This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Some of you are probably aware of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joker (character) which was basically so far as I can tell a bit of an argument about how to structure content about comics characters across multiple articles. The close of the AfD suggested that maybe some sort of discussion among the members of this group might be useful. I tend to think input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises, which also deals with a number of similar topics, might be useful here as well, and am notifying them of this discussion here. Anyone have any ideas? John Carter (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I posted this elsewhere, but perhaps there should be some better-centralized WP:AT/WP:MOS-space pages dealing broadly with fiction and fictional works that works to consolidate current guideline coverage of e.g. (video) games, film, TV, comics, books, anime, and manga, rather than to further advocate specific "MOS:COMICS"-specific changes. This would help to get everyone on the same page rather than in little (and what are basically) hidey-holes. For example, there's presently a MOS for video games, a naming conventions (NC) page for video games, and a notability (N) page for video games; MOS and NC for films (containing also NFILM), a MOS for animanga (containing also NCAnimanga), MOS and NC pages for comics, NC and N for books, MOS for TV, and then NPRODUCT and N on top of those. I bet we'd find a lot of similar guidance between the lot of those. Of course, these pages would take their cues from higher-level WP:N, WP:MOS, and WP:AT, where applicable. --Izno (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Throw "memorabilia" - toys, action figures, costumes, what have you - in the list of things you mentioned, and I would definitely support that. John Carter (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: since you have some slightest-of-slight interest. --Izno (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the number of characters that need multiple articles is fairly small, and the subset with enough sources to support such articles is smaller still (only 4 come to mind). That said, I would support moving away from the standard, generic (comics) dab in favor of more specific ones like (comics character), (comic book), or (cartoonist)/(comic writer)/(comic artist). Argento Surfer (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest we need to approach this from a broad "how to handle fictional characters that are cross-medium or multi-continuity" perspective. Just because a character appears in comics doesn't make it more a comics character than a movie or video game or novel or whatever character (though its individual history might). Even when a character originated as a comics character that doesn't mean that that's the most notable or WP:PRIMARY version of that character. We need a consistent approach to making such determinations, and a decrease in territorial genre-based bickering. (I'm not singling the comics project out, this is just where the discussion has started).

Proposal: I would suggest that people from all the fiction-related wikiprojects figure out what their naming and style pages have in common (or should have in common) and merge that information out of topical/genre pages into a) a new WP:Naming conventions (fiction) and b) the existing WP:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. Then pare the topical/genre pages down to not repeat but only summarize those key points in common, and refer to those main pages. Then try to get what remains in the topcial/genre pages to focus on explaining how existing guidelines and naming policy are best applied to the topic/genre in question (and avoid/remove pointless exceptions/variances). If a variance is thought important, see about getting it mentioned in the main guideline to which it is some kind of exception (otherwise it will continue to be a source of conflict). A process like this would eliminate a lot of conflict between wikiprojects, and between any given wikiproject and the rest of Wikipedia.

In the interim: We need some tacit agreement to avoid WP:OWN-like behavior when it comes to characters (etc.) that span multiple media. The most obvious way to do this is for "Foo (character)" titles (or just "Foo" ones, when no disambiguation is needed) to be the norm, and to be written more "medium agnostic", with sections on the character's differences in different media, then splitting articles off per WP:SUMMARY into more specific ones when the need arises because an article has gotten overlong. It's reader unhelpful and a source of editorial strife to keep them at names like "Foo (comics)" when disambiguation is required and the character is notable in the context of more than just comics. It's a source of further strife to dwell and dwell on the character in one medium and mostly ignore it in another when both are of encyclopedic interest. The "(comics)" is a confusing disambiguator to begin with (it fails at disambiguating, by replacing one ambiguity with another) when used for characters, since it implies comics with that "Foo" as their title, not a character named "Foo" that appears in comics.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Another problem, which I mention here only to help it be dealt with, is characters like Más y Menos and Harley Quinn who did not start with comics, but other comics media (in these cases, TV), but who may be best known for their comics appearances. John Carter (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Harley Quinn is probably someone for whom their main page being a detailed portal would make sense, focusing on her television creation with sub sections linking off to Harley Quinn in comics for her extensive comic history that came thereafter. It's totally not appropriate, for example, to open the article referring to her as a comic book character that appears in comic books. Referring back to Joker (comics), ignoring the naming question, I think it's formatting is exemplary if I do say so myself. It focuses on the development of the character in the comics and bringins in other media where applicable to discuss what influenced which. It has only as brief a possible retelling of comic narratives where these impact the character or were otherwise notable on the development of OTHER characters, and has a media section that gives an overview but links to an article that can better extrapolate on them. It would be impossible to do a characterisation section for example that gives credence to all other media, it would require an article all of it's own, it's necessary to focus on the original character and allow other articles to expand on adaptations. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

For anyone wondering what such a "detailed portal" is, see WP:DABCONCEPT.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Although, perhaps, the failure to mention any of the number of reliable sources about Joker toys, so far as I can tell, anywhere easily accessible here, might not unreasonably be seen as problematic. John Carter (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

There was toy info in the article, when it was made to split to try and pass FA that information was moved to the character article. There is a brief overview in the end of the CUltural Impact section prior to the film section. I think at one point I tried to develop the "In Other Media" article to represent toys but found it difficult to cover his entire history and so it suffered from recentism. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake—you never made to split it. You were given the choice of refocussing or splitting, and you chose to split. Having said that, I agree that the opening line to the current Joker (comics) article could probably serve as a model for fictional character articles. I've made a change to the Goodman Beaver article to reflect that—even though this character has appeared exclusively in comics, it shouldn't be referred to as a "comics character". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ehhh, the choice was completely change all of the content in the article or split it. Wasn't really a choice. But I'm not wanting to argue about it. I'm happy I could contribute something you could use though. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Another thing to keep in mind is that "this passed GA or FA" doesn't really mean anything with regard to future development. All it means is that some editors looked at it and thought at the time that it was good enough for the criteria they had in front of them. It is not some kind of "get out of further improvement or compliance forever" pass.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

To me, it seems that the issues relating to this topic, and a lot of other media franchise topics, are pretty much as follows:

• 1) What is the title of the main article? This can be a problem, particularly when as in this case the word which is the main component of the title is also used in other contexts, like as is clearly visible at Joker. Flash comes to mind as another example of that type. It also directly relates to:
• 2) What should be the content of the main topical article? This can be seriously problematic as well, particularly with, I supposes, Hello Kitty, which apparently started as, of all things, a form of product brand. This point might be the biggest concern in this topic as well.
• 3) What spinout articles, if any, should exist, and, I suppose, what should be the priority of creating them or specific reasons sufficient enough to create them as individually separate articles? I'm guessing the standard first-generation spinout articles might be Foo in other story-telling media (perhaps one or more articles), Foo in merchandise, In-universe history or biography of Foo, (later addition) and Foo in popular culture. The latter would presumably I guess relate to matters like parade balloons, catchlines generalized into public use, presumably items like Batman in philosophy where appropriate, etc. (If there are obvious options I missed, please indicate below.) Is there any one topic which might be a broad umbrella in the first case for the others, and if so which, or would they all be separate items from the beginning?

Maybe, once those concerns are resolved for this matter and I'm guessing others, then the rest might become a bit easier to address. Pinging @SMcCandlish:, who had been called in here on this matter. John Carter (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Whether there are spinoff articles at all depends entirely on whether there's enough content to justify it. Character articles should not be split by default into in comics and in other media to isolate a favoured incarnation, which is what the superhero editors seem to demand. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I should have made it a bit clearer that, obviously, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:PAGEDECIDE are relevant as well as WP:CFORK. In some very few cases, maybe, like for instance a name/character appears in more than one media and the different versions have little in common but the name itself, I might disagree, and I'm guessing there might be a few such, although none immediately come to mind. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, some of the recently revitalized franchise comic characters like Phantom (comics), or maybe some of the individual Fables (comics) characters if they had a longer history, there might be sufficient grounds for different articles about the various incarnations, but I would tend to think that there probably should be one hell of a lot of material that differs between the various incarnations to make sure that there is sufficient content for separate articles on the various incarnations. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I have added to the third grouping ""In-universe history or biography of Foo," which as indicated above by Curly Turkey seems to be the primary point of disagreement here. This would reasonably be I think a major point for a lot of works which have a significant shared history. So, for instance, I would tend to think, if it is in fact notable, History of New York City (Marvel universe) might be one of the longest groups of articles we might have, and the internal History of the universe (DC) might be a mind-bending nightmare, given all the bloody reboots and rewrites. Possibly the internal linkage of a lot of Edgar Rice Burroughs's creations might be considered in this light as well, and possibly more than a few other similar shared universes. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure; a comprehensive accounting of Michael Moorcock's multiverse and all the incarnations of his Eternal Champion (some of which are closely clustered and cross over each other's continuities, etc.) could be a wiki unto itself. And I think that brings us to an important point: Most of these things do have their own wikis which go into a great deal more in-universe detail. This is so primarily because WP has, per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:N, etc., driven much of that content off WP as too narrow and trivial for the WP project. That broad community consensus needs to be respected as we work through this stuff. The purpose of an article on the Joker (or whatever) is to help encyclopedia readers get a handle on the character/property as it relates to and matters in the real world, and I think a lot of fiction-focused editors forget this (even I have myself, e.g. when I was working on, and producing overly long, plot summaries at Colony (TV series)). This is one of the facets of "working" here that is helped by wikiprojects talking to each other and to maintainers of guideline and policy pages.

Anyway, to get back to the main issue, I would think that for any character, fictional place, etc., that transverses multiple media/continuities (Marvel comics, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Marvel TV shows, etc., none of which are consistent with each other), the default thing to do, when disambiguation is needed, would be something like "Foo (character)" or (if necessary) "Foo (Marvel character)", and "Quux (fiction)" or if necessary "Quux (Marvel)" for something other than a character. Or something like this; don't fixate on the details yet. Whether a particular article focuses primarily on the comics version (or a particular comics version!) is entirely a matter of the article-specific context. Harley Quinn surely should not, but an argument can be made for and against with regard to, say, Batman or Conan the Barbarian, while a comics focus is obvious for Doctor Strange despite there finally being a movie.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Correction: my concerns have had nothing to do with in- vs out-of-universe. Mainly, I've had two concerns:

1. WP:COMICS taking OWNnership of fictional character articles by DABbing them with (comics)
2. WP:COMICS making the comics incarnations of fictional characters the base article, and shoving everything else (regardless of how substantial) into little "other media" subsections or other articles entirely

The above applies almost exclusively to superhero articles; you won't often find this sort of thing in non-superhero fictional character articles, and when you do, you don't run into a ridiculous wall of resistance when you try to fix it. Just look at Wolverine (character)—it's been moved at least four times as WP:COMICS members have tried to exert OWNership over the article by giving it a nonsensical DAB.

SMcCandlish's "a comics focus is obvious for Doctor Strange despite there finally being a movie" reiterates what I've already said—if the subject has appeared almost exclusively in comics, per WP:WEIGHT the bulk of the article will end up covering those comics appearances (à la Goodman Beaver). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It would have been appreciated if someone would have notified me of this discussion, since I am the one who nominated the deletion to begin with (unless a few editors would consider notifying an editor who is already involved as canvassing as well). What I will say is that Joker (character) can not continue to exist in its current form. Whether it's deleted or merged with Joker (comics), coming to a permenant centralised agreement would be very helpful. The problem here is that we seem to have two different waves of editors that have separate ideas of how these articles should be handled, so we need to fix that by coming together and fixing the contradictory guidelines. DarkKnight2149 00:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

There could reasonably be a very good question as to whether or not there should be a separate "character" page, given all the discussion and, I suppose, the ambiguity of the word "character" itself and what such a standalone article would contain.

FWIW, as a bit of an outsider, as seems to have been indicated below, I would think that content on topics like this and those regarding, for instance, the Book of Mormon and other religious tracts which have little impact outside of their own base group (which are a bit more in my average wheelhouse) have a lot in common, as well as multiple groups of articles on franchises like Sherlock Holmes, Star Trek, Tarzan, Dracula, and the like. There exists a great deal of what could be called "in-universe" material, including a lot of biographical material, which is significant and of importance to the central fan base, but much of that material is of little importance or significance outside of that central fan base, which in many cases may be more interested in things like, for instance, Batman Halloween costumes than, for instance, the details of the Crime Alley incident. How to balance "in-universe" characterization and other factors, like, for instance, merchandise, other story-telling media, etc., particularly in the main article, seems to me to be maybe the best first step to take. John Carter (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It's always great to get opinions from other editors, but for a massive undertaking like this may become, I think the opinions of editors who will actually be doing the work should count for more. If the MOS is updated to include more DAB options instead of the too-generic (comics), the implementation won't be something a bot can do because it will require content review. With that in mind, I have to ask who among those involved in this discussion plans to contribute after an agreement is reached? I may fix the prominent ones on my watchlist, but I don't have the inclination to move the other 20,000+ articles that will be affected. I'm still trying to complete a similar change from 2013. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been busy with things outside of Wikipedia, other articles, and a massive fiasco, but I may be able to contribute wherever I can. DarkKnight2149 17:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

If you're asking me, Argento, I have started development of article and source lists similar to those at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Prospectus and Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Library based on the existing Batman encyclopedias. John Carter (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I've held for some time now the belief that the best way for us to determine how to structure any article is to see what recent, well-regarded reference works discuss the topic and basically try to, more or less, duplicate that. Yesterday I looked at the DK/Dorling Kindersley "DC Comics Encyclopedia" and the recent "Essential Batman Encyclopedia" by Robert Greenberger for their articles on the topic. The first of the two gives the Joker a full two pages, which more or less makes it one of their longest articles - I don't remember seeing any longer than two pages, anyway. It doesn't have that much text, but none of it mentions anything beyond the "mainsteam" Joker. It did however have a very short section listing three of the most important or essential stories, and a lot of the other longer articles did as well. So, maybe, having something similar in the Joker article might not be unreasonable. The second work has a much longer article, and in fact includes four very brief paragraphs at the end on alternative versions of the Joker. Although, by my own error, I didn't check the length of the full article, I got the impression that the alternate versions took probably less than 5-10% of the total length. The Greenberger also mentions in some of its articles, including Aquaman that I specifically remember, how the character's portrayal has changed over time, with all the changes to reality with Crisis on Infinite Earths and later such reworkings of the universe. That might be relevant here as well, as I personally don't think the "Killing Joke" Joker and the more recent Scott Snyder Joker can easily be said to be really in continuity or consistent. Maybe.

The downside with both works, unfortunately, is that they didn't cover at all anything beyond the comics themselves. For many if not most comic characters, that wouldn't matter. Ragman, Squirrel Girl, and many if not most other comics characters have little if any existence outside of comics. Unfortunately, there are (I'm guessing) maybe 3 dozen or so superheroes who have received a lot of attention in other media, and, maybe (again guessing) somewhere less than a dozen supervillains who have as well. Batman, with all the cartoons, movies, TV shows of all sorts, books, video games, audiobooks, radio (maybe?), merchandise of all sorts, etc., is one of them, and, I tend to think, so is the Joker, who tends to be one of the one or two most frequent opponents of Batman in those media. But none of those are covered in the encyclopedias I mentioned above, although they probably are in similar works more directly related to their own media. This is maybe exacerbated by the recent "cinematic universes" of both Marvel and DC. I, unfortunately, don't know what if any such encyclopedias exist off the top of my head.

Personally, with the Joker being basically a "household name" like some other major fictional franchises, there is also, at least to my eyes, a really good question as to whether their "home" media is the one most people most quickly recognize or know him from. It may well be that for most of the broader public not comics fans, they might be coming to the pages knowing Joker is in comics, but coming for information on, maybe, the Cesar Romero, Jack Nicholson, Mark Hamill, or Heath Ledger versions of the Joker. This is more or less the same sort of problem which the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia had to deal with - determining what it is the readers are actually coming here looking for. In that instance, grok.se and a lot of other technical stuff I don' unnerstand got mentioned and used, and maybe, if we wanted to be as thorough here as they were there, maybe doing some of the same things here might be useful as well.

Again, just speaking personally, with the recent "cinematic universes" of both Marvel and DC spotlighting a lot more characters than had gotten similar attention before, I as an individual personally doubt in most of the major cases (maybe Doctor Strange and the Suicide Squad and other flops notwithstanding) that the majority of the people coming to the related articles on those characters are coming for the comics versions of the characters. If that is the case, maybe working with some of the WikiProjects in other media to develop MOS for these multimedia entities might be the best way to go.

Anyway, I shut up now. John Carter (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that characters like Joker are the exception - I can only think of four other characters who could sustain articles on the general character in addition to articles about the character in specific media: Spider-Man, Superman, Wolverine and Batman. The X-Men could probably sustain a similar article structure as a group. While characters like Iron Man have gotten more attention thanks to the relatively recent films, I would argue that the film version is adequately covered in the film articles. I would even say that the MCU characters are better covered in the film articles than the character articles, since there is more in-depth coverage of the films than of the comics. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with most of the points above. I might add some of the characters who are in a lot of toys or action figures or video games and maybe Catwoman. The question then becomes, like in the Macedonia case I mentioned, which article in each such case should be, in effect, the one that the reader first comes to. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I think Magneto could probably sustain a comic article as such a long term villain of the X-Men, he has been involved in tonnes of major plotlines relating to the development of many characters, and maybe Batgirl and Wonder Woman too. To the other point, and anecdotal, if I wanted to know about the Dark Knight Joker, I'd go to the Dark Knight film page. I've never gone to the Joker article in all my years here expecting anything more than the comic character. While the Nicholson and TDK versions are big pop culture versions of the character, they are ultimately single instances that are better served in the respective film articles, same with the Animated series. The source character has like 75 years of story and influence and the major stories or influences that people talk about, the ones then used as inspiration for the films (particularly in TDK and the Arkham video games) are comic stories involving the Joker. As for TKJ, I think it is loosely canon, it is brought up a lot in stuff now, especially the more detailed part about the Red Hood. But it is only one possibly canon story since he doesn't remember. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree that you would (or that I would) do as you indicated, but we know a lot more about the topic than some of our readers coming to these pages do. That was, more or less, the case with the Macedonia issue I mentioned too. Right now the Joker page does list the character first, so for this article there might not necessarily be a lot of changes, except, perhaps, to have some material moved to that other article on the character if the character is, in fact, the topic most people first look for or at. I'm thinking particularly more of the "cultural impact" section might be moved there, because determining exactly which version of the character ultimately had which particular impact is likely harder to determine than some of the sources focused on only one version of the character would cover. Regarding the Killing Joke version, it was said in at least one other, later, story that Riddler could vouch for part of it, but that was before the more recent Snyder version. The "Aquaman" article (hey, it starts with an "A" and I think alphabetically, 'kay?) includes a couple of subdivisions of the modern age. Based on what little there has been on this character since Snyder started, there might not be that much cause for further breakdown of that section, but, not being an expert, I dunno. Some of these same issues probably apply to some of the other major multimedia characters though, and that's one of the reasons I'm thinking, maybe, that getting some broader guidelines that might have more input from people who might have worked successfully with some of those matters elsewhere.

There might also, maybe, although I ain't real fond of it myself, be grounds for an additional "intermediate" article, Joker (DC) depending on the level of sourcing and amount of material on the various aspects of the character specifically under the control of DC management (comics, movies, tv, direct-to-video, and the like). But stuff like that, like I indicated, might best be addressed with assistance from other groups or editors used to working with these broad multimedia topics. John Carter (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If a user wanted to learn more about, say, Catwoman as played by Anne Hathaway, and they happened to visit Catwoman first, I don't think they'd be lost or confused when they saw comic information first. I also think it's important to remember that if a comic character has appeared in a film or tv show, the actor and title are both linked in the lead. It's not like the information they want is buried.

From where I'm sitting, I don't think the issue is content or structure for the overwhelming majority of articles - it's the (comics) dab that is usually too generic and can imply a focus that isn't needed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with moving Joker (comics) to The Joker, but that'd still probably raise resistance with users like CurleyTurkey in defining it as the primary subject. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

If we're deleting or merging Joker (character) (which is what needs to happen), then I don't see why not. And this "creating separate articles for the general character and the comics character" should NOT become a trend. We aren't about to start splitting articles and wasting useless space simply because a group of stubborn users want to use slippery slop WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments that aren't even true ("all other character articles do this"... no they don't). I don't see why the character's source material can't be covered in the base article. And Joker (comics) is the base article. As previously stated, other media versions are covered in that article (with Joker in other media only being split due to the sheer amount of content). If you don't think that Joker (comics) covers the other media interpretations enough, then try ADDING TO IT. Going out and creating a duplicate base article because you think that it focusses too much on the comics or because you think the project is being WP:OWNy borderlines on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Also keep in mind that you can't title an article (Character) in comics unless it is specifically about the comic book appearances themselves. Joker (comics) can't be renamed Joker in comics because it's about the character, not the various appearances that the character has made. DarkKnight2149 21:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, members of WP:COMICS better watch your backs. Curly Turkey is coming to clean you up. DarkKnight2149 21:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, look! Darkknight2149's shown up to stir the shitter! Who'd've thunk that? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

After all the dramah you've kicked up and continue to kick up, Darkknight2149, I don't expect you to understand this, but—most of us are here at Wikipedia to find the best ways we can to present information to Wikipedia's target audience, which is a very general audience. There are many, many other wikis (and other sites) on the Web that cater to more specialized readerships. Have you taken a look at them? Many of them are much more suited to a fan's POV, if you reject the spirit in which the rest of us are expected to contribute to Wikpedia. Of course, we'd be thrilled if you could make the effort to understand the problem and why it has to be dealt with and then learn to contribute in a constructive manner, rather than painting us as supervillains stomping all over your "turf". Regardless, the problem is real, it must be dealt with, and when it's finally presented to the greater community it will be dealt with—in a manner many WP:COMICS contributors will dislike. Wikipedia would appreciate it if you'd let us deal with the problem with a minimum of dramah. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Given that I made my opinions clear before there was even a pot "to stir", you've got no argument there (as from my humourous response to you wanting to "clean up" a WikiProject for disagreeing with you; you always were one to assume bad faith). But our differences aside and back to the serious topic at hand, I don't see how needlessly creating multiple, even duplicate, articles for every single character benefits the "general readership". Since you believe so heavily in your position, I would've imagined that you would have actually been determined to make the percieved proper edits to Joker (comics) to more represent the other media, instead of treading the line of WP:POINT by creating a useless duplicate article to provide a statement on your opinions regarding the WikiProject and the article itself. DarkKnight2149 03:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

More of this soul-draining WP:IDHT. Nobody has demanded multiple articles. Nobody. After the number of times we've been through this, there's no more excuse for you keeping us on this strawman's treadwheel. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"As previously stated, other media versions are covered in that article" This is a true but inaccurate statement. The other versions are discussed in real-world terms only. If you read through the biography material, non-comic media is mentioned twice. Both amount to "concept from the comics came from/was also seen in other media."

Also, your whole paragraph about why it can't be renamed Joker in comics is a Straw man. A simple Ctrl+F shows that no one has suggested that title. I believe you're thinking of Joker (comic character). Argento Surfer (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually yes, Curly Turkey suggested Joker in comics more than once already at the deletion discussion and someone brought up Harley Quinn in comics (if only to reiterate reasons why that's not okay). There's no strawman fallacy here.

While I don't expect Argento Surfer to know everything that has transpired (we're only human), it doesn't seem apparent that Turkey isn't ready to stop inventing accusations so that we can have a clean discussion. Apparently I'm "WP:NOTHERE" again (see his Talk Page).

And whether this applies to "all character articles, some character articles", the point remains the same, especially given the title of this discussion. DarkKnight2149 16:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right, sorry. That was discussed on the deletion page. I even commented on it there. For what it's worth, you do seem to have convinced Curly on this point, because he agreed that (comics character) would be ok. Ctrl+F that discussion for "going to suggest" for the exact spot. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't expect DK to have actually read anyone's actual arguments. He keeps saying I've never actually presented an argument, after all, and keeps insisting that somewhere I've demanded hese articles be split. Context: I suggested "something like Joker in comics" as a possibility if Darkwarriorblake chose to split rather than refocus (nobody demanded a split). This has been explained and re-explained and re-explained to DK. His claims otherwise are a disruption. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Argento Surfer: Be very careful with "Joker (comics) can't be renamed Joker in comics because it's about the character, not the various appearances that the character has made." DK has made his position explicitly clear—that the version of the character in comics is the character, which is why DK finds "Joker in non-comics medium" acceptable but "Joker in comics" not. This is the nonsense we're trying to fix. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As I understand him, he's saying a Joker in comics article should mirror the Joker in other media article's structure and content. That is, be a list of the Joker's appearances. Since Joker (comics) is not that, it shouldn't be named that. I see his point. While I'm not sure I agree with him, I don't think it's worth arguing about since Joker (comics character) works just as well. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing about an "in media" title that would suggest or require such a structure, and DK's made it clear he thinks base articles about characters who originate in comics should focus on the comics versions of those characters. Because of that, you shouldn't get your hopes up that he'll accept (comics character), which is a poor compromise, anyways. Has anyone but DK raised issues with "character in comics"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Joker in comics would be more than a little problematic because it seems to basically assume, per the phrasing, that there is only one Joker in comics. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. In at least one version of the Royal Flush Gang, there was another "joker", apparently Amos Fortune. And there would also be questions as to how to deal with other versions of Joker (playing card) in comics, which some might think reasonably appropriate to an article by that title as well. So for instance, that might be seen by some (maybe, if he ever uses specific cards for specific purposes) as sufficient cause for inclusion of some content relating to Gambit (comics) in the article as well, which would result in a rather strange looking article. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I did on the Joker (character) deletion page. The character has existed for 75 years in the comics and will most likely continue on that way. These adaptations in other media are ephemeral by comparison. This current adaptation craze with movies and tv shows will die down and despite it everyone still thinks of Batman, The Joker and almost every other comic character as just that, a comic character, and probably always will.★Trekker (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Then you share DK's insupportable POV the the comics version of the character is the character. Whatever—the community will overturn it, though I'm sure you'll all be maximally disruptive along the way. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

No. I won't I. If the project decides that it is for the best I will accept it and work with it. I am not a vandal. I have so far simply presented my opinion. I do wish you would improve your immature and impolite attitude. If I wasn't so tired right now I would demand an apology for the accusation, but I'm not expecting one so I won't bother. I will from now on do the same as I did with the deletion discussion when it got unbearable; ignore it.★Trekker (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

If WP:COMICS would recognize there's a whole wide world that Wikipedia aims to serve outside of WP:COMICS there wouldn't even be a dispute. These longstanding WP:OWNership issues will be dealt with. DK could choose to help us solve the problem, or drain all our energy filibustering and stirring the pot. We know which it'll be. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is an OWN issue and I do struggle to see your POV. I wouldn't go to the Darth Vader article expecting it to focus on anything but his major motion picture appearances. He is a more unique character in that his canon story has been expanded upon in video games/comics/television so these things would come up more, but he is primarily a villain in a trilogy of major films. I would expect him to show up on lists of the greatest movie characters, I would be more surprised to see him show up on the list of greatest video game characters. One is clearly the primary topic. The Joker is a comic creation, he existed in comics for something like 26 years before ever appearing in another form of media and then it was a decade or so before he was in something else and a decade before something else and a decade before something else. It's mostly only the last two decades he's been prominently featured in so many different things and it would be somewhat WP:RECENT to grant a huge focus to things because we've had two big films featuring the Joker, which are probably the biggest source of comic-external references. The existing article focuses on the comic character because that is, by and large, where all the defining traits/designs/elements/stories come from for everything else and it breaks off to the "In Other Media" article to expand on those other topics. Anything that attempted to incorporate all of these external character adaptations into a single article would be the "In Other Media" article, but with a section on comics. Looking at the discussions between you and DK, your philosophy appears to be that every incarnation ever is the character, which is an impossible concept to not only satisfy but sustain, just trying to logically structure a development section that jumps from Suicide Squad version to Lego Batman version to Arkham Knight version back to Comic version. One clearly is the primary characterDarkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with DWB that this isn't an OWNership issue. That page doesn't even discuss the possibility of a project taking ownership - it's about individuals. The comicsproj is more of a WP:STEWARDSHIP role in my opinion, and the real issue is the MOS standard for dabing everything under the project as (comics). If we can all agree on what the actual issue(s) here are, we could open up an RFC and get the broader opinion CT keeps bringing up. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, I think that assistance in this matter from, for instance, Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises, Wikipedia:WikiProject James Bond, and, maybe, pretty much everything at WP:PROJDIR/LIT#Media franchises, might be very useful here. The issue of the MOS favoring "comics" as a dab term also seems to me, reasonably, to be an issue, and it might not be bad to have some sort of broader MOS for media franchise characters. Regarding eliminating the "character" article, I would myself probably object to that, particularly for topics such as this one which as I indicated earlier are such that, while some characters like this one are probably known first and foremost as comics characters, the majority of the general public who are aware of the character probably know it best from some medium other than comics. Certainly the Batman in film#Reception section gives evidence to support that contention.

Also, FWIW, I did to a line count of the Greenberger Batman encyclopedia article on the Joker. In that article, which is a bit old and predates the Injustice: Gods Among Us release, both the game and comic version. And the comic version was, if I remember, frequently DC's best seller for the month. Anyway, it gave about 7% of the text by line count to Batman in alternative futures (primarily Kingdom Come) and 5% to variant forms of Joker in alternative universes. And, I guess, if there were to be a "Character" page or similar, maybe a better title would be something like "DC character" or "DC comics character". I would prefer the first of those two myself. Both Marvel and DC, I think, are known fairly widely as entities to the general public, and adding some additional dab text indicating a bit more precisely which "character" is being discussed might well be of benefit to the reader. John Carter (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The real benchmark would probably be Superman. That's a case where everyone in the universe knows he is a comic character, but he's been adapted thousands of times and some of these incarnations are arguably much more famous than the comic version which is all over the place. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

We want to keep in mind that not "everyone in the universe" lives in the US. People are familiar with Superman around the world, but in many (most?) parts of the world the comics are virtually unknown. Wikipedia serves a general, worldwide readership, not a specialized & US-centric one.

What it comes down to is that no character is a "comics character", a "film character", or a "pulp fiction character"—they are characters that have appeared in comics, film, or pulp fiction. How much of the base article is taken up with the character's appearances in a particular medium depends on the WP:WEIGHT of sources—in the case of Goodman Beaver, that means the comics appearances make up 100% of the article content.

Whether and how articles are split is not part of the issue to be solved—except that splitting should never be done with the aim of keeping the base article specific to a favoured medium. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @SMcCandlish: regarding whether he thinks there might be any basis for a media franchises MOS, and, if he might, whether he might know of any other editors who might be useful in drafting such. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@John Carter: See my previous post elsewhere on this page (near the top of this); that's a condensed passage of advice (or a proposal or whatever you want to call it) based on a longer version I wrote before that, but have misplaced. The gist: We need an MoS on fiction generally (franchises would be a segment of it) that goes into more detail than Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, though the most obvious approach is to expand that page, not create another. Needs the invited participation of all the fiction-related wikiprojects, the MoS regulars, and the wikiprojects that are more general and overlap fiction (literature, television, film, etc.). It has to be written, like all the good topical MoS pages, as a guide to how to apply non-topical, site-wide MoS rules to fiction, not an excuse to try to shoehorn in a bunch of "my topic is magically special" variances from it. Where a variance is seen as important and is demonstrably conventional, it can probably be worked in (e.g. the use of "#" rather than "No." is typical when referring to comics; I got that into MoS somewhere several years ago, but I forget where, maybe in MOS:ABBR?).

The goal should be to pool all common material about fiction and normalize it to put an end to confusion and disputes. Then the way more topical ones like MOS:COMICS can be trimmed to just the parts that are unique to that segment of fiction, and some concise summary of what the expanded MOS:FICTION says about things that appy to comics, but lots of cross-references to the "master" guideline material on it at whatever the right section in MOS:FICTION is. I'm skeptical that is practical to totally merge all the comics, anime, TV show, etc. MoS pages and MoS-wannabe wikiproject advice essays on style, into one giant MOS:FICTION; rather, just merge all the basic stuff so it doesn't have to be regurgitated at all of them and (most importantly) the PoV-forking of them from each other ends. Anyway, I wouldn't suggest specific editors to be involved, just invite all the stakeholders en masse via wikiproject talk page posts. One there's a rough draft, I would also invite commentary via WP:VPPOL (since it's a fairly major guideline consolidation) and perhaps via WP:CENT, since it really would be a centralized discussion of non-trivial import.

PS: MOS:COMICS and WP:NCCOMICS are still conflicting and redundant after a decision two+ years ago to split/merge as needed to get the style material out of the NC page and the NC material out of the style page. <sigh>  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

This looks eminently reasonable to me, actually, and I would very much welcome a lot of input from the directly involved editors and projects in the fiction MOS. John Carter (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions to get around this?

Of course we know where this will go—DK will ignore direct questions and refuse to acknowledge any and all issues that have been brought up, while putting words in my mouth. He's been nothing but disruption since the get-go with this issue, and the rest of us can't discuss solutions because every time we try DK drowns the discussion in the same bull manure. Any suggestions from other editors on how to get around the DK roadblock? Quickly, please, before he drowns this discussion, too. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no disruption happening and nobody is putting words in your mouth. And yes, we are all well aware by now that everyone who disagrees with you, including the entire WikiProject, is disruptive. That's sarcasm, by the way. And now, just with the WP:ANI thread, you are diverging from the serious topic at hand to undermine my side of the argument. For someone who hates "dramah" and "stirring the pot", you have a knack for doing it. DarkKnight2149 02:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

You've been doing this since our discussion started at Talk:Joker (comics). Really, it's impossible to have a serious discussion when your every other word is an accusation or an assumption of bad faith. First, I was a basement dwelling fanboy. Then I was WP:NOTHERE, then I apparently canvassed the people who agreed with me at the deletion discussion, then when I first responded here I was starting "dramah" again, then I was WP:NOTHERE again (which my history on Wikipedia proves otherwise), and now I'm putting words in your mouth. This is ridiculous... DarkKnight2149 02:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I have a suggestion - stop replying to one another. It's not a "DK roadblock", it's a "DK-CT roadblock." There's been lots of I-don't-hear-that thrown around, but neither of you have said anything new for quite some time. Your feud spans multiple pages and makes it impossible for anyone but the most dedicated to wade through it and see which one of you may have had a point to begin with. In the past 24 hours, the two of you have added 13,948 bytes to the page size without adding anything to the actual conversation. All you've succeeded in doing is making it too mind-numbing for any new comers to bother with and contribute anything new. So far, your arguing has wrecked an FAC, an AFD, and now this previously-productive discussion. If you can't stop arguing, please contain it to one of your talk pages. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Ok, this section or the DAB one below, where are we on this because I want Joker to be a Featured Article 2 years ago. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there is an ongoing discussion of the Captain America talk-page about the characters impact which I feel needs input from other people. I would appreciate it greatly if some people could chime in.★Trekker (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I've been working on a page about depictions of Mormons in comic art over on one of my sandboxes. There's a bunch of anti-Mormon political cartoons from the 19th and 20th centuries, a brief section on Mormon characters in comics since the 1950s, and also a section on versions of the Book of Mormon in comics. I think "Portrayal of the LDS Church in comic art" covers most of the page, but it doesn't include Mormon characters. "Mormons in comics" seems a bit broad. I think the section on comic Book of Mormons might become its own page ("Versions of the Book of Mormon in comics"), but it seems a bit short. Thoughts? thanks in advance. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Mormon cartoons or Mormon cartoons (depending on how you wish to structure the page) seems to me to be the least ambiguous and clearest title. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I just noticed that Jewish culture has a subsection on Jewish cartoons; maybe versions of the Book of Mormon in comics would make more sense as a subsection on Culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Comics and film and various other things could reasonably be added to that, and then spun-out if required. There seem to be at least a few comics characters who have been identified as Mormon as per this page. Whether there are any comics specifically relating to the Book of Mormon directly I don't know. I suspect, honestly, that there probably aren't many, because it isn't a topic most readers would be likely to know much about or possibly have much particular interest in, although I could obviously be wrong. John Carter (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I would go with Portrayal of Mormons in comics. It's vague, but your (well-written) article covers a broad swath. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I went with Portrayal of Mormons in comics. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Quoting from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics):

Following extensive discussion of naming conventions for comic book characters at Talk:List of Marvel Comics characters and Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Comics, the agreed general disambiguation phrase used for articles related to comics, including creators, publications, and content, is "(comics)".

It goes on to say

There are many ways in which comics-related content is presented (also known as media). And in addition, there are many words and phrases which describe those various types of media.

For example, while comic, comic book, comic book series, comics magazine, comic strip, graphic novel, et al., may all be types of "comics", using all of those as disamibiguation phrases would lead to a lack of consistency, and subjective selection, due to the overlapping inclusive criteria of each term. Note: while "comic book" is an American term and may not be appropriate for certain comics titles published in other countries (per WP:ENGVAR), "comic" is ambiguous, and should never be used.

Therefore, when needing to further disambiguate a comics-related article related to media (when "comics" is applicable to more than one article of the same name), use only one of the following, as appropriate:

• (comic book)
• (comic strip)

First, the problems:

1. Using such a generic DAB often means an incomplete DAB. There are many characters who have self-titled comic books.
2. Some editors believe the label (comics) on a character page implies it should only cover comic material
3. When character articles grow too long, it is common to split off the "In Other Media" section. Some editors believe the existence of (comics) and (in other media) implies an ownership or superiority of the comic version.
4. Cases like Eric Stephenson (comics), which is about the publisher at Image Comics, not a comic character or a comic book title. The Comic naming convention page currently omits any mention of creators.

Second, my suggestions:

1. Grandfather old articles currently using (comics) as a DAB until an issue arises. Since a more specific DAB requires content analysis, I do not believe this can be automated. Any grandfathering would be null and void if a bold editor wished to update an article or if it's brought up in discussion.
2. Add a section redirecting comic creators/personnel to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)
3. Replace the (comics) standard with the following primary options:
   1. (comics character) (character) - self-explanatory
      • For characters sharing the same name, preceed name with company ie (Marvel character)
   2. (comic book) - for content most notably published in comic book format
      • When multiple titles exist, use (YEAR comic book)
      • When appropriate, (graphic novel) or (limited series) may also be used
   3. (comic strip) - for content most notably published in comic strip format
   4. (comics publisher) (publisher) - self-explanatory
4. For subjects that have articles fitting 3 or more of the above, the Foo (comics) page will either be a DAB page or redirect to the appropriate section of Foo (disambiguation)

I'm discussing this here since the MOS page does not seem to be heavily watched. Pinging editors involved in the discussion above - @John Carter: @Izno: @SMcCandlish: @Darkwarriorblake: @Curly Turkey: @Darkknight2149: @*Treker: and editors who I believe have an interest - @BOZ: @TriiipleThreat: @Favre1fan93: @Tenebrae: @Fortdj33: @Rtkat3: @Fluffyroll11: @Stoshmaster: @Adamstom.97: @Spidey104: @Emperor: @Killer Moff: @NukeofEarl: @David A: @Nightscream: Argento Surfer (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

comments

I have a question and a suggestion.

1. Can you provide examples of the four problems you listed above?

2. Can we use comics instead of comic? It's been my observation that many among the uninitiated, upon seeing the word comic, think it pertains to comedy, as in, a standup comic. Comics is less ambiguous, and is historian/analyst Scott McCloud's preferred term for the medium we're talking about. Nightscream (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The first one occurs a lot, but Wolverine and Joker are prime examples. If you want to wade through it, examples of the second and third are here. I don't think either problem is particularly serious, but I understand the arguement. Aside from Eric Stephenson, the fourth one pops up at Adam Warren (comics), Brian Wood (comics), David Sutherland (comics)... It's not common, but it's out there.

I'm completely ok with the s. I've added it above. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that these suggestions seem fine. David A (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

By and large, after a quick review, I more or less agree with Curly Turkey and SMcCandlish's comments below. I myself might have some reservations about using the "(character)" dab as indicated above. Acknowledging that they may be the only such example of this, Captain Marvel is at least one example where the same name is used by multiple comics characters, and it uses an extended dab in Captain Marvel (DC Comics) and Captain Marvel (Marvel Comics). Speaking strictly for myself, particularly given the fact that I think some of the characters in, for instance, Suicide Squad (film) might not necessarily be known or thought to be necessarily "comics" characters, but probably are or will be recognized as "DC characters" based on being involved in the DC Extended Universe. That being the case, maybe for greatest ease and clarity, I might prefer something like Joker (DC comics character) or Joker (DC character) as another option, as it might be a bit more encompassing than the others. John Carter (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Izno's comments

My opinion regarding the suggestions (as I agree that such problems do exist), including more than just the above discussion.

1. I don't see a reason to "grandfather" but I would tend to agree that we don't need to automate this solution. Users who are concerned about the title of an article should be able to employ WP:BOLD or WP:Move requests as appropriate.
2. We should defer naming of people to WP:NCPEOPLE, agreed.
3. "Replace the standard":
   1. In the spirit of WP:AT, we should shoot for concise statements (where parenthetical disambiguation is necessary) about the topic of the article--which means we should avoid specifying the medium. "(character)" should be sufficient in the vast majority of cases. For those characters where it is not sufficient, "(<company> character)" or "(<franchise> character)" should be. Examples:
      • Two examples:
        • Batman (where Batman is the WP:PTOPIC--the character most surely is not at this date--see personal observation #1 below) -> Batman (character) (probably the PTOPIC of characters) -> Batman (Batman character)/Batman (DC Comics character)
        • Joker (where Joker is the WP:PTOPIC--he is not now hence the current disambiguation he enjoys) -> Joker (character) (probably the PTOPIC of characters, so he should enjoy this disambiguation) -> Joker (DC Comics character)/Joker (Batman character).
      • Can you think of cases where <franchise> or <company> character are insufficient?
      • Someone should toss all the disambiguations listed at Batman (disambiguation) to see about the pathological cases where we have different articles for one character. (Or is Batman-the-character an article quality issue and each of those character articles should have a different focus/not exist/exist as sections of other articles?)
   2. Seems reasonable on its face, but perhaps that should live at WP:NCBOOKS--which helps avoid the "territorial" (I'm using that phrase loosely) implications of having it at NCCOMICS.
   3. Per above
   4. Per above
   5. We should defer to WP:NCCORP and the spirit of WP:AT. "(publisher)" should be sufficient, if even necessary, since natural disambiguation will probably be the quickest way to locate an article title.
4. What subjects come to mind here?

I have a few observations of my own which may be unrelated to naming:

1. Right now, comics character articles often mix the character and the series or franchise in which the character appears. For a notable example, one might review Batman. I would maybe suggest that we should employ a strategy of separate franchise and character articles, similar to the organization many video gaming articles take. I think this would help focus the character articles to the parts important to those specific characters. (Maybe I'm talking to the choir on this point--perhaps my example of Batman is bad and newer articles are organized like such.)
2. Maybe it would make some sense to change how people are WP:SPLITting and organizing large character articles--rather than focusing on media type, start using articles (potentially titled) like History of the Batman series to get into the nitty gritty of format changes. My first observation might help with that as well.

--Izno (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I subheaded your comment. The indents are already getting a bet tough for me to follow.

I included the grandfather clause because I wanted to avoid resistance based on inertia. I have no issue with someone going around moving them boldly, but I didn't want the lack of volunteer to deter anyone.

I know we should use concise headings, but there is a significant number of characters who have been in comics, animation, and film. In most cases, these characters are not identical. The comics portion identifies the true subject of the article.

WP:NCBOOKS has a subsection on comics. In its entirety, it directs users to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics). I'm not sure what you mean by "live at".

I'm ok with using (publisher) instead of (comics publisher).

I see your point on Batman, but I would point out that Batman is one of the very few characters who could sustain a break between franchise and character. Your suggestion on changing how articles are split isn't bad, but it's beyond the scope of the change I'm currently proposing. I wouldn't oppose discussing it separately. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I think there is a bit of a divide here between a long-standing practice and common sense. A person should be disambiguated like every other person, not with (comics), just as characters should have the normal (character) disambiguation. The catch all disambiguation (comics) really shouldn't be used, I don't think. The only issue with that I can think of is all the comic book information often included at character articles. In those instances, the article is still generally a character article that happens to include some book information, so in that case I think (character) would still be appropriate. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I would be ok with using (character) over (comics character). Argento Surfer (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

But as we would usually disambiguate, if there was a comic character with the same name as a movie character, for example, then we would obviously go beyond just (character). - adamstom97 (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Right, but we should not divide that by going the direction of the media type if we can avoid it, since that (apparently) encourages some amount of territorialism. Example: Lightning (Final Fantasy) (and I deliberately chose an FA) is disambiguated by its series name, as I propose above (though lacking the phrase "character", which I honestly don't agree with but which I have also done jack!@#$ about :D). --Izno (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries on moving my comments about.

I don't see that The comics portion identifies the true subject of the article. is a true statement, and is probably the root problem that CT and DS are smacking heads up above about (and from which I've avoided participating). I don't need to say anything about the fact it's a comic character in the disambiguation, because WP:WEIGHT tells me how I should write my article—and the important part about WP:WEIGHT is that the weight of a topic is identified not by the depth of primary coverage (e.g. the number of years the comic has been published vice how long we've had the film series, or by the number of dollars consumers have spent on one format vice the other) but by the depth of the secondary coverage. To take the example case of Joker (comics) vice Joker (character), one problem I can identify in the former (it's an excellent article otherwise) is that it barely even acknowledges all those other real-world facets of the other ways the Joker has been portrayed--most of which I would guess have had quite a chunk of coverage themselves in how the character therein has been portrayed. Specifically, one of the subproblems is that the "biography" seems only to take some comic-canon-specific view of the world--when that view is probably not the view about which most reliable sources have written, nor with which most readers of the encyclopedia are familiar--since I would guess at least the various TV series have introduced a good bit of "biography" to the Joker. (I would guess that view is reflective of the editors whom have chosen to write about the Joker...).

NCBOOKS vs NCCOMICS: My point is that any naming guidance of comics should probably live at WP:NCBOOKS rather than at WP:NCCOMICS and get pointed to from NCCOMICS--rather than the other way around.

On Batman series vs. character, yes, I introduced it as a bit of a tangent, but it helps lead into the second observation, which is that "splitting a character down the media type" probably doesn't make a lot of sense, not least because of the fiction-resistance that Wikipedia has enjoyed since the mid-2000s. --Izno (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I see your point. I'd be willing to go with (character). I'd also be ok with this all being at NCBooks. The final location doesn't matter to me as much as the overall outcome. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

If we're talking (character) artcles, then neither WP:COMICS nor WP:BOOKS is the place to work it out. Characters are not subsets of the media they appear in. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Izno, the Joker article mentions other media where it has influenced the comics and vice versa, but the majority has been the vice versa. The tv show adapted the comics already goofy version and the shows success just made them keep the goofy version going. If you look at these other forms of media they will talk about the Batman/Joker stories that influenced their script, their character design, their whatever. The reverse tends to be fleeting artistic changes that vary from comic to comic based on the inker/penciller that might include a glasgow smile grin for the Joker, or of course the Joker (graphic novel) that is heavily influenced by The Dark knight but is not itself canon to the Joker mythos. The biggest media influence is Harley Quinn, and it mentions specifically where she came from in the article.
• If you look for the TDK Joker, you'll find lots of references for accolades and cosplay, but none of his traits have become facets of the comic.
• The Joker comics article mentions every single other form of media the Joker has ever been in. Every single one bar a few NES and SNES games. They are linked when mentioned and there is a direct link to an entire separate article that details those appearances in full.
• As I said to Curly Turkey, it is impossible to focus on every version because you're talking about the one who influences all the others, and then like 50 others, largely all recent. Most follow a similar personality so you're repeating, if you're not repeating, do readers think you're omitting, if you're not repeating or omitting, what of note are you adding? Because the TDK Joker is the only relatively distinct one in that he drops the narcissism.
• So the Joker article as it is, follows the primary topic (and I am not a US editor), it's a comic character, and it covers this medium as loosely as I possibly could. The biography is limited to the most major changes to the character and have influenced other characters, which are major elements then adapted into other stories both comic and film and television, like killing Robin, like maiming Barbara, like the return of Jason Todd, like the Laughing Fish, or the introduction of Harley Quinn in comics.
• If the article were not allowed to follow the original product, it would just become as Joker (character) is now, a list of other Joker related articles. As it stands, I think it perfectly blends the comics and other media where applicable, but focuses on the genesis of almost all other media influences. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• • "If the article were not allowed to follow the original product, it would just become as Joker (character) is now, a list of other Joker related articles"—two non sequiturs: nobody's "disallowing" the article to "follow the original product" (whatever you mean by that), and there's no reason a comprehensive article would become a list. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Curly Turkey's comments

Keeping in mind that, with DABs, we begin with the most general and get more specific only when necessary:

• (comics character) should never take precedence over (character).
• (comic strip), (comic book) should be used only when (comics) is not sufficient
• (comics publisher) should be used only when (publisher) is not sufficient disambiguation
• "graphic novel" has not meant "content originally published in a square-bound, single-installment format" since the 20th century, as any trip to a book shop's or library's "graphic novel" section should make clear. (graphic novel) should be considered a last resort.

Further, regarding (comics character), per WP:NCDAB: "Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation". This means perhaps that something like Character X in comics should be a first consideration. For example, if someone were to write an article on Tarzan's characteization in comics, it's unlikely they would write an article called Tarzan (comics character), but rather something like Tarzan in comics. (comics character) implies a strong bond to the comics medium. Whether any of us believes in such a strong bond is irrelevant—that is a bias, a POV, and must be avoided in a neutral, general-audience encyclopaedia. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC) Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_51
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.