Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/exemplars

exemplars
I just ran across Wolverine (comics), and while it's not perfect (it could use some copy editing, for one), I really like its organization and structure for use with comic characters. Good introduction stating the basics and why he's important, his publication history, his fictional biography, his powers, his appearances in other media, and enemies. What do you guys think? -leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 00:59, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * The Flash is similar. -leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 12:58, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

We should also think about how infoboxes will play into this, if we decide to go that route (see here). -leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 00:59, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Structure of character/team articles
Here's a question that came up regarding X-Force that I think applies to all comic series that share a name with their main character(s):
 * Will this article lead with "X-Force is/was a series" or "X-Force is/was a team"? The distinction is important, because it colors the rest of the article. Personally, I vote for the latter. That mentality allows us to do the "Introduction / Publication history / Fictional biography" structure that has worked so well in articles like Wolverine (comics) and The Flash. Actually, this latter question should really be discussed on Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Comics, to develop a consistent universal policy, so I'll copy this paragraph there.-leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 08:46, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Rorschach567's Thoughts on Exemplars
Some thoughts on exemplars and format for articles about superheroes and super villains and teams:

Introductions to articles
I think most articles about superheroes, supervillains and teams should begin under the following structure:

“{Name of character} ({birth name}) is a {Name of comic book company} {superhero/villain/team}. Created by {creator(s)}, he/she/they first appeared in {Name of series} #{issue number} ({year}).”

For example: Daredevil (Matt Murdock) is a Marvel Comics superhero. Created by Stan Lee and Bill Everett, he first appeared in Daredevil #1 (1964).

And then the intro should include a small overview about the character or team and his/her/its significance to a certain comic book family, comic books in general and, if applicable, popular culture in general.

Some exceptions would include:
 * When several different characters have used the title, such as The Flash and Green Lantern, the birth name of one particular character should not be not in parenthesis next to the name of the character.
 * When a superhero has been owned by more than one company such as Captain Marvel, then an explanation of ownership can wait.
 * When a character is not exactly a superhero or villain, such as Catwoman or Venom, then perhaps “character” should be used instead of super hero or villain.
 * When the exact circumstance under which a character was created or developed is complex, such as Wolverine, whose creators did not develop him into the character we know today or X-Force, which developed from prior concepts and using mostly previously created characters, then the exact manor of creation should wait until an appropriate section. No one person and persons should be misleadingly listed a the “creator.”
 * When the character’s first appearance was not in an numbered issue, such as the Sub-Mariner or The Tick, then just the creator and year is needed.

Some things I think should be prohibited, unless there are specific circumstances to warrant them:
 * “{Name of character} is a fictional character…” or “{Name of character} is a fictional superhero.” Readers can assume that a superhero or villain is a fictional character.
 * “{Name of character} is a {superhero} in the {Name of comic book company} universe.” This is common but is a pet peeve of mine for several reasons. Firstly, people unfamiliar with comic books may not know what a “universe” is and those who are familiar know that Marvel characters usually exist with other Marvel characters, DC characters with other DC characters ect. It would warrant a special explanation if a character was owned by Marvel or DC did not exist in said company’s collective setting. It particularly bothers me in the articles about culturally significant superheroes, such as Batman, Superman, Spider-Man ect., which discuss franchising and rise and falls in popularity and other things happening far outside any fictional universe.
 * "{Name of character} is also the name of a series featuring {Name of character}" In an era after the Silver Age, it would warrant explanation if the series were named anything else.

Publication Histories and &#8220;Fictional Biographies&#8221;
The idea of having both a “publication history” and a “fictional biography” is not a bad one but it leads to several problems:

1) What is the definition of either term? Is a publication history simply a recap of which series have featured a character and when? Or does it also include creators who worked on the series and the contributions they made to the character’s mythos? Is a fictional biography a telling of the history of Peter Parker or Reed Richards as if he were Sigmund Freud or Mohammed Ali? Does it identify reconned information as so or does the fact that Wolverine was born on an Alberto plantation at the turn of the century go up top even though it is a recently added part of the characters’ mythos?

2) In my opinion, a “fictional biography” heading is not a license to speak about a fictional character as if he were a real person. It is more useful, in my mind, to discuss how Wolverine and his character have changed over time than it is to recount the whole messy history as if it were fact.

3) Often bits of information are repeated. Both the publication history and the fictional biography in the Wolverine section tell readers that:
 * Wolverine was once a Canadian government agent
 * He first appeared in comics as an enemy of the Hulk
 * He’s had a hostile relationship with Alpha Fight
 * He joined the X-Men in 1975
 * He has a crush on Jean Grey
 * He often clashes with Cyclops
 * The mini-series Origin filled in many gaps in his history

Personally, I think publication histories should be just that. A short description of the publications the character has starred in or regularly appeared in over the years. This may not be nessescary for characters whose history has, more or less, unfolded in only one series (Daredevil, The Fantastic Four).

"Fictional Biography" should include a character's history, who added what aspects to the character and when. Writers should resist the temptation to discuss a fictional character as if he/she were a real person. Writers should not be afraid to use phrases like "Claremont then changed&#8230;" or "Marvel decided to..." or "Fan reaction was mixed&#8221; in the "fictional biography section." - User:Rorschach567, 12/21/04


 * Dammit, Rorschach, now you've nearly convinced me to drop the whole dichotomy. Perhaps the "fictional biography" should contain the essential character background that everyone can agree upon and which a reader would need to know? "Peter Parker was a brilliant but socially awkward student when a radioactive spider bite granted him super-powers. The subsequent murder of his Uncle Ben taught Peter that "with great power comes great responsibility," and he dedicated his life to fighting crime as Spider-Man. Over the years, he has married his college sweetheart Mary Jane Watson, but also cultivated many enemies, such as the Green Goblin and Venom." "Bruce Wayne's parents were murdered when he was X years old, prompting him to dedicate his life to fighting crime. After years of training, he began stalking the streets of Gotham City in costume, fighting criminals as Batman. He was soon joined by the young acrobat Dick Grayson, who fought beside him as Robin. blah blah blah" etc. All the juicy stuff could then wait until the other section, whatever we call it, which would detail major writing/art/continuity/popularity changes, naming names. Something in the style of the current X-Force article, I suppose.

Or is that too vague and useless? I really haven't wrapped my mind around this problem yet. I could live with your suggestions, though. -leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 08:37, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm new here, but it occurs to me that we could save ourselves a fair amount of trouble by retitling the "fictional biography" as "character biography" or perhaps "character/team history". This would get around the criticism Rorscharch expressed about using the word "fictional" in these biographies. [This comment left by Lokicarbis, 15:52, Jan 5, 2005]


 * "Character/team history" does not equal "fictional biography". Each character has real-world history which includes its development, publication history, controversies, and repercussions. Doczilla 20:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree - while what exactly you call them isn't crucial, I think you need to seperate the publishing history (where relevant) and the character biography (which should write about them "as if they were a real person". So in the Wolverine (comics) example, "Character Biography" (or Fictional Biography or whatever) would have the events of Origin at the top of the article, while "Publication History" would mention that the Origin miniseries cleared up much of the character's early history. The opposite approach - melding both together - has, from what I've seen, generally resulted in a garbled mess -- SoM 17:03, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More thoughts on structure of character articles

 * I think we can agree that articles should generally be about characters, not series, except (of course) when the titles are different. With that in mind, I think it would be useful to separate the different information that we're trying to present:
 * 1) Which comic book series the character has appeared in. When and by whom these comics were produced.
 * 2) A history of the character's or series' reception, by fans or the general public. This also includes "cultural relevance".
 * 3) A summary of the stories that have been told about the character over the years.
 * 4) The current "canonical" take on the character (if it's not obvious from #3).


 * Is that an accurate breakdown? Can these all be smoothly synthesized? Or should they be broken into groups? The introduction should probably have a brief nod to each one of thse facets. What are your thoughts? -leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 19:36, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * This may sound evasive because one of the purposes of this project is to come up with some universal guidelines about comics-related articles, but I think it is only important that contributors include all four and that where and how they do so can change depending on the character and the writing style of the contributor. --Rorschach567 19:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Default article sectioning
Partly in response to Hiding's post at Talk:Wolverine_%28comics%29, partly because this came up before, we didn't get anything near a consensus and it fizzled out.

I accept, even if I don't like, the fact that most people want Ultimate versions included in the main articles. With that in mind, here's how I think articles should go, as a starting point. Characters like Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, etc that have become more general pop culture icons aren't included so much in this.

(Introduction)

Obvious, no actual heading. Basically listing current/primary codename, real name, other significant codenames, publishing company, creators. Since long intros seem to be frowned upon in general, that should be pretty much it.

Publication history (open to renaming suggestions for most of these)

Real-life history of the character, who wrote it, what series they've had, their longevity, etc. Focusing on the comic, but passing mentions of all other-media versions, and acknowledging where these versions have impacted on the comics. Also mentioning reboots, etc.

Primary continuity - Golden Age version, Pre-Crisis version, Post-Crisis version, Marvel Universe version, etc if there's more than one comics version, Character biography' if there isn't.

Filling in the first (or primary, if the "main" version isn't the original) continuity version of the character's history. Subsequent sections, Ultimate Marvel version, etc should follow if necessary, noting divergances. If the character is sufficiently different, in name, etc, or the article is excessively long, then this should be short and a Main article: ARTICLE NAME link should be provided.

Appearances in other media

Again, this depends on the significance of the other-media versions. If it can be covered in a sufficiently short space, here, otherwise breakout.

Powers and abilities

Discussing the commonalities only of the "major" versions (except where one, as with Superfriends Wonder Woman is completely different), leaning towards the primary and current versions but not excluding the others. Should not be excessive, or copyvio OHOTMU, etc stats - which are rarely held to in the comics anyway.

Bibliography

Sub-heading: List of titles

This should be a complete list of all solo stories of the character, as with most comics bibliographies now [i.e. in the form Booperman #1-499 (Geldof 3092 - Hexember 3189, Fictional Comics), etc as a bulleted list]

Sub-heading: List of Significant stories

What it says on the tin, with the same idea as above. Need to be checked for POV, etc, obviously.

External links

Bet you can't guess ;)

Comment? - SoM 20:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts SoM responded to were to have the powers section as a subsection of the main cahracter biography, and the Ultimate version and other media at the end, to discuss variations from the main character. Otherwise, to me, it doesn't seem clear which version the powers belong to, and if there are some characters whose divergent alter egos have differing powers, it makes sense to have established the original powers before discussing the diverging character's powers.

However, I would still suggest the other media section should be below the powers section in the above version, if that one is preferred, again for clarity.
 * (Introduction)
 * Publication history
 * Character biography discusses the root version, with subsections on powers etc.
 * Other versions discusses the differences between the version in question and the root version.
 * Character in other media discusses the differences between this version and the root version.
 * Bibliography
 * References We should start providing these where we can, I know, it's silly to list vast swathes of issues, but if there is stuff like in the X-Men article where we say Claremont left due to clashes with the editorial, we could try and provide a reference for that.
 * External Links

But yeah, thoughts either way are appreciated, and we could then list the decision at WikiProject Comics/exemplars for future reference. Hiding talk 22:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * My main reason for keeping the powers section out of the MU/etc version is to encourage brevity, if I'm going to be honest. I have a real problem where people feel the need to copy out a load of power stats which only saw print in the OHOTMU, etc and have little basis in actual stories (since such have the double-whammy of reducing the readability by including tons of redundant information and potentially copyvioing the Who's Who/Handbooks/etc, as with the pics we're discussing above). In 90%+ of cases, the only difference between "Other media" versions of the powers and the "primary" version is the precise power levels.


 * And, since you talk about "root" versions for the powers... which is the "root" version? Taking Superman as an example, is it the original Golden Age version (as "root" implies) that could only jump, not fly, the Silver Age version that notoriously sneezed away a planet, or the current, Post-Crisis, version which is somewhere in-between? - SoM 16:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Characters like Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, etc that have become more general pop culture icons aren't included so much in this.. However, yeah, I take the point.  I think Jamdav86's version down below solves that problem.  What do you think? I have some objections I'll address there. Hiding  talk 17:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Not so sure - it doesn't really solve the problem at hand, since it only discusses changes to powers of one version -really, it just makes things that bit more complicated (BTW, as you guessed, Superman was just the most convienient example I could think of :)) - SoM 19:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I guess it is a pickle. Looking at Wolverine (comics) I'm still of the opinion the other media section should come last before External links as the page is now, since other media portrayals don't differentiate hugely from the character and are seperate enough from the lineage (in the sense that they are not comics) that to me they should be seperate and an addition to the article, rather than within the flow of the comic book character section.  Superman, [Batman]] and Spider-Man all do this.  Also, looking at Superman and Batman, they tend to discuss the character's evolution and so on, examining them as fictional characters rather than offering a biography as if real.  Not sure what the thoughts are on that approach. Hiding  talk 21:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think the intro suggested is repeating much of the information in the box to the right so that shold be rethought.--Jamdav86 09:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought that too, but when I brought that up before I got jumped on since there's apparently some convention that no information should be exclusively in an infobox or somesuch - SoM 16:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it has to do with how the templates stop working if there's a huge load on the servers or something? Hiding talk 17:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Might be, although I've never seen templates stop working (Images, yes, templates, no). AFAIK, it's simply a convention that everything should be in the text in some form (I've got no problem with this if it's in expanded/explained form in the text (or falls in naturally), since the infobox is a brief summary by nature). Still, it doesn't do much harm, I suppose. - SoM 19:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Otherwise, this is the article layout I'll suggest:


 * Introduction (see comment above)
 * Publication History (how the character was created, titles appeared in etc.)
 * Biography
 * Original version
 * original Powers
 * Subsequent versions
 * Changes to powers
 * Ultimate version {if applicable} (following much of the same principles as Spider-Woman, with its own infobox (perhaps without picture unless extemly different from convention e.g. Green Goblin) and powers etc. or Main article: ARTICLE NAME at the top and short summary without box (as suggested above) if it has its own article. (Possibly state info outside this section refers to the regular version of this character))
 * Appearences in other media (this section (along with all others) should be included at all times, even if it means writing "This character has had no apperances in other media", to keeep with the idea that it is confoming to the template.
 * Bibliography (as SoM)
 * External links

Just my views. --Jamdav86 09:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem I have with this is the multiple info boxes, which to me don't work too well at Spider-Woman, with the info boxes hanging down into the next version, especially on versions 3 and 4 where 4 is below the text and creates a lot of dead space. Thoughts? Hiding  talk 17:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That's one of the main reasons (altho by no means the only) I objected to merging the Ult versions in with the MU versions, actually. I've occasionally used multiple infoboxes on a page (as with Nova (comics)) where there's no real alternative, but then I've made sure to use the template to seperate them (at the cost, unfortunately, of more "dead space"). I've changed the SW page to use that - although I don't like the use of Roman Numerals to distinguish them like that (isn't it actually wrong anyway, since even if Mattie is more notable, Charlotte used the SW name first?). Better to use the real names.


 * Not quite sure I get you on the numerals, isn't Charlotte listed as I? Hiding  talk 21:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Jessica's I, Julia's II, but although Mattie debuted first and is more prominent, I think Charlotte is III in terms of the use of the Spider-Woman name.


 * And I don't like the use of the Roman numerals because it does lead to confusion (if you'll look, you'll notice that Marvel's most recent Handbooks have dropped the numbering and just distinguish by real name for the same reason) - SoM 23:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Where there's a lineage, my preference (as it has been all along) would be to keep the main page (e.g. Green Lantern) to the discussion of the lineage itself, and make seperate pages for the notable holders of the title (minor holders could be grouped into a List of Green Lanterns, etc, or kept on the main page) - SoM 19:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that's a possibility. Hiding talk 21:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think that it would add another layer of complication to someone who is interested in starting to read the comics or watch the cartoon of a team e.g. JLA and has only clicked through to Green Lantern to find out why it mentions V after his name. --Jamdav86 11:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Another option?
Just to move this on a bit, no-one else seems to have joined in. Thoughts? Hiding talk 19:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * (Introduction)
 * Publication history
 * Version biographies/Character biography
 * Powers and abilities
 * Character in other media
 * Bibliography
 * References
 * External Links

I like it, because its similar to my suggestion above and I don't really care about where the powers and abilities section is --Jamdav86 18:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Implementation
So how should we start putting the above Hiding (or any other preferred) layout into action? --Jamdav86 19:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Real name
The way these are phrased, these don't have much context to them. They would read much better if rephrased:
 * {character name} (real name {real name})...

It also allows for easier clarification of ambiguous or special cases like Deadpool, Wolverine, and Moon Knight. -Sean Curtin 01:06, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I follow, but feel free to amend the page to how you would prefer. Hiding talk 18:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Citing sources!
My only contribution to this discussion right now is to plead with everyone to give references for everything. It's an encyclopedia, dammit, and we have countless tools at our fingertips for research and annotation. Whether in the "publication history" or the "fictional biography," if you say that something happened, say which issue it happened in. If you talk about long-term trends or a particular creator's run, give us some years and some issue numbers. You can use Footnotes if you don't want to clutter up the article body. But for anyone using Wikipedia for research (or even to help them decide which issues of Iron Man to read), it's useless to talk about trends and events unless you tell us where those events can be found.

Useful pages for getting these references:
 * comics.org, the Grand Comic Book Database
 * The Unofficial Handbook of Marvel Comics Creators, with credits for every issue and much more
 * Who's Whose in the DC Universe? list of characters and ideas, with their first appearance and creators

Comics are no longer an ephemeral medium, and we must do our part to preserve the past. Everybody, please, cite your references. -leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 19:21, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sub-headings
The only problem that I have seen in implementing the exemplars is the sub-headings. For example, it should probably be standard that the publication history should be split by years, but it's a bit cryptic to split up the biography with headings like 'Changing Fortunes', a la Iron Man. Also I have had difficulty in how to distinguish different versions of the character from the main version. I tried in Avengers (comics) to have a heading 'Avengers in different universes', but it's cryptic to a non-comic fan/obsessive, and not having a heading as I did in Iron Man is confusing. Any advice? --Jamdav86 11:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would think the best thing might be an Avengers intepretations, parodies and references section. This would, admittedly somewhat, mirror the Batman parodies/references and Superman parodies/references sections. Hiding  talk 19:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

After a bit of looking around, I prefer (and will use) Other versions of (character, and will probably use it. --Jamdav86 18:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Irregular comics series
There's nothing that clearly addresses one-shot comics stories or irregularly published ongoing stories such as those published in anthology comics. Xastic 19:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Comics creator bios
I'd like to offer what I hope are good and practical suggestions. Having researched and created some three dozen of these and contributed to about 20 more, I've found some real ways to save space, avoid redundancies, and get important biographical basics right up front, where someone needing the basic facts will have them all in one place.

One easy, workable thing, for instance, is to include the birth and death locations with the birth and death dates. Examples: George Roussos, Al Hartley. I've also found that a useful subhead to break up potentially long mid-sections (and also separate the necesssary groundwork from the here's-what-they're-famous-for stuff that some users like to be able to get to right away) is "Early life and career": Where they were raised and went to school, what their first jobs in the field were, and like that. (That is, of course, if there's enough of that early detail available!) For example: Gil Kane.

Finally, rather than a generic subhead, I've found it sometimes works to label the meaty part of a career with something pertinent. For example, with Johnny Craig, that clearly would be his EC Comics years. For Everett M. "Busy" Arnold, that would involve, separately, Quality comics and The Spirit. (Wikipedia style allows for some humor; fans of Shang Chi, Master of Kung Fu will get the in-joke that also serves as a logical subhead for the latter.)

These are only suggestions; I'm certain I don't always adhere myself. I only hope this helps provide some useful tips for people like me who love the medium but aren't necessarily writers or editors themselves. Happy Wiki-ing! — Tenebrae 04:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Guidelines suggest the location info should be seperate from the dates, as per Manual of Style (dates and numbers):
 * Locations should be included in the biography portion of the body article. For example, "(February 12, 1809 in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England – April 19, 1882 in Downe, Kent, England)" should be separated to "(February 12, 1809–April 19, 1882) ... He was born in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England ... He died in Downe, Kent, England"
 * I would think it's probably best tp conform to them, as people will copyedit text based on those guidelines. I like the second suggestion though. Hiding  talk 09:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for writing in on that!
 * I'd actually gone and made the suggestion the same day as the above, at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29, since it would seem to be practical to have all that basic bio material in one place, rather than making a reader or researcher hunt for the birth and death locales in two other different spots in an entry. Since the Wiki solons are kind enough to allow flexibility ("The guidelines here are just that: guidelines are not inflexible rules"), I hope no one'll mind my keeping these details together. If the the PTB don't have a chance to reply soon, I'll give 'em another query. Thanks again! — Tenebrae

Comic publisher template
All. Any idea if someone is going to propose or put forth some kind of template for comic publishers? I've been doing a lot of editing/creating of such pages, mainly for the smaller, now defunct, companies. Typically I try to cover a history of the company (who started, when, when they went under), what characters (especially superheroes) they created/published, and what titles they put out (with number of issues, dates). I know others have included the company logo(s), which I think is great, etc. --Emb021 19:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The last thought I remember us having was that, given they are businesses the Template:Infobox Company would suffice. Hiding talk 22:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Graphic Novels
Should the article include a list of main characters and the different arcs within the series (particularly for finite series that ended/will end after a number of issues)? Sin City is a good example of this.

Does a comic book series that is now published in graphic novel form fall under this category? Eilu 21:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sin city is a comic book series repackaged as a series of graphic novels. Listing characters isn't something I particularly agree with, but feel free to disagree, I'd suggest placing such a list as a subcategory of the plot, along with the various story arc details. The collections section is where you note that the arcs or series in question have been collected as graphic novels. Hiding  talk 22:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * okay, thanks. --Eilu 11:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Kudos
Nice clear layout and language in the WikiProject Comics/exemplars page. Bravo! — Tenebrae 20:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Some changes to the comic book charactrers section of the exemplars page
In light of some recent problems of comics-related pages, I'd like to propose some changes to our exemplar guidelines. Please, share your thoughts, everyone.

I’d like to change this to: As the comics project and Wikipedia in general grow, articles are becoming longer and readers are forced to plow through the entire article to get the basic gist of the character.
 * “Since long intros seem to be frowned upon in general, our guidline is that the preceding information is sufficient.”
 * “The length of the article should determine the length of the intro. For long, in-depth articles, usually about important, long-standing characters, an intro should gives the casual reader the information needed for a basic understanding of a character and his or her importance. For shorter articles, the preceding information may sufficient. Pedantic information, even if it relates to information in the intro, should be included later.”


 * "The opening sentence is currently formatted as '{Name of character} ({birth name}) is a {Name of comic book company} {superhero/villain/team}. Created by {creator(s)}, he/she/they first appeared in {Name of series} #{issue number} ({year}).'"
 * I’d like to add that occasionally a character’s ties to a greater franchise or singular contribution to comic book history is noted in opening sentence. Some examples:
 * Shadowcat (Kitty Pryde) is a Marvel Comics superhero, a member of the X-Men. Created by writer Chris Claremont and artist/co-writer John Byrne, she first appeared in Uncanny X-Men #129 (January 1980).
 * The Riddler, real name Edward Nigma, is a DC Comics supervillain and an enemy of Batman. Created by Bill Finger and Dick Sprang, he first appeared in Detective Comics #140 (1948).
 * Northstar (Jean-Paul Beaubier) is a Marvel Comics superhero, a member of Alpha Flight and the X-Men. He is best known as one of the first openly gay superheroes in American comic books. Created by writer Chris Claremont and artist/co-writer John Byrne, Northstar first appeared in Uncanny X-Men #120 (April 1979).


 * I'd also like to add that it is usually not nesescary to note that a superhero or villain is also fictional character.


 * Under Fictional character biography, I’d like to include "Biographies that retell storylines in detail are discouraged." I think this is becoming a problem.


 * Like the Other versions section the (Character) in other media should note divergences.

Rorschach567 00:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to sign up to all these changes bar the move to exclude stating that "foo is a fictional character". The lead should always state that the character is fictional, although whether that takes the form "foo is a fictional superhero" is fine by me. Hiding Talk 20:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the "foo, real name Foo Foo, is a fictional (character/superhero/supervillain) in the Example Comics Example Universe " format. It provides links right in the first sentence to both the company and the larger universe in which the character exists. Useful for first time readers. CovenantD 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure "The length of the article should determine the length of the intro". Spider-Man has an enormously long entry, so why make the intro longer? Even for a character with Spider-Man's history and influence, a concise, tightly written intro is just as good for him as for any entry. I also believe the final two sentences in that suggestions are redundant, and that the sentence "Pedantic information, even if it relates to information in the intro, should be included later". The term "pedantic information" in particular is open to wide interpretation. What one person consider pedantic information, another considers necessary perspective. -- Tenebrae 15:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Highly agree with "Biographies that retell storylines in detail are discouraged." -- Tenebrae 15:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Me too. Me too. --Chris Griswold 17:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything to say except what Tenebrae and CovenantD have said. --Chris Griswold 17:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've copied and pasted the text verbatim from guidance on an intro at WP:LEAD, specifically than the lead, or introduction, "should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, be written in a clear and accessible style, and should first offer (what editors can agree are...) the topic's most interesting points, including a mention of the topic's most prominent controversies. All of the various points should be expanded upon later in the article, and the appropriate references provided at that point, rather than in the lead section. The length should be one to three paragraphs, depending on the length of the entire article, and should never be limited to one or two short sentences." I think that covers the pedantic information aspect, since it notes that inclusion of such details is decided by what editors can agree, or by consensus.  Therefore, if there is a dispute, simply discuss on the talk page, and if needed, request comment via the WikiProject.  I think though, that we're all pretty sure where the consensus lies on these issues, and I think we can all rely on each other to tell us if we've got it wrong, and I think we'll all listen. Since that's current guidance anyway, I think it's best to use it. Thoughts? Hiding Talk 19:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * An addition/change I would make is that because past tense sounds better with "appeared in Example Comics #1", that sentence or clause should read "the character" instead of "Batguy". This way, we're talking about the character not in a textual sense but as a fictional item that is being created or used by someone. Additionally, because we have made the "fictional character" --> "fictional" compromise, it adds the word character back in there to put us on more solid footing. --Chris Griswold 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Some more thoughts on exemplars
I’ve recently been editing and writing a lot of intros to superhero and villain articles. This is mostly because writing is more my expertise than comic book characters. Aside from a few properties, I don’t know as much as many other contributors about the histories of teams and characters. I generally try to make intros more clear and, if not concise, containing only the most important and interesting information. I consider this important to making Wikipedia the best comics-related information source on the Internet as the pages are growing and becoming filled with information.

Recently, editing disputes&mdash;which I regret if they became too ugly&mdash;about Dr. Strange and Black Panther (comics) have necessitated me to explain some of my reasoning which, until this morning’s edits of the exemplar page by User:Hiding did not conflict, in my view, with the guidelines of Wikipedia’s Comics project.

Below, I’ll lay out my reasoning regarding some of the standards I use. I’ll leave it to community consensus as to whether or not some or any of them be included in the official guidelines. I’d appreciate any civil or thoughtful debate on the matter. Rorschach567 21:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Need to deem a superhero "fictional"
The current exemplar stipulates that a superhero, villian or team be deemed "fictional" or a "fictional character." As in, "Zatanna is a fictional wizard, a superheroine…" or "The Thing (Benjamin Jacob "Ben" Grimm) is a fictional character…"

“Fictional superhero” is redundant. The superhero article even begins "A superhero is a fictional character…" It’s part of the definition of the term. Deeming a character a fictional president, fictional spy or fictional explorer is necessary but superheroes&mdash;along with cyborg, sorcerers and supervillians&mdash;are a class of “people” that do not exist in real life.

Yes, there are some “real-life superheroes,” highly different from their comic counterparts. All articles on them differentiate them from actual superheroes because fictitious superheroes are the norm.

Furthermore, “Marvel Comics superhero” or “comic book superhero” can easily substitute for “fictional superhero.” Obviously, an actual person cannot be owned by a publishing company or exist only in comic form. Rorschach567 21:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's currently a guideline that we include the word fictional. Harry Potter (character) does it, Marvin the Paranoid Android does it.  To be honest, the lead should not allow us to state "fictional superhero", it should state "fictional character".  The current guidance is my attempt at a compromise based on our opinons.  Given no-one else commented on this position, I felt that was the good faith approach. I will revert the change until agreement is found. I think that not including the word fictional leads us down a dangerous path, where if people do not see it in the Superman article, they will not use it at the Lois Lane article.  Note that we are discussing these characters in a real world context, and in the real world, they are fictional characters, not superheroes. Note that guidance on writing about fiction states establish context so that a reader unfamiliar with the subject can get an idea about the article's meaning without having to check several links.  We should not rely or force a reader to click a link to ascertain a character's fictional status for the sake of one word. Hiding Talk 13:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Although it's not what I would do if working on a non-colaborative project, I can accept deeming comic book characters as "fictional," kind as a way to classify them. But watch out for redundancies and other things that bog down your writing. "Foo-Man is a fictional superhero" seems like a duh, as there are, for all intents and purposes, no real superheroes. "Foo-Man is a fictional character, a Foo Comics superhero" seems more like a way of classifying "Foo-Man" as a two types of entities.


 * Also, for reasons stated below, I'd strongly suggest making "Foo-Man is a fictional superhero in the Foo Comics universe" prohibitted or discouraged. Not only is it redundant and possibly confusing to "newbies," but it is also incorrect. Rorschach567 12:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Need to stipulate a character’s "universe"
The current exemplar stipulates that a superhero, villian or team be deemed to exist in its company’s collective "universe," as in "The Thing (Benjamin Jacob "Ben" Grimm) is a fictional character in the Marvel Comics universe," "Meltdown (real name Tabitha Smith) is a comic book superhero in the Marvel Comics universe." The problem with this is threefold.

Wikipedia articles are best when geared towards someone with a new or casual interest in the subject matter. "DC Universe" or "Marvel Universe" is fanboy speak. Casual or new readers may not know what the "DC Universe" or "Marvel Universe" constitutes. In fact, by putting the phrase in the first sentence of every superhero, villain or team article, you catapult readers into perhaps the most confusing aspect of comic book fiction, the extensive universes and multiverses and “Ultimate” universes of a long-standing publisher.

Secondly, it is redundant. It is the norm that a Marvel or DC character exists in the company’s collective setting. "The Thing (Benjamin Jacob "Ben" Grimm) is a Marvel Comics superhero" is sufficient.

Lastly, articles about more popular superheroes describe things that do not happen in their comic book "universe." The Spider-Man and X-Men articles describe behind-the-scenes decisions, rises and declines in popularity and adaptation in other media. It is not right to constrict their existence to a fictional "universe" in the first sentence. Yes, Spider-Man is a comic book superhero in the Marvel Comics universe. But, for the purpose of the article, it would be more apt to say "Spider-Man is a Marvel Comics property integrated into their collective universe" or, more simply, "Spider-Man is a Marvel Comics" superhero."Rorschach567 21:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you haven't already, read my comments on this above. Needless to say, I disagree with your leave-it-out-for-the-newbies approach. CovenantD 00:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I'll revert this change until consensus is found. Note all these changes were discussed above and no disagreement was forthcoming. Hiding Talk 13:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'd also like to point out that if we must note that a character is fictional than this rule becomes even trickier. It makes the opening even more redundant. There are no real people existing in the Marvel Comics or DC universe. "The Thing (Benjamin Jacob "Ben" Grimm) is a fictional character in the Marvel Comics universe," taken literally, is incorrect. It would state that, within the Marvel Universe, the Thing is a fictional character, like Radioactive Man is a fictional character in the Simpsons' universe. So not only is it redundant, it's technically wrong. Rorschach567 22:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you want to get technical, it's not true that real people do not live in the Marvel Universe. For instance, the Avengers went on the David Letterman show. Plus, Marvel staffers have appeared regularly since the `60s. Just this week, Tom Brevoort appeared in Young Avengers #12, and Paul Jenkins is a character in New Avengers. There's the Beetles, of course, and John Belushi, and I know there's more that I can look up if you really want me to, but I doubt it.
 * But you are right that the phrase "fictional character in the Star Comics universe" is wrong; it should be "fictional character who lives in the Star Comics universe." (By the way, I'm talking about the Popples.)--Chris Griswold 03:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

--Chris Griswold 03:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It becomes unnecessary repetition. Just saying "X appears in the Marvel Universe" is clear enough. The link to the respective universe is there anyway.
 * I do find a sentence that reads "X appears in the Marvel Comics Universe" to be sloppy and somewhat redundant as the Superhero Box STATES that the character is owned by said publisher.

Asgardian 09:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No. That would only be clear to people who know what the Marvel Universe is. Most of the world does not know what it is. Not everyone reads the box. The box is there to enhance the text, not the other way around. "Marvel Comics universe" will make more sense than "Marvel Universe" -- a little bit more. Something like "appearing in publications from Marvel Comics" should make more sense overall. Doczilla 22:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Except that "publications from Marvel Comics" are almost all, y'know, comics... and Marvel has more than one universe. "Marvel Universe" and "DC Universe" may be jargon, but they're fairly important concepts for understanding how superhero comics work.  Without an understanding of Universes, it becomes baffling how Batman and Superman could know each other, for instance, or why they don't know (crossovers aside) the Fantastic Four.  I like " Marvel Comics universe " personally.  It's one of those things that casual and new fans should learn about as they branch off from the main titles into the side characters.  May not be a big deal for main-universe characters but for MC2 or Ultimate ones it's vital.
 * Adding "who lives" seems silly to me, and too much like treating the characters as real. To be honest, suddenly we're being insanely careful about saying "fictional" and it's getting annoyingly pedantic.  They're comic book characters, of course they're freaking fictional.  I'm much happier with "Batman is a DC Comics superhero" than "Batman is a fictional superhero who lives in the DC Comics universe."  It's more accurate (DC owns Batman, but he's in other media, which is increasingly true of even relatively minor comic characters) and less rediculous-sounding. Furthermore, the rest of the lead section clears up that they were created by someone or other and appeared in such-and-such comic.  There's no ambiguity that they're fictional. --HKMarks(T/C) 02:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I like it. "X is a Marvel/DC superhero (or villain)". Much better. We need to remove some of the pendanticness from the entries.

Asgardian 06:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Full names
The character’s real name should be in parenthesis next to the superhero or villain identity. However, it should be the basic first and last name, Ben Grimm instead of Benjamin Jacob "Ben" Grimm. The full name can wait for the info box. Rorschach567 21:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why relegate a well established full name to a SHB? Why can't it be in the article as well? I agree that relatively unknown middle names need some sort of reference, probably on the talk page. Once it's established, however, I see no reason not to include it. CovenantD 00:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have two reasons
 * 1) I want to make the intro more consise and readable
 * 2) The intro should include, as the Wikipedia-wide guide on leads states, only the most important information and I don't consider that important information.Rorschach567 22:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion, although it is possible to use both. Information however, should not be confined solely to the info box, there may one day occur technical issues which cause these not to load. Hiding Talk 13:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I could see the first sentence of the Thing's "character biography" as "The Thing was born Benjamin Jacob Grimm on Yancy Street in New York City. The opening paragraph just seems like the wrong place to put such little details, especially if you have to deal with a middle name and a nickname; Benjamin Jacob "Ben" Grimm, Katherine Ann "Kitty" Pryde. Rorschach567 12:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Identities with multiple mantle holders
In the case of superhero identities that multiple characters have taken on, I think the first sentence should be in the singular. "The Flash is a DC Comics superhero," not "The Flash is the name of several DC Comics superheroes" or "Several different characters have used the name The Flash in DC Comics."

Technically, the latter two sentences are true. However, "The Flash is a DC Comics superhero" is more accurate, "The Flash" not referring to Jay Garrick, Barry Allen and/or Wally West in specific but the commercial property, the superhero identity and the spiritual essence of the character.

Referring to such characters in the plural leaves the impression that several unrelated characters may taken the name (which is true in some cases, although they should be separated into different articles) or that the character is some sort of team.

Worse are characters that have a one or two sentence lead stating "Foo is a name used by several Foo Company characters" and then delegates all information into articles on those specific characters. At least a small history of the identity is needed.Rorschach567 21:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you on this one too. To use your example, Flash is a name used by two characters concurrently for the last 20 years of publication history. To open with the singular is misleading at best. In many other cases, as you say, several unrelated characters have taken the name. Marvel in particluar has a history of stories in which the use of a name by two different characters has led to conflict. CovenantD 00:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My approach would be to state "The Flash is a fictional character in a number of comic book series published by DC Comics. A television series based on the character was made in 1992, and the character has also been used in various cartoons, Super-Friends and JLA. The identity of the character behind the super-hero mantle has changed at different points through the character's publication within comics, being assumed by Jay Garrett in the 1930's, Barry Allen in the 1960s and Wally Wood in the 1980's." I agree the article on The Flash should be about the fictional property, such as is done with Harry Potter. Hiding Talk 13:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The little guys I'm not so concerned about. For the big guys I think it makes the easiest reading when they are addressed as a commercial property in the big article (with some basic biographical information on title holders) and as individuals within their own respective articles.


 * Yes, there have been two Flashes running (get it?) concurrently in DC Comics. But Jay Garrick has always been marginalized as the Earth-2 Flash or the JSA Flash - complicated continuity distinctions I'd like to keep out of the intros. As a superhero indentity and a commercial property, The Flash is a DC Comics superhero.


 * I'm not sure we have to have a rule about this (although I'd object heavily to a rule stating that titles with multiple holders must be addressed in the plural), unless there come some serious conflicts about it. I'm just explaining why I've made some a the changes I made. Rorschach567 12:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Better intros in general
I wholeheartedly agree with the section on leads in the exemplar section, the one beginning, “beyond that, as per guidance at Lead section, the introduction should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, be written in a clear and accessible style…” Because of that articles like Captain America, with one-sentence leads and articles like Hulk (comics) with short leads wasting time on technical matters, need beefed-up. Rorschach567 21:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

hype and press for future comics
I have questions about this new part: "unless there has already been substantial hype and press coverage about comics not yet published, information regarding such comics may be considered speculation"

I am not a fan of including solicitation information; I think it's unreliable. See Emerald Twilight, The Sentry, and Infinite Crisis solicitations and hype for example. How much press are we talking about? Mainstream press attention for Civil War and Batwoman? Newsarama's Joe Fridays Marvel PR days? Preview pages? Solicitation information? Wizard interviews?

Where do we draw the line of these things? I really think we need to have a vague understanding at least of what's viable information and what's hype.--Chris Griswold 19:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the mainstream press attention certainly qualifies as hype and press coverage. Preview pages and solicitation information don't, generally, as there is typically no critical analysis of the pertinent points.  Newsaramas Joe Fridays and Wizard interviews fall into the grey area, where the worth of the information should be considered in regard to the undue balance section of WP:NPOV.  The main directive on this is from WP:NOT, specifically that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  Now we can't simply regurgitate plot detail, since that can fall foul of WP:OR, we need secondary sources to be able to summarise their reports of plot details.  So if the details revealed in interviews of Joe Fridays prompt follow up coverage from The Comics Reporter or The Beat or The Pulse, or better yet, all three, then there's a case to be made that this stuff is getting some press coverage, but as I say, the value of that information should be judged in relation to the whole article.  That Batman may be fighting a new foe is not really going to achieve press attention and thus allow us to discuss the matter through secondary sources.  That the new foe is Osama Bin Laden generates precisely the press coverage we need.  Sadly, there's no better rule than back your judgement, be bold, don't edit war, but discuss and gain consensus. But then, that's the wiki way. Hiding Talk 14:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Roman numerals
I think we need to address the issue of Roman numerals here, but I can't find where it has been talked about previously. --Chris Griswold 21:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. It's at WT:NCC. --Chris Griswold 21:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

volume and issue numbers
We need a consistent way to denote volume and issues numbers of comics.

For the volume, I have seen "(second series)", "Vol.2", "(Vol. 2)", and "(Volume 2)", among others. For issue number, I have seen "#08" and "issue 23".

What are people's thoughts on denoting volume? I personally would prefer to see it as Flash vol. 3 #23, or when referring simply to the issue while discussing the title, as "issue #23". Thoughts?--Chris Griswold 20:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've posted this before, but there are templates for citing comic book issues. That said, the established way to cite is Flash v3 #23, per Comic Art in Scholarly Writing: A Citation Guide. I'll add this somewhere to the main page. Hiding Talk 19:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you much. --Chris Griswold 20:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Does this cover instances in which someone writes, "Issue #3 reveals that the characters exist in the imagination of a baby"? --Chris Griswold 09:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What you do there is cite in a footnote like you would a book, so you write:

"Issue #3 reveals that the characters exist in the imagination of a baby".


 * The part enclosed in the ref tags is hidden at this stage in the text, but then further down in a reference section, thanks to the wiki markup, if you insert then the following is displayed:


 * Block, Stephen (w), Griswold, Chris (p),(i). "Mon Dieu ! J'existe seulement comme fiction de l'imagination d'un enfant." The Amazing Recycling Man #3 (Jul. 2006), Trans-Continental Comics Publications.

Hope that clarifies, but don't hesitate to badger me some more. I'll rework the citation templates a little, but really we should, when we cite a comic, provide the date and the publisher as well as the issue number and title. Cite style is basically:

Hiding Talk 13:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am still trying to understand. So many articles are currently written with phrases like, "in issue #45" or "in the 'Perfect Strangers' story arc." Should these be disused when using proper citations? I certainly prefer them to nothing (the norm) because it keeps the text out-of-world and am concerned that using citations only will take away from the out-of-world feeling of the text. Citatiosn can be skipped over pretty easily, whereas mentioning the article in the sentence forces the reader to consider that these are fictional characters punching fictional faces. --Chris Griswold 21:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Um. Not sure how better to write this.  You can still write "in issue #45" or "in the 'Perfect Strangers' story arc.", but at the end of the sentence the full reference should be inserted in the manner I detailed above.  This creates a footnote, which can be clicked to reveal the full citation.  I think I inserted a couple in the Batman article, the evolution of the character section, and I know for sure the homosexual interpretations (or whatever we're calling it this second) section has inline citations.  Does that help outline the method? Hiding Talk 12:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand now. I was asking about an accepted style to referring to the issues in the text, not in the citations. I assume now that we do not have an accepted style currently. I am going to propose my idea above at the editorial guidance page. --Chris Griswold 13:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * People should be free to refer to issues in the text as they wish, if you ask me. There shouldn't be any guidance beyond the fact that a full citation should be included, which is current guidance anyway, although much overlooked. Hiding Talk 13:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I come from a journalism background, so the idea of a stylebook makes sense to me, even if just as a suggestion. I don't see it as being far different from the artist caption style suggestions. --Chris Griswold 14:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia already has a style book, the manual of style, and style guidelines. When citing, guidance is to use either Harvard style, which, given your journalistic background, I'm sure you are aware of, footnotes, the method I outlined above, or embedded links.  One is not preferred over another, and therefore I can't support any guidance which would seek to trump Wikipedia-wide guidance. Hiding Talk 15:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternate Versions / Powers and Abilities Location
Not a big deal, but I think we should move the powers and abilities section of comic book characters to appear before the alternate versions section. The reason being is that the alternate versions section can reference the main characters powers to help note the differences in powers. I also think that if a reader comes to a page about the main character they shouldn't need to read about other versions before they get to more information about the main character. --Silver lode 00:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. --Chris Griswold 08:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that seems fair. --Jamdav86 20:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Navboxes
Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates/navboxes. We're discussing the need, use, and style of navbox templates with the goal of creating a WP:CMC guideline. --Chris Griswold 05:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comic book series
I think the proposed line for the introduction for a comic boos series is not the best solution for European comic book series. Usually, the important part is not the publisher, but the creator (series often change from one publisher to another anyway). See for (not perfect examples) e.g. Nero (Flemish Comics) or The Adventures of Tintin. General format I would propose: (X) is a (country) comic book series created by (artist) and (writer) in (year). Fram 08:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right. Not all comics are known for being published by a certain company. If a title is creator-owned, the author(s) should definitely be in that first line. Neil Gaiman should be mentioned in the first line of The Sandman because he is the sole writer of that series and his connection to the series is indelible. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  )  17:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks!

Characters - Significant stories
Posts on other talk pages suggest that this section is no longer recommended, for pov reasons? Is that so - and if so, do we need to update the exemplars? --Mrph 20:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I say yes to both, but a larger discussion should happen first. CovenantD 20:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure somewhere that if you could find cites for the issues contained in Significant stories e.g. 56th Greatest Marvel, Harvey Award winner, 7th Greatest TPB etc, it'd be fine. --Jamdav86 20:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case, we can list "award-winning stories". Much precedential discussion throughout the Comics Project has established that "List of significant stories", "List of notable issues", etc. is inherently POV, and it's only an oversight that it hasn't been removed from the exemplar. As User:Jamdav86, for just one example, stated in Talk:Iron Man on 3 October 2006, "Reference the issues in the pub. and character histories, remove the list." --Tenebrae 13:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Characters - Bibliography - collections?
The current bibliography guidelines don't really include collections/tpbs - they're listed for series, but not characters. Where does that leave us with characters who don't have a separate article for their title(s)? Should this be revisited? --Mrph 20:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We should really just link to The Trade Paperback List for the collections, it saves clutter and updating, and it's damn snazzy too. I really don't understand your actual question though. --Jamdav86 20:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Comic creator: bibliography
The article mentions "This section would detail the publications a creator has worked upon, formatted in a bulleted list with publication dates, companies and ISBN numbers given where known.". From examples I know and discussion on the project page, it seems as though we prefer to have one "bullet" per series, instead of listing each individual comic (see e.g. Hergé). Wouldn't it be better if the part "and ISBN numbers..." would be removed, since we can't list ISBN numbers for whole series? Another question: the format such a bibliography follows. I don't think we necessarily need rules for everything, but are there current guidelines or not? I mean, do we list them alphabetically or chronologically? What punctuation do we use? I usually follow this system: (See e.g. Jan Bosschaert for my latest effort in this vein). Is this a good system, or would people prefer it differently? Fram 08:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Series, x albums, first year-last year, collaborators (if applicable: story by x, artwork by x, additional artwork by X, ...): editor

Character history, publication history, biography sections
The current standard calls for two subheadings to be used for the sections of the article dealing with the character's history.
 * Publication history:real world history, titles, creators, etc.
 * Fictional character biography:character's past, in-universe.

However, there's been some concern that "Fictional character biography" is redundant, since the lead section already establishes that we're talking about fictional characters and not, say, moral characters or typographical characters. Also, the "fictional character biography" tends to be too in-universe, while per WP:WAF it should be written from an out-of-universe, real-world perspective, and avoid plot summary as much as possible. Also, what heading does one use when the article is quite short? For instance, if the character doesn't have a lot of appearances or their publication history is extremely straightforward. (Publication history: Spider Jerusalem appears in Transmetropolitan #1-60. Every single issue is by Warren Ellis and Darrick Robertson.  The end.)

Therefore, I propose a revision. For shorter or less complex articles:
 * Character history: describes both real-world and fictional details, such as creators, first appearance, origin story, etc. In practice, most will be initially written from an in-universe perspective, but should be translated to to out-of-universe as soon as possible.  "Writer A wrote that Character X's origin was YZ in Foo #5, while Writer B later elaborated EFG in Foo #46."

For longer and more complex articles, as when characters have multiple titles, multiple creators, have been relaunched, have been reinterpreted, etc., that can be split to be more readable and accessible:
 * Publication history: describes titles, sales, creation disputes, and so on.
 * Character biography: describes in-universe events, overarching plots and major developments, but still with out-of-universe perspective (what creators changed what, what issue stuff happened in, any creator comments on specific changes) whenever possible.

Articles about real people (non-fictional characters?) who appear in comics should not have "character biography" or "character history" sections, as they are not characters, and anything said about them may have to conform to WP:BIOGRAPHY guidelines. I can't actually think of any off hand, so I can't offer anything else on the subject. In many cases it would be best to link to their biographies. So, what else? --HKMarks TALK CONTRIBS 19:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Character history" is the one that struck me as potentially the most confusing. When going through these articles's history sections to see where they fail to make their fiction clear, that's the version of I had to check most carefully to make sure what it was about, whether it was strictly the fictional history, real-world back story, or a mix of both. There's no consistency. In terms of content, what makes the fiction-check most difficult is when the section starts off with in-universe details about the character's bio the same way you'd write a real person's biography, then at some point bounces into publication history. Right now, I'm playing wikignome with this thing, making my best guess as to what will fit both (1) our previously established consensus for the headings and (2) whatever mix of material is actually in that section. Most of them need for editors to either separate fictional biography from publication history altogether (which reads clearly but runs into problems given Wikipedia's intentions regarding encyclopedic content) or invest the time to write an appropriate encyclopedic blend of both. Such a blend, in the unfortunately infrequent cases when it has been done right, could probably be labeled "Character history". Doczilla 20:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This issue seems to be the sticking point at present, as I've seen some entries with the "Fictional Character Biography" label and many, many more that don't. I believe that the format should be something like this:

Lead Sentence - states that the character is fictional and places them in their proper context. Can be followed by 1-2 sentences re: 1st appearance and creators.

Publication History - quite important. I think the criteria for inclusion in an entry should be if that character has had their own series, be it limited series or full run(s). Trying to diversify the criteria any further has the makings of a nightmare and these things need to be kept as simple as possible. Example - a character such as Balder the Brave would receive a Publication History entry on account of his mini-series, irrespective of how short the actual Wikipedia entry is. A character such as the Wasp of the Avengers would not, as she simply hasn't starred in any self-titles series.

Now, here's the point of contention. I think the next title for entries should be:

Origin and History - how the character came to be and then their history. It is short and snappy, and by this stage it is obvious to all that the character is fictitious. An image, a title stating that said character is a work of fiction AND the fact that the character was CREATED by a person or persons should be more than enough.

After that, a few personalised titles can add some flair to the entry (eg. Against the Marvels).

To conclude, I find "Fictional Character Biography" to be somewhat clumsy. It certainly doesn't roll off the tongue.

Asgardian 07:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comic book series - examples/updates?
Is the Comic book series exemplar still considered the best way to handle these articles? I'm currently trying to get newuniversal off to a good start, following this layout, and I'm struggling a bit... Watchmen, which is one of our best articles on a series, has a completely different structure. As does Detective Comics, which is mentioned in the exemplar text. Do we have a good high-quality article that's used this exemplar? If so, perhaps that should replace the Detective Comics reference...? Thanks! --Mrph 18:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How about Strange Tales or Strange Worlds? --Tenebrae 18:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither of them quite matches the exemplar heading format, unfortunately. I'm starting to think that's because the exemplar isn't entirely suitable in its current form -
 * History is useful and appears in some comic series articles (but not in Watchmen or Detective Comics)
 * Regular Features isn't relevant to some comics, as noted. But even when it is - with Strange Tales, 2000 AD (comic) or Civil War: Front Line, it doesn't often get used.
 * Plot seems unwieldy - at least in its current form - for an ongoing series like Detective Comics and less than useful for anthologies like Strange Tales or 2000 AD (comic). It's much more appropriate for something like Strangers in Paradise or Bone (comics).
 * Creators is another one that seems tricky - for something like Finder (comics) or Bone (comics) it'll be a very short section unless it duplicates bits of biography. Articles like Watchmen and Transmetropolitan omit this entirely. For Detective Comics or 2000 AD (comic), on the other hand, it's potentially going to be huge... the exemplar suggests it should be split into a page of its own in these cases, but...
 * Collections seems useful enough - with tpbs having a longer shelf-life these days. For something like Transmetropolitan, Strangers in Paradise or The Sandman (Vertigo), I think this serves an important purpose (then we get onto the question of how this works for articles like Iron Fist, Alpha Flight or Moon Knight, where the series and characters don't have separate articles... but that's a whole different can o' worms).
 * Impact is useful and appropriate, although I suspect it won't always be a major part of the article. This could easily blur into History...
 * Awards is usefull and self-explanatory, when applicable
 * See Also is simple enough...
 * ...and References is possibly in need of a change anyway, as noted elsewhere on this page
 * Perhaps I'm being a little unfair, but the character exemplar seems to be well-established and has been adopted as a standard for the project with relatively little confusion. The series exemplar seems a little less polished and a lot less used...? --Mrph 23:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I never saw these as a one size fits all, but if there are sections that don't make sense, yeah, open the debate. I just threw a lot of mud at the wall, maybe now is the time to work out what sticks. I'm wondering if we still need the character biography section in the character articles, does the publication history cover it? Hiding Talk 08:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say yes and no. The Pub History should be the foundation of the article covering the how, where, and why the character has been used. The Bio should flesh that out, if needed. Just pulling an example from the recent "problem articles": the Blood Brothers article most like should have a well worked out Pub History with a minimal, if not absent entirely, Bio. — J Greb 08:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I like that approach. It puts the emphasis on out-of-universe perspective, which most articles are sadly lacking. CovenantD 10:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mean these exemplars were more intended as a way of offering guidance to newbie editors. I think the idea was to get all articles up to this standard as a base, and then work on improvement from there.  The publication history is definitely the backbone of the article.  The idea behind a creator section was to discuss creators and their different approaches, but I guess we are absorbing that into publication history.  I'd imagine how it would work on books like 2000AD or Superman would be maybe to discuss long running creators, with a link to a list of all creators, if that was viable. The trouble is, these aren't one size fits all, but there needs to be a consensus to go off the road, if you see what I mean. For example, the section headers don't need to match, I went for Comic book character rather than fictional bio at Superman, I don't think they use many of the headers at Watchmen.  Maybe we should revisit how to frame the guidance. Hiding Talk 13:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think exemplars generally have two things to offer - guidance to new editors, as noted, but also a very useful consistency between articles. They aren't ever going to be 'one size fits all', as you note, but I think they're always a useful skeleton to work with. For readers, consistency makes it easier to swiftly navigate after they've become familiar with the format - editors get the same benefits and also get an immediate idea of what should be where. Personally, I think the existing exemplars, possibly aside from this one, pretty much hit the mark on both counts. --Mrph 18:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk of including creators always raises red flags for me, possibly because I'm old enough to have an idea how long such a section would be for publications like Detective Comics or Superman. Many (most?) writers/artists didn't have that big a relative impact on the series. Even a recent issue of Superman/Batman made a big deal out of having, what, 20 different artists work on just one issue. And then we have cesspools like the Ultimate Spider-Man series of articles, where inclusion of "creators" is used to justify the existence of Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs). Sorry if it sounds like I'm ranting, but while I fully aknowledge that some creative talent has encyclopedic value, I think a lot of it isn't much more than trivia. CovenantD 21:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree, and like I say, it looks like a lot of this is getting merged into the publication history. But what I was talking about with creators is sourced stuff like, maybe a section at Batman which read something like:
 * "Different creators have taken different approaches with Batman, and during his many years of being published, a number of different creators have been associated with the character. In the early years, whilst Bob Kane claims to have performed all of the work on the character, Bill Finger and Jerry Robinson have also claimed to have produced the art on the strip, with scholars noting such examples as blah blah blah.  Other artists who are believed to have ghosted for Kane include Lew Stringer etc etc.  Dick Sprang's work became associated with the character, particularly through his striking covers.  In the 1960s, Neal Adams and Denny O'Neill revamped the character, Adams adding a more illustrative and brooding style, whilst O'Neill's scripts explored Batman's personality in a darker way.  O'Neill has remained associated with the character since, serving as ediot. Other important editors in Batman's history include Julius Schwartz, who had butler Alfred Pennyworth dropped from the strip in 1964 in response to allegations that relationships in Batman may be interpreted in a homosexual manner.  In the 1980s Frank Miller beacme associated with the character, with the ground breaking series The Dark Knight Returns.  Grant Morrison's Arkham Asylum, published in the late 1980s, was also well received.  In the 1990s Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale created several storylines for the character, which saw Batman embroiled in a number of mysteries involving numerous foes. In the early 21st century Jim Lee has been critically acclaimed on the book. And so on and so forth."
 * That was my thinking. Hiding Talk 14:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, keeping it to the talent that have had a major impact on the series or character works for me. With citations from reliable sources, of course :) CovenantD 21:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes and references
As Tenebrae has pointed out over at Talk:Blood Brothers (comics), the WP:CITE guidelines for these sections are no longer exactly in line with the WP:CMC article format. So do we need to start revising exemplars to reflect this, or is there some reason to stick with the current format? --Mrph 22:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, could you be a bit more specific on how they are not in line? A quick summary, maybe with a suggestion or two would be appreciated. CovenantD 01:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To quote Tenebrae's summary from the Blood Brothers page, current WP:CITE guidance is that "sources used to write an article go under "References", and other helpful citations go under "External links" if they're linkable and "Further reading" if they're not online". Footnotes go under "Footnotes", not under references. I believe this is based on the latest citation guidelines - Cite sources, although I've not been following the discussion behind that myself, so I'm probably not the best person to explain the full background. --Mrph 08:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just been using a Notes and references section to wrap them all in. In a larger article like Superman, you can split the footnotes and references, but then you have to use harvard style in your footnotes and it is fiddly working out what goes where. Anything you cite twice should be a reference was the rule I cam up with in my own head. Hiding Talk 08:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I've got it. It's not much different than what I've been doing already, just different headers. CovenantD 10:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So, somebody want to tinker with the wording? CovenantD 21:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

XXX first appeared in ZYW Magazine
With the existence of the "Publication history" section, I'd like to propose that this information be moved from the lead to that section. It's seems to be a natural part of their publication history, and will help in creating or improving those sections in articles. Since the publication history is the first thing after the lead, in many cases it will just be a matter of moving that sentence down a line or two. Take a look at this diff for an example. CovenantD 01:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That makes a certain amount of sense. The lead should be a snippet, what the article is about in general terms, in one or two paragraphs. Details such as first appearance, creators, ownership change, and usage should go under the Pub History.
 * There are going to be some cases where the information will be fundamentally linked, such as Superman and Schuster & Seigle or Captain Marve, Fawcett, and DC. But that should be lightly touched on and expanded further down the article. — J Greb 01:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, there's always going to be exceptions and variations - the publishing history of some characters is too convoluted for one format to fit seemlessly in all characters. I guess I'm thinking more of the B-list characters that don't have much of a publishing history section already. CovenantD 02:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I approve as I usually do regarding anything that improves "Publication history" sections (which I see as the backbone of comics articles). As J Greb mentions, each article has its unique tone, and this isn't going to be something that needs to be followed slavishly, but when a weak "Publication history" can be transformed into a competent one, we should go for it. ~CS 04:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, yeah, although we should maybe mention that it should be in the lead when it is significant, for example Superman or Batman, the silver Age Flash, that sort of thing. Hiding Talk 08:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I was think of, the no argument, bedrock, cornerstone points. They are relatively few and should be the exceptions. — J Greb 08:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So the revised version should explicitly state that, along with a note to discuss exceptions on the article's talk page? CovenantD 10:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD
Okay, I went back to WP:LEAD, on which I based this part of the guidance, and I'm in two minds. The relevant passage is below: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article (e.g. when a related article gives a brief overview of the topic in question). It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see news style and summary style). The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of …' and similar titles).

In general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar. For example, rather than giving the latitude and longitude of a town, it is better to state that it is the suburb of some city, or perhaps that it provides services for the farm country of xyz county.

According to the perfect article guideline, a lead "begins with a clear description of the subject at hand. This is made as absolutely clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter itself will allow. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to codify human knowledge in a way that is most accessible to the most people, and this demands clear descriptions of what the subject matter is about. So we aren't just dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word—we are eased into it."

I'm thinking that the guidance to "begins with a clear description of the subject at hand" might imply publication detail should be included, as might the direction to "summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". So I throw it to the floor, based on WP:LEAD do we need to put first publication in or not? Hiding Talk 13:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reading over that it makes me wonder how general we would need to be. Would "Character is a fiction character that has appeared in material published by Company. S/he first appeared in Year in a story published in Comic." work? — J Greb 18:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Anybody else? Hiding Talk 14:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I realized after starting this thread that there might be some conflict with WP:LEAD. Ideally, the amount of info in the lead would have a direct relationship to the size of the Publication history. A minor character that only appears in one storyline would probably be fine with XX is a fictional character that appears in the ZZZ Comics universe, in the lead, with details about creators, titles and dates left to the PH section. Somebody like Iron Man would have more info in the lead, including the original appearance info and a mention of the various publications in which he's featured. CovenantD 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Character lead
Would it be a good idea to briefly summarise the origin and superpowers in the lead section? Some articles do this already, but I think it should be standard. Thoughts?--Jamdav86 19:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The origin and specific powers are not always what define a character. Superman's cold breath does not belong in the lead. Doczilla 02:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Oct. 7 rv
I concur with User:WesleyDodds. Aside from spelling, punctuation, etc., changes to the exemplars page is a serious proposition that requires discussion. --Tenebrae 16:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Essentially, anything that changes the meaning of what we're trying to say with the exemplars needs discussion. Doczilla 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Request to correct / clarity
As we note at WikiProject Comics/Style guidance, parenthetical issue dates in captions abbreviate the long month names, which has also been the convention admins and others have noted, on Talk pages, as WPC style. (Overall Wiki MOS is to spell out months except in limited-space circumstances, such as parenthetical issue cites.)

There's a single erroneous non-abbreviation at WikiProject Comics/exemplars I'd like to correct. I'd also like to make clear at Uniform naming convention what might seem obvious but should be stated: that for consistency, the caption issue-date style doesn't change throughout the article. Any thoughts? --Tenebrae 16:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As one week has passed with no comments, I will make what seems confirmed as a con-controversial punctuation edit, and the clarifying statement about existing policy. --Tenebrae 14:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification requested
I've commented out this line below, since it could lead to important information getting missed. I'd like to be able to add "name of publication" to the sentence below: --Tenebrae (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) When the character’s first appearance was not in a numbered issue, such as the Sub-Mariner or the Tick, then just the creator and year is needed.


 * I don't know... something along the following seems more appropriate.
 * First appearance should include publication title, issue number, and cover date. The issue number is needed only in cases where the publication actually had an issue number.
 * That seems to be more in line with the intent of including the information. - J Greb (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My fault &mdash; I should have explained this comes from a section called "Exceptions." The policy of including title, number and cover date is given just above on the page. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I saw where you were referring and where the "first appearance" inclusion is mentioned, and mostly glossed over. It's a case where it really isn't an "exception" but a clarification of the information wanted in the lead.
 * The title and cover date are integral parts of the "first appearance" information which essentially all comic book characters will have. The issue number is going to be there in the vast majority of those cases as well, but it boils down to "If the publication has no issue number, it's important and needs to be there." This should be laid out in the exemplar for the lead.
 * Exceptions are cases where the character first appeared in a non-comic media, like Harley Quinn, or when the character's first appearance happened in multiple titles all with the same cover date, such as Doomsday. These are cases where the standard formatting is overridden. - J Greb (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Its' a date?
OK. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/editorial_guidelines#Titles_with_numerous_volumes - it states the preference for a first volume of a series is just the issue number. Noted, but I really think that if there is to be no "vol. 1" then the year must follow in brackets. Yes, following volumes do have numbered allocations, but that's not obvious to a new reader or casual peruser. If it's Avengers #4, make it clear - are we talking Captain America's first Silver Age appearance, the Liefeld fiasco or Busiek's floating heads?

Asgardian (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. Agreed: In fact, not just the year, but the month and year, which is something I've also had to keep saying in edit summaries. Please see: WikiProject Comics/Style guidance and the examples at WikiProject Comics/exemplars. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 2¢ or so...
 * The "vol. #" is more a nod to standard footnote/citation formatting where it is proper to differentiate between like titled publications by more than just date. IMO, it does make a degree of sense for this format to be applied in articles, even if it does lead to arguments over what really constitutes a "volume".
 * That being said, having "vol, #" is going to look redundant with cover dates included, which should also be there. But this is minor, and not really a good reason for dropping one or the other.
 * As for "vol. 1,"... While I can understand the convention, I don't fully agree with it. First, it leads to consistency issues with in the articles. Some in-line and footnotes will have a volume number, others for the same title won't, with out any real reason or explanation. Second, it assumes knowledge on the part of the reader. If The Avengers #4 (1963) (sorry, don't have the cover date at my finger tips...) is the only Avengers ref in the article, it assumes that the reader knows there were later publications of that name. Last, it sets comic books apart from other magazines as the only case where the first volume is not explicitly identified in references as such. - J Greb (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:J Greb's thinking. Using vol 1 would create consistency and avoid confusion, and if people want to use the date as well, so much the better. Hiding T 19:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am in favor of making "vol. 1" explicit in articles and references, even if it is unconventional. Not to do so creates confusion which is not wholly rectified by adding the date. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We are looking at two conventions that are not mutually exclusive. - J Greb (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I'm happy to add both the "vol" and date from now on if this isn't going to rub anyone up the wrong way. For example, Captain America's first Silver Age appearance would be Avengers vol. 1, #4 (Sep. 1963).

Thoughts?

Asgardian (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you believe the editorial guideline is wrong, advocate for change. To just unilaterally say, "The rules don't apply to me" is jaw-dropping. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In a way this has hashed out a rough consensus here, or the start of one, with three of the voices showing support for the guideline to be revised. So there is that. And since the "vol #" issue really isn't addressed with the exemplars, but on WikiProject Comics/Style guidance, it is reasonable to either take this as a good faith attempt to clarify/change the guideline or move the thread to that talk in toto for additional discussion. So it isn't a case of a "'The rules don't apply to me'" statements.
 * That being said, jumping to the conclusion that the discussion is settled with less than 24 hours of responses or back and forth is not a good thing.
 * In that light, Asgardian, you may want to hold off for a few days, maybe a week, before adding the "Vol. 1," all over the place. Allow others to chime in. And if you've already started, you should go self-revert until this has actually been settled. - J Greb (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick thought, how's this going to look in an article? Is this going in the footnotes or the main text? Hiding T 10:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "The rules don't apply to me"? Where did that come from? I asked for feedback. When I say "now on" I mean when settled. And we seem to be on our way. Perhaps Doczilla can offer a comment. I really see no rush.

Asgardian (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * From "I'm happy to add both the 'vol' and date" such as "Avengers vol. 1, #4 (Sep. 1963)". And it's "Sept.", by the way. Forgive me if my frustration overcame my politesse. See three paragraphs down for some background.


 * I think before making any changes to the editorial guidelines, despite the limited discussion here, we might want to put this on, say, the Notice Board page and open it up to the everyone.


 * To address Hiding's point, I'd imagine that whatever holds for the article text holds for the footnotes; I can't offhand think of cases where MOS differs between the two, but I could be wrong. If MOS is the same for both, though, that would mean additional small-type clutter; how much of an issue or non-issue that would be, I can't say and leave it to others to debate.


 * For the record, I have no preference on this issue, I swear to God. Scholarly journals use reference numbers with "vol. 1." But: Given that we're collaborating anonymously and with varying degrees of everything from passion to proofreading, from youthful energy to elder expertise, the only thing that makes such a fragile collaboration work is a clear set of guidelines that we can all agree on.


 * So what now? We start an RfC here and post a notice on the Notice Board page? --Tenebrae (talk) 05:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mind on how to move forward. My only thinking is that it might be better to write Avengers #4 in the article text, and leave the fuller text for a reference, so Avengers #14 . Is that what others are thinking? Hiding T 10:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think that may be overcomplicating things. I think just clarifying the volume by either no. or month/year in the reference bracket is sufficient. Then those that wish to check can peruse the references as opposed to making the text a little clunkier to read.

Asgardian (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Realistically we've got 4 cases where a specific comic book issue can be mentioned:
 * In the text of an article, wither as a source or subject: ie "In The Avengers #4, Captain America thaws out of a block of ice and joins the Avengers." and " cites The Avengers #4 as where Marvel began reclaiming the Timely Comics characters."
 * As a footnote reference.
 * In infoboxes, where the information may, or may not be footnoted.
 * Non-text sections where footnoting is either seldom or never done, such as table and image captions.
 * Looking at these, a few things become clear.
 * First there are places where "vol. #" should always appear. These are items 2 and 4. With footnotes, it's self evident: the volume number is intrinsic to fully identifying the source. The same holds for captions and lists, the use of there is for identification, citing where the image or information came from. Again, the volume number is intrinsic to that.
 * Item 3 is a bit gray. In some case information in infoboxes will have a footnote attached. Generally this is seen with names and dates. It's hard to see this used with the "first appearance" field, where issues normally show up, but the is still the precedent. Otherwise, this is the same as item 4, and should probably be treated in a like manner.
 * That just leaves item 1... If it were a case where all cases of issues being mention in the text of the article are shorthand for a cite, then leaving the "vol. #" for the foot note would make some sense. But 1) that's not the sole usage and 2) it assumes the reader will in fact read the footnote. For consistency, it's going to need to be there in the article text. So the example would be:
 * "In The Avengers vol. 1, #4 (Sep. 1963), Captain America thaws out of a block of ice and joins the Avengers.[1]
 * 1: The Avengers vol. 1, #4 (Sep. 1963). Marvel Comics. w Stan Lee a Jack Kirby and Joe Sinnot (or whomsoever) "
 * - J Greb (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Attempting to preempt discussion by saying things like "it's self-evident" is highly frustrating to the collaborative process. Aside from being a disreputable debate tactic, what may be "self-evident" to one person might be simply one of several interpretations by another.
 * As long as the month and year appear, that pinpoints the exact issue being cited. Since the original series didn't identify themselves as "vol. 1" &mdash; they couldn't have, of course &mdash; they are are "fully identified" accurately without the volume number. Also, why would you say lists and such don't or should not have footnotes? See the list at Timely Comics.
 * On a separate issue, I'm wary of adding every writer, penciler and inker of every cited comic. We don't give the director, writers, and cinematographer every time we cite a movie. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * On "self-evident" mea culpa, "...it seems self evident:" would have been better phrasing.
 * With volume numbers in general... in looking over this again, and again, and again, I'm starting to think that for comics the use should just be nixed. In part this goes back to the argument of "Are limited series actually volumes?" In part it goes to how inconsistent the articles are in handling it. By way of example: both Blue Beetle and Captain Atom track volume regardless of publisher, character, or run size, but Avengers just tracks the Marvel team published in the States (see for the others under Avengers and The Avengers) and Captain Marvel suffers the same.
 * As for the citations... for me it's a two parter:
 * The footnote should be as full as is relevant for the cite. Again, for me that generally means the title, issue, cover date, volume (if it survives), and publisher, need to be there and that the writer(s) and penciller(s) should be there. Story title, inker, colorist, page number, panel, etc only on a case by case basis. This is consistent with standard citing for books and magazines.
 * Comparing comics to film feels like comparing apples and oranges only more so. And even then I would have thought that citing a film or show (TV, radio, or web) would follow the same generalities: The "needs to be there" (Title, company, date), the "should be there" (director since s/he gets the praise/blame), and the "as needed" (scriptwriters, producers, ect is that is the focus of the cite).
 * - J Greb (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's scary how often I agree with J Greb. The writer and artist are definitley important, although lately I've been worrying about how we present it, especially the older Kirby/Lee Ditko/Lee collaborations, which given later relevations feel they should get co-plotting. But that's an argument for another day.  Writers and artists are important to cites if you are discussing events in the issue.  With colume numbers, I don't know.  I based all this on this link, . On volume numbers he has this to say: Rarely is a volume number included within the indicia. If it is there, use it, preceded by a lower-case "v." That seems a possible way forward, but maybe a clearer do or don't is better.  Thoughts?  Hiding T 10:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(← dedent) With the referenced guide I really wish I had access to the older part of my comics collection, some of the volume numbering schema would by down right ugly at this point. IIRC, there was a period of time up til the late 1970s where DC had a "standard" magazine volume schema with all its titles having a "vol #" which increased each year. At the same time all of Marvels had a static number, even "vol. 1". Presently Marvel stile, I believe, uses the "vol, 2" and up, and I know DC has dropped it entirely.

Looking at that, by the indicia something like Green Lantern vol. 4 was published decades ago, not currently.

When it gets down to that, the cover dates and copyright notice are clearer indications of when an issue was published. It's looking more and more like that is what should be in the text of the articles as well as captions etc. Volume numbers, where they exist in the publications themselves, may need to be relegated to the footnotes only. If that's the case, then the project editorial guide needs to be up dated with both the clear, cited statement from Comix-Scholars as well as a clear definition of where the volume numbers can be found. - J Greb (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is all such a good, thorough discussion, it makes me happy to work with such thoughtful colleagues.
 * Being a writer-editor, I'd love to see my name in the footnotes, but I share Hiding's concerns about finding and giving artist/writer credits. It's hard enough to get editors to put dates in. And unlike film, in which DGA and WGA credits say "this is this," comics credits -- especially for the 20+ years before Marvel started regularly crediting, 30+ years before DC did, and virtually never for some other publishers like Dell, Charlton, Gold Key, etc. -- few credits exist. If we're giving writer/artist credits and an issue doesn't have any, we'd have to put something like "writer and artist unknown" so that readers would know that that missing information isn't because it was simply left out by the editor. I see a logistical mountain of work.
 * Re: volume numbers of miniseries, I've found that for consistency's sake, the Unofficial Handbook of Marvel Comics Creators offers a comprehensive standard for volume numbers, for Marvel at least. --Tenebrae 15:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there's best intentions and how it will translate into practice. As Tenebrae said, it is an uphill battle just to get someone to source a claim, let alone do it correctly. It seems a tad pointless for 2-3 dedicated editors to be doing it one way if no one else bothers. Then as JGreb correctly points out, there is the problem of inconsistent volumes across the companies. A month and a date would seem best, and if Marvel then a volume can be added? I'm against slapping such things into the FCB as this needs to flow and such citations suit the PH perfectly. It would seem this needs a wider discussion.

Asgardian 19:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, no I wasn't suggesting it is hard to find writers and artists, it isn't, if we don't have the issues ourselves the GDCB or whatever isn't a bad source for that stuff. And you're also missing the point of this guidance.  This is how we want our articles to be, not how they must be.  Nobody is asking you to do this, what we're asking people is that they not fight people who improve citations to this standard.  So if editor X doesn't add the writer and artist for whatever reason, that's fine.  No-one should say anymore than hey, by the way, do you have the writer and artist handy because that's useful. No-one should say, Oi, add the damn writer and artist.  And if they don't know, then fine.  Someone will add it eventually.  The second rule on Wikipedia, believe it or not, was leave something for somebody else to do. Don't feel like because this is the standard, and point of fact it already is for comic book citations in footnotes,  you have to go and fix every single one.  They'll get done eventually.  Just before the deadline.  I promise. Let's just work together.  Hiding T 20:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The deadline information is very interesting. I think everyone should read that before beginning Wikipedia.

Asgardian 20:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the one everyone should be forced to read is WP:CONSENSUS. It should be our terms and conditions. Hiding T 20:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Two good pages to read, in any event.
 * Despite my reservations, I'm certainly game to add writer/artist credits to footnotes if the consensus falls that way. I'd just advocate for consistency. For example, do we want to include inkers and colorists, or just writer and penciler? Again to use a film analogy, I'm thinking we give the director and screenwriter, which means no respect to the critically important cinematographer and film editor. It's impractical to give a movie's full crew list, of course, so a cut-off point has to be drawn. The only question then is where. Tenebrae 02:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hiding's comment, this aspect shouldn't be a "minimum" but a goal. Where we want the articles to be. Having it codified, one way or the other, will act as a safety net.
 * And as far as where to cut off the credits, my 2¢ would be with the inkers. But then I'm hard pressed to pick out differences between colorists and letterers. - J Greb 03:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd only want to include colourists and lettterers if we're discussing lettering, color or the colourists or letterers themselves. In the John Costanza article all the footnotes should include his lettering. In the lettering article, all the letterers should be cited.  If an article on Sandman points out the lettering styles ascribed to the different Endless, cite the letterer.  Likewise for colour.  But, no, I wouldn't want people to go out of their way to list them off the bat.  When we're twiddling our thumbs, then we can look at it.  Or if someone comes in who says, hey, I'm no good at writing articles but boy, can I add colourists and letterers to citations, then I'd be happy to say go for it.  So I don't want to rule it out, and where they are added they shouldn't be removed, but they don't have to be added.  So the rule of thmb would be it's nice if you can, and where they are discussed they should be, but otherwise don't feel pressured. Hiding T 15:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologise for "late" comment.
 * Anyway, I support the "vol 1" addition as well. Though, should it be vol or volume? {Drops a link to WP:NCC just for fun : ) - jc37 16:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Deprecate?
I think given the way this page now conflicts with WP:WAF, it might be time to deprecate and rewrite this, maybe merging with WikiProject Comics/Style guidance or perhaps creating something along the lines of WikiProject_Soap_Operas, WikiProject Final Fantasy/Manual of style, WikiProject Films/Style guidelines or even adopting the very much related to us Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles). Appreciate thoughts. Hiding T 22:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Biographical articles
Tenebrae recently imposed a "Biography" section header upon articles where this really doesn't serve any constructive purpose, and is inconsistent with how biographical articles are handled in Wikipedia in general. An article about a comics creator is primarily biographical, making a "Biography" section redundant. It makes sense as an optional catch-all for information that doesn't fit into sections which exclusively covert their bibliography or impact, but mandating it on an article such as Will Eisner or Dave Sim, where there's a wealth of biographical information already organized into meaningful sections, is just... pointless. - JasonAQuest (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would point out that User:JasonAQuest responded with a low-level flame on my talk page when I first communicated with him. I would also note that his view of WPC MOS structure as "pointless" is solely an opinion, and the simple counterargument is that such sections "Impact" and "Inspiration" are in fact not biographical but analytical (based on previously published commentary, reviews, etc.) Similarly, "Awards" are a separate category throughout Wikipedia, even though they are, in the narrowest reading, biographical


 * Under JasonAQuest's reasoning, the comics-creator exemplar would never apply to any comics creator. We can call for an RfC on changing the WPC policy/guideline, but while it exists, I believe it's fair to ask contributors to respect it. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I also think WPC editors should read this remarkable exchange, from User talk:JasonAQuest:


 * Re: "I can only see that your precious "exemplar" contains inappropriate demands. - JasonAQuest (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)"


 * I think it shows unfortunate disrespect for the members of WikiProject Comics, who arrived at our policies and guidelines by collegial consensus, for you to insult it as containing "inappropriate demands". The editors who contributed much time and effort to codify a policy and create consistency throughout the project deserve better. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I responded with a less-than-civil tone in response to your rather condescending tone in communicating with me. I apologize for that indiscretion, and I ask the same of you. -JasonAQuest (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also point out that I made a good-faith effort to work within the "Biography" header, which Tenebrae then reverted. - JasonAQuest (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I may not have phrased it as deferentially as I should have, but I don't think that challenging the requirements of an existing policy is inherently disrespectful of those who may have formulated it. It occurs to me that since this is a question that applies to Wikipedia biographical articles in general, perhaps it would be appropriate to bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) to build a broader consensus. - JasonAQuest (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm all for discussion, and I would simply ask you notify me of any related WPBIO discussion that takes place.
 * For the record, so that other WPC editors can see the distressingly emotional nature of your argument, I'd like them to read the needlessly personal flame you posted to me:


 * I didn't see the development of a "congenial consensus" - or any discussion whatsoever - about the example template. That's why I started a discussion about that aspect of it.... against my better judgment, to be honest.  I'm not a member of WikiProject Comics, and that's almost entirely because of you.  When I first bumped up against you (as an anon) I was warned by other editors to steer clear of you, and I've subsequently seen the kind of mean-spirited pissing contests you engage in.  You treat people like retarded children, then get upset when they don't kowtow to you.  These fights you start (intentionally or not) are counterproductive, and detrimental to the civility of Wikipedia.  I don't know if you treat people with such condescension on purpose to stoke your ego, or if you just don't know how to get along well with your peers, but I do think you should be aware of the impact it has on WikiProject Comics.  I'm sure you do a lot to help, and I admire the patience of those who put up with your eccentricity, but I can't help wondering how much positive it works out to on balance. - JasonAQuest (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned in my reply on your page, it's remarkable to me that someone who flames you page with such personal invective, and unsupported claims that amount to slander, can make accusations about a person's character. I feel very proud of the friends and colleagues I have in the Project, many of whom have been thoughtful and kindhearted enough to place Barnstar awards on my page.


 * We're polite with each other; that's how it's supposed to be. It's hard to respect a position or an argument that involves calling the other party mean-spirited, eccentric, and much worse. When one party must stoop to insulting another, it makes observers, as they say, consider the source.


 * I still would like to suggest a compromise, and as I also have just said on your talk page, I'm unsure that it would be taken in the spirit in which it's genuinely offered. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Italics
What's with them in #Comic book characters? I followed the sample of Riddler from this page to make an edit to Baron Mordo and wound up reverted. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You do realize that the italicized text is there to highlight the type of text the bullet point is talking about, right? - J Greb (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I know what you mean. It's for emphasis? Or something. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly, but only for the example. It isn't how the test should look in an article ;) - J Greb (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Query
There's a tiny problem: Riddler is not using the layout demonstrated on this exemplar. Is the lead paragraph on his page the one that should be in use here, or is that one wrong? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)