WikiProject Comics | (Rated Project-class) | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
WikiProject Manual of Style | |||||||||||||
|
|
|||
Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by MiszaBot II. |
Merge in WP:NCCOMICS
We really need to fix this redundant WP:POLICYFORK. WP:Manual of Style/Comics is already about 50% naming conventions, so a split off page of sometimes contradictory material at WP:Naming conventions (comics) serves no purpose and is counter productive. This situation is quite worse than useless. It's already common practice for topical MoS pages to contain a naming conventions section (at the bottom, not the top) with a {{Subcat guideline|naming convention}}
section header, so the page cross-categorizes as both an MoS and an NC guideline. (This is also how WP:SAL is done – it's an MoS, NC, and content guideline all at once, in different sections, and it works fine – better than the original mess of three conflicting pages).
The NC section should be compressed to not be redundant with the general MoS material above it, but only address titling-specific matters. After merger, the final result might end up being shorter than the current MOS:COMICS page by itself (since it is written backwards and repeating NC stuff as general-prose stuff), or it could in theory be slightly longer, but will in any case be much more concise that two separate pages of rehash, and unable to result in any further policyforking. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge since the latter page is largely redundant. Combining them would result in a more cleaner and concise guideline. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 02:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Though not a member of this project, I'd support this since it will deal with the policy fork of the naming conventions. Just a question, you want to merge the MoS in the NC (as I understand from the title) or the way around (basically asking what the final page will be named)?--Gonnym (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Merge the NC into the MoS page, since it's a subtopic here already, but it's not logically possible for MoS material that isn't title related to be part of a naming convention (which only covers titles). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Is Clark Kent Superman's public identity, codename, code name, identity, real name, alternate name, public persona, or something else?
Naming conventions, 1.1 Characters seems to indicate that in most instances we should use "codename" to refer to a character's public persona. Has the WikiProject reached consensus on this question and formally recommended using "codename" unless there is a compelling reason to use another term?
The term I have seen most often over the years is "public identity". (By "over the years" I'm referring to collecting comics starting in 1973; working at Pacific Comics in San Diego through high school; on the board of San Diego Comic-Con for two years, and keeping up with the field off and on since then.)
Therefore, I am baffled by the recommendation to use "codename". Oh, I forgot to mention that in section 1.1 Characters , "codename" links to the Wikipedia article Code name. Note the difference in spelling. Also note that the article Code name never mentions comics, comix, or comic books.
Please tell me if I am missing something (which is always a possibility. ;-)
Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- That section isn't recommending that we universally use the word codename to describe a costumed identity in an article. It's using the word to give guidance on how an article should be titled. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you for clarifying and helping me understand better Argento Surfer. I'll read again in a day or to with fresh eyes. If it still seems murky to me, I'll copy edit that part and post a note here so others can take a look. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Here is a suggested copy edit for 1. Naming conventions, 1.1 Characters:
Superheroes, villains, and other comics characters often have a public identity or alter ego as well as their superhero or villain identity. People in the "everyday world" don't know that Clark Kent (public identity) is Superman (superhero identity), or that Green Lantern lives in the day-to-day "regular" world as Hal Jordan. J. Jonah Jameson complains about Spider-Man to young photojournalist Peter Parker, not knowing that Parker is the public identity of Spider-Man.
To determine the most appropriate article name for a character, use the most well-known name. If a given character is best known by their public identity, then that name should serve as the article name. Thus, Norman Osborn is a stand-alone article about the original Green Goblin, whereas the latter article discusses several "Green Goblin" characters appearing in Marvel Comics. Other examples include John Constantine rather than Hellblazer; Lois Lane rather than Superwoman; and Roy Harper rather than Arsenal or Red Arrow, two of his lesser-known superhero incarnations, but along with an article about Speedy, Roy Harper's more established Golden Age DC comics superhero character.
If readers know a character by both their superhero (or villain) name and public identity in equal measure, usually the superhero (or villain) name functions best as article title.
Where a character's name includes an abbreviated term, such as "Mr." for "Mister", title the article using the abbreviated term. So it is Mr. Freeze but Doctor Destiny.
- Rationale: Among comics fans, writers, and publishers, "public identity" and "alter ego" enjoy much more use than "codename". The Wikipedia article, codename does not mention comics at all--additional evidence of the word's incongruity in this context.
- What do you all think? - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 08:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Flags
I saw the edits to the flags section. I'm not entirely sure why such a section even exists in this guideline, since it has nothing to say that is directly relevant to the comics domain. I suggest that it should be removed. --Izno (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- I guess the entire section is gone. Anyway, MOS:FLAGS exists and covers pretty much everything I would think. If there's some over-use of flags in the comics sector, then this page could just cross-reference MOS:FLAGS without reiterating its specifics (which might be an opportunity for WP:POLICYFORKing). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- SMcCandlish, that was me. :) --Izno (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Good call. None of that was particular to comics, and there doesn't even seem any need for a cross-reference. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- SMcCandlish, that was me. :) --Izno (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:Infobox_character, in-universe parameters, and consistency between different media
Please see Template talk:Infobox character#Removing parameters regarding WP:WAF. This involves both the question of whether in-universe parameters should be used in such infoboxes, and if so which ones (with perhaps some conflicting expectations between TV, movies, video games, comics, anime/manga, novels, etc.). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Images, no?
I am scratching my head. Pardon me if I'm off base, but as an illustrator, I immediately noticed that in a certain page about a comic that I was checking, there was not a single image. Now whatever the challenges, copyright or other considerations, it seems a no-brainer that a single panel would be allowed and encouraged in each comic article for illustrative purposes. As Wikipedia fills an educational purposes this should fall under fair use.
So... I poked around and came to the comics portal and this style manual for comics pages that seems to have no suggestion for adding a simple single image. It boggles the mind. We have a talk page, wonderful. Comics are inherently not about talk. Talk about comics is not comics. Why would we not encourage a sample of the comic which would paint a thousand words? Baffled. APDEF (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Copyright, actually, yes. WP:NFC is important, and particularly WP:NFCC#8. There's probably support there to pass the high bar of #8 if and only if the article is well-developed/referenced with content describing the art and theme of the comic strip. Not many comics articles do that. --Izno (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- @APDEF: to give the best response to your question, can you identify the article you're looking at? It would help to know if you're looking at a character, a series, a franchise, or something else. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Argento Surfer: can't even remember which page I was looking at first, it was an old syndicated comic from the 1950s. It had no image, and I thought it was pretty odd not to have a single frame showing what the cartoon looked like. But looking further the style manual doesn't even have a space allocated for an image. It's easy to say it's a copyright problem, but I think Wiki ought to qualify as educational use under fair use. How do we have a website this deeply developed, turned to daily for information, yet we are still walking on eggshells and not using images where I would think they are most needed. Now, that's comic! APDEF (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Depending on depth of coverage, most articles on comics are able to support one image (usually a cover or promotional intended to be widely circulated by the publisher). If the interior art is discussed in detail (or varies significantly from the cover style), an panel or two might qualify as free use. Most articles on comic characters currently have too many pictures (one of each costume variation for a superhero created 80 years ago), and some editors are actively pruning them.
- If you find an article without an image that you think needs one, feel free to add one yourself or request one be added at WT:COMICS if you're not comfortable doing it. Worst case scenario, it gets deleted with a clear explanation and you can avoid the same concern the next time. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Argento Surfer: can't even remember which page I was looking at first, it was an old syndicated comic from the 1950s. It had no image, and I thought it was pretty odd not to have a single frame showing what the cartoon looked like. But looking further the style manual doesn't even have a space allocated for an image. It's easy to say it's a copyright problem, but I think Wiki ought to qualify as educational use under fair use. How do we have a website this deeply developed, turned to daily for information, yet we are still walking on eggshells and not using images where I would think they are most needed. Now, that's comic! APDEF (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)