In the end they're an arbitrary standard to apply simply to have a standard instead of random chaos and confusion. The small price of that benefit is that once in a while the standard will not seem 100% perfect for a particular case, or one will not clearly fit into the system without differences of opinion. Kind of goes for all style issues, and is why people launching crusades about them is silly and tedious. :-)  PS: I'm not implying any distinction between "serial" and "feature" in the above, and edited to make that clearer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "How they're encountered" shouldn't play any rôle in the decision—we quotemark songs regardless of whether they're originally published as part of an album, like "A Day in the Life", or as standalone sheet music like "Maple Leaf Rag". We should focus on what it is, not how it appeared—it's under the focus on the latter that "edge cases" (and thus disputes) will proliferate. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of importance to WikiProject Comics
A discussion has begun at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style that could impact about 10 years of work and perhaps a couple thousand WikiProject Comics articles. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Since there was no consensus to change WikiProject Comics' longstanding MOS, I'd like to suggest that we add a line to the MOS specifically saying (rather than simply showing by example) that we use the number sign for issue numbers. I propose adding an additional sentence to the end of the paragraph at WP:CMOS that would read something like: For consistency with industry nomenclature, use the number sign (#) rather than "No.", "no.", "Number" or "number". --Tenebrae (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

MOS:TONE/MOS:FICT, WP:PSTS, and reviews of fictional works
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. This is a request for comments in the general sense, but not a WP:RFC at this stage, being an initial discussion draft (broadened to cover writing about fiction generally), building on a lengthy discussion/dispute at the same page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft guideline material on how to write (and not write) "Production" sections
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film, a draft list of advice on the writing of "Production" sections. This is part of an RfC on MOS:FILM, but the material is written broadly enough (on purpose) it might actually live at MOS:FICT and apply to other media (TV, video games, comics, novel series, etc.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  05:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding a disagreement at "The Gifted (TV series)"
There is an RfC at Talk:The Gifted (TV series) regarding some wording and interpretation of sources. It would be great if we could get some more opinions over there. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

An arts-and-media MoS proposal
At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, it's been suggested to merge that WP:PROJPAGE into MoS, as one of the last remaining genre/medium-specific style guide kinds of pages that isn't in MoS, especially since someone's already put a guideline tag on it, and given it a misleading MOS:VG shortcut.

Strangely, several people from the WP:VG wikiproject have shown up to make what appear to be WP:OWN-based arguments against the idea. I hope that people from other media and arts projects, all of which have MoS pages (largely authored and maintained by people from those projects, but without a claim of absolute control by them) can participate in this discussion and assuage the unreasonable fears of people in that particular project. Promotion of topical style advice pages into MoS has not proven any kind of problem for WP:VISUALARTS, WP:ARTS, WP:FILM, WP:TV, WP:COMICS, WP:ANIME, WP:NOVELS, WP:MUSIC, etc. Meanwhile, the continued fragmentation of such a page to an "un-MoS" page (while simultaneously claiming to be an MoS page, somehow), is misleading and a recipe for conflict.

Or, if you think there's some kind of problem, feel free to give the opposite opinion. I'm not telling anyone how they should !vote. I'm pointing out that that all the arts-and-media projects and arts-and-media MoS pages share a common sort of history, as well as the same practicality of their advice being included in MoS or shunted to a wikiproject backwater where no one is apt to take "guideline" claims seriously; it's the same across all these projects and pages. So is the increased level to which they agree instead of conflict, by virtue of MoS maintainers ironing out WP:POLICYFORKs between them. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  23:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Actors in plot summaries
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

Gist: MOS:FILM and MOS:TV are in conflict about whether to give actors' names in plot summaries. (This doesn't affect comics per se, but comics-related films, TV, and voice-acted video games). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge in WP:NCCOMICS
We really need to fix this redundant WP:POLICYFORK. WP:Manual of Style/Comics is already about 50% naming conventions, so a split off page of sometimes contradictory material at WP:Naming conventions (comics) serves no purpose and is counter productive. This situation is quite worse than useless. It's already common practice for topical MoS pages to contain a naming conventions section (at the bottom, not the top) with a section header, so the page cross-categorizes as both an MoS and an NC guideline. (This is also how WP:SAL is done – it's an MoS, NC, and content guideline all at once, in different sections, and it works fine – better than the original mess of three conflicting pages).

The NC section should be compressed to not be redundant with the general MoS material above it, but only address titling-specific matters. After merger, the final result might end up being shorter than the current MOS:COMICS page by itself (since it is written backwards and repeating NC stuff as general-prose stuff), or it could in theory be slightly longer, but will in any case be much more concise that two separate pages of rehash, and unable to result in any further policyforking. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge since the latter page is largely redundant. Combining them would result in a more cleaner and concise guideline. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 02:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Though not a member of this project, I'd support this since it will deal with the policy fork of the naming conventions. Just a question, you want to merge the MoS in the NC (as I understand from the title) or the way around (basically asking what the final page will be named)?--Gonnym (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge the NC into the MoS page, since it's a subtopic here already, but it's not logically possible for MoS material that isn't title related to be part of a naming convention (which only covers titles).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Is Clark Kent Superman's public identity, codename, code name, identity, real name, alternate name, public persona, or something else?
Naming conventions, 1.1 Characters seems to indicate that in most instances we should use "codename" to refer to a character's public persona. Has the WikiProject reached consensus on this question and formally recommended using "codename" unless there is a compelling reason to use another term?

The term I have seen most often over the years is "public identity". (By "over the years" I'm referring to collecting comics starting in 1973; working at Pacific Comics in San Diego through high school; on the board of San Diego Comic-Con for two years, and keeping up with the field off and on since then.)

Therefore, I am baffled by the recommendation to use "codename". Oh, I forgot to mention that in section 1.1 Characters, "codename" links to the Wikipedia article Code name. Note the difference in spelling. Also note that the article Code name never mentions comics, comix, or comic books.

Please tell me if I am missing something (which is always a possibility. ;-)

Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That section isn't recommending that we universally use the word codename to describe a costumed identity in an article. It's using the word to give guidance on how an article should be titled. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you for clarifying and helping me understand better Argento Surfer. I'll read again in a day or to with fresh eyes. If it still seems murky to me, I'll copy edit that part and post a note here so others can take a look.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is a suggested copy edit for 1. Naming conventions, 1.1 Characters:

Superheroes, villains, and other comics characters often have a public identity or alter ego as well as their superhero or villain identity. People in the "everyday world" don't know that Clark Kent (public identity) is Superman (superhero identity), or that Green Lantern lives in the day-to-day "regular" world as Hal Jordan. J. Jonah Jameson complains about Spider-Man to young photojournalist Peter Parker, not knowing that Parker is the public identity of Spider-Man.

To determine the most appropriate article name for a character, use the most well-known name. If a given character is best known by their public identity, then that name should serve as the article name. Thus, Norman Osborn is a stand-alone article about the original Green Goblin, whereas the latter article discusses several "Green Goblin" characters appearing in Marvel Comics. Other examples include John Constantine rather than Hellblazer; Lois Lane rather than Superwoman; and Roy Harper rather than Arsenal or Red Arrow, two of his lesser-known superhero incarnations, but along with an article about Speedy, Roy Harper's more established Golden Age DC comics superhero character.

If readers know a character by both their superhero (or villain) name and public identity in equal measure, usually the superhero (or villain) name functions best as article title.

Where a character's name includes an abbreviated term, such as "Mr." for "Mister", title the article using the abbreviated term. So it is Mr. Freeze but Doctor Destiny.
 * Rationale: Among comics fans, writers, and publishers, "public identity" and "alter ego" enjoy much more use than "codename". The Wikipedia article, codename does not mention comics at all--additional evidence of the word's incongruity in this context.


 * What do you all think?  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 08:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_character, in-universe parameters, and consistency between different media
Please see Template talk:Infobox character. This involves both the question of whether in-universe parameters should be used in such infoboxes, and if so which ones (with perhaps some conflicting expectations between TV, movies, video games, comics, anime/manga, novels, etc.). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)