Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (comics)

Move

Ironic that the stated convention is (comics) while the page on the naming convention itself is located at (comic books). Should this be moved to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics)? -Sean Curtin 02:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Hiding talk 10:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. leigh (φθόγγος) 21:14, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Neutral. Let me point out that the reason I originally created at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comic books) was because I didn't want to imply that the convention should apply to comics (comic strips, manga, etc.) in general; the reason the disambiguation phrase was "(comics)" instead of "(comic books)" is that the former is shorter, easier to remember, and easier to type in. —Lowellian (reply) 11:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I can see why not to apply it to manga, but how would we differentiate strips? And why? In the wake of Understanding Comics I'd think it would be reasonable to expand this convention to strips. I'd also argue superceding the (cartoonist) tag with regards to those working in strips, since we can't really agree what a cartoonist is, beyond single panel cartoons, which consensus agrees are drawn by a cartoonist. Hiding talk 12:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not making any claim as to whether they should or should not apply to other things; at the time, I just wanted to be careful to not force conventions onto things (such as non-"comic book" comics) which I hadn't yet thought over in detail. —Lowellian (reply) 20:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Move. And listed on WP:RM - SoM 19:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move. – AxSkov (☏) 08:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Dragons flight 22:47, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Formative Discussion

The discussion below is from Talk:List of Marvel Comics characters and is how the current convention formed. Hiding talk 15:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of possible disambiguation phrases:

The "(superhero)" or "(supervillain)" disambiguation phrase has several problems:

It is often not quite clear whether a character is a hero or a villain. Though usually considered a hero, the Punisher could be considered a villain (Bloodaxe follows the same methods, and is usually considered a villain). Similar cases of ambiguity of moral affiliation could be made for Deadpool, Elektra, Thanos, and many other characters. There are also characters without any moral affiliation at all (example: Living Tribunal).
It seems to limit characters to just the superhero genre, which is not the only genre of characters. Should we consider certain characters who have no special powers (e.g. supporting characters like Uncle Ben) to be heroes? What about characters with no superpowers, but just military training, like Nick Fury?
Another problem with the "(superhero)" or "(supervillain)" designation is that it is not necessarily gender-neutral. For example, for Storm, should she be Storm (superhero) or Storm (superheroine)? And for Lilith, should she be Lilith (supervillain) or Lilith (supervillainess)?
In an effort to standardize the disambiguation name, some Wikipedia users were using the phrase "(superhero)" even for characters that were clearly supervillains. This made the entries confusing.

The advantage of a disambiguation phrase including the word "Marvel" is that it makes it clear what character is being referred to in those cases where multiple comic book characters from different publishers share the same codename (example: Captain Marvel is used by both Marvel Comics and DC Comics). However, any disambiguation phrase including the word "Marvel" also has several problems:

Just using "(Marvel)" by itself as a disambiguation phrase is not acceptable, as it is too vague and could mean too many things. Thus, it is necessary that it be used in combination with others words, like "(Marvel Comics)", "(Marvel character)", etc. This makes the disambiguation phrase long and hard-to-remember.
Many non-comics fans won't know what Marvel is.
Marvel is currently popular in the mainstream; will it continue to be so years in the future?
What if Marvel Comics were bought by another company, as Wildstorm was bought by DC Comics?

The disambiguation phrase "(comics)" does not have the drawbacks mentioned above, and furthermore has several advantages:

It immediately makes the genre clear.
It is only a single word, and very simple, in comparison to a complicated, difficult-to-remember disambiguation phrase like "(Marvel Comics character)".
This is a disambiguation phrase that could be applied to teams like Generation X (comics) and alien races like Asgardians (comics) as well.

Somewhat related: Naming conventions

(This section thought relevant and so archived here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics.) Hiding talk 19:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to keep being a problem for us, but we can cut down on the problem significantly by making our article naming policy very obvious. I copy/pasted a version of it from the Talk archives and merged it with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comic books), and if everyone likes that policy I suggest we put it someplace where people will see it, and try to enforce it. A couple articles that need renaming/moving, if that policy holds:

Orbiter Graphic Novel to Orbiter (comics)
Blue Monday (comic) to Blue Monday (comics)
The Sandman (DC Comics Golden Age) to Sandman (DC Comics Golden Age); both Simon/Kirby's and Gaiman's series were called The Sandman but the Gardner Fox Wesley Dodds Sandman never appeared in a series by that name; therefore the article should not contain a "The".
Plus whatever issues raised by Hueysheridan above.

-leigh (φθόγγος) 04:09, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I have a few problems with this and with the vagueness of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comic books) in one important respect. The whole (comics) or (comic) thing isn't very clear. I would have thought that when the article is about a specific series, like say Blue Monday cited above, the (comic) tag would be more appropriate, but when the subject is more general like a character or an industry convention or somesuch then (comics) would be better. I understand the desire for simplicity but the issue comes up in examples like the Superman (comic) suggestion I have above - Superman (comics) seems too broad a name for what I had in mind. Hueysheridan 14:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(comic) should be a more specific disambig tag, the way you only use (DC Comics) if (comics) is already taken. Superman (comics). - SoM 15:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what you mean, but I dont agree. I can see a point when big articles like the Superman entry get too cumbersome and most the detailled listing of the characters various comic book series needs to be shifted into their own article which should then be called Superman (comics). In fact I already see a case for doing that, especially in the Spider-Man article. As the proposed Superman (comic) (and Batman (comic), X-Men (comic) etc.) would concern a single title wouldnt (comic) be more appropriate?

Being guilty of a couple of these names, the Blue Monday one and there's a few graphic novel ones out there, I'd be up for maintaining a clear policy on this. One major problem is that some people are going to argue that the naming convention for comic books doesn't apply to graphic novels, and so is something we should thrash out. If we perhaps confer with the webcomics project and come up with some sort of naming conventions for comics, that would be an idea, and we could then put up an rfc and mention it at the village pump. Hiding talk 21:14, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Expanded

I added a few examples to clarify the position held at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. Hiding talk 10:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Character vs Title

I feel like this has been discussed already, but I cannot seem to find it. What is the naming convention for differentiating between a character or team, and the title they appear in? The X-men article seems to combine both into one article - the team and the title both. But for titles like Negation, which is not solely about the Negation itself, what should we do? Any ideas? Thanks. LordAmeth 21:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current practice is to detail the publication history of the character in the entry, and have the entry address the character rather than the series. If the series needs it's own seperate entry, which I would only suggest if the character page was overly long, and I don't think Negation (comics) is, I would suggest using (comics series). Hiding talk 22:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Numerals

I think we need to come to a consensus on the usage of Roman numerals for mantles which have been held by more than one character. If we use them, it would be easier to distinguish between heroes and title Superhero Boxes, but there arises the problem of certain characters like Firestorm. Is he a different character every time he merges with someone else? The usual convention is that Firestorm I is Ronnie Raymond and Martin Stein, that II is Ronnie alone, and that Jason Rusch is III. Jason has "permanently" merged with Martin Stein, though, so does that make him Firestorm IV? And he's now "permanently" merged with Firehawk, so are they Firestorm V?

What happens when we get into the Robins? Conventionally, Dick Grayson is Robin I, Jason Todd is Robin II, and Tim Drake is Robin III. Is Stephanie Brown Robin IV? Does she count at all? Where does Carrie Kelly fall into the numeral system, if at all?

What do we do about characters like Nightwing? Superman was the first Nightwing, but that's not even in continuity any more. It seems wrong to say Dick Grayson is Nightwing II, because he didn't inherit the title from anyone. Similarly, is Kimiyo Hoshi Dr. Light II? Not only did she not "inherit" the mantle from Arthur Light, but she's on the other side of the moral spectrum. Again, we also run into the problem that there was a "Dr. Light" who appeared only three times in the Golden Age before never being used again. Does he deserve to be Dr. Light I, pushing Arthur Light to II and Kimiyo Hoshi to III?

When you get into the Green Lanterns, it gets even worse. They don't really take over for each other, plus there are around 7200 right now. Are only the human ones on Earth the ones who get numerals?

Are we better off without Roman numerals altogether? Previous discussion of the topic in Wikiproject Comics seemed to come to the decision that Roman numerals should be avoided. If so, however, what system do we use? --Rocketgoat 01:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my take on what we should have on titling in infoboxes: when it concerns heroes/villains with direct lineage, where the same basic identity is getting assumed by a different person (Robin, Batgirl, Blue Beetle), we need to differentiate on disambig pages. Individual pages, it doesn't matter. There are certain characters (Rose and Thorn) where more than one person has held a name, but aren't really related in anyway. Cybertooth85 02:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When referring to the character, refer to the character by their name, not using a roman numeral. Then we sidestep the issue and maintain accuracy. I don't really see how this is an issue with all the info boxes, simply use Robin (publication) to show you mean the publication rather than the character. Hiding talk 08:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a a fair point, but how do we explain the relation of a character with the same name as another character, especially when they're related in costume and role (Robin, Batgirl, BB)? People need to understand how chronoglically, Cassandra Cain came after Barbara Gordon. Cybertooth85 19:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain it where? In infoboxes? In what infobox would this be an issue? Hiding talk 19:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we have the characters' civilian names in their superheroboxes, we need to be consistent with it. Alan Scott and Hal Jordan both have Green Lantern as their title, as do both Jaime Reyes and Ted Kord for Blue Beetle (the same thing for the three Flashes). If we're going to show that more than one hero has had the same name (in the boxes) we need to explain differences in versions: Green Lantern (I) for Alan Scott, Green Lantern (II) for Hal Jordan, etc. based on when characters premiered in this identity. If we aren't going to do that, we need to put the civilian names in the titles of their superboxes, instead of just the mantle they wear. Cybertooth85 05:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can the title be made a wiki-link? I can't see it being a huge issue since the article should discuss the issue. I don't really see how this is an issue, and I can't see how a reader is really going to be confused in any way at all. Hiding talk 19:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read comics for a long time and even I am confused as to why Firestorm I and II both Ronnie Raymond. Listing characters with Roman numerals also implies a chronological succession, but Hal Jordan didn't necessarily oust Alan Scott. Neither did Guy Gardner to Hal or John Stewart to Guy. --Rocketgoat 21:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, Abin Sur would technically be GL II based on chronological debuts. And if we're going by "in-continuity", hoooboy... Jordan's around GL MMMMMMMCXI or something. Plus you've got obscure one-offs and retcons messing up even "straight" orders - do Will Payton and Prince Gavyn count as the same Starman for numbering systems or what? We've got the uber-obscure Angel's evil uncle Dazzler who appeared in three backups - in otherwise reprint-only comics to boot! - who debuted before Alison Blaire. And what about when both Marvel & DC have used a character name - is Mar-Vell Captain Marvel IV because of Billy, Mary and Freddy?

Too many worms in the can - no Roman numerals at all, and disambiguate by real names/alternate codenames/etc. - SoM 22:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Character page names

This is something that I think is a real issue. All over Wikipedia we have pages like Alan Scott, Tim Drake, John Henry Irons, and so on. That is, character pages named after the secret identity of a character rather than their better-known heroic identity. This occurs largely because characters share superhero identities (ie. The Flash and Robin). The thing is, certainly comics fans can navigate through the entries based on this naming practice, but I feel it's detrimental for everyone else who doesn't know so much about comics. In a way it's an insular naming practice (The modern Superboy article used to be named Kon-El, a name even most comics readers aren't familiar with regarding the character). The Starman articles are named with the character name first followed by modifierrs in parenthesis (Golden Age, Silver Age, etc.). I think this should be the general course of action. WesleyDodds 07:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the spirit of the naming conventions is keep it simple, so if no disambiguation is needed, don't use it. The lead of an article should clarify what the article is about and clear up any confusion. Hiding Talk 13:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is also being discussed here. CovenantD 15:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear to have been archived : ) - Jc37 13:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Topics for naming conventions

There are several issues which I think desperately need to be discussed/clarified. I started writing it here, but I decided to make it it's own sub-page, for discussion:

Topics for naming conventions/(talk)

- Jc37 13:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per the discussion, updating the conventions. - jc37 00:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, maybe next time the discussions could take place other than your user space (like this page)? CovenantD 03:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely wanted discussion, as I think was/is obvious from the discussion extant. Please note the date of when I posted that : ) I cross posted it in several places. and even "moved it down" at least once on a talk page. - jc37 05:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(It's now moved to a sub-page of this.) - jc37 17:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Macchio

FYI, Ralph Macchio (comics), which is used as an example on this page, was moved to Ralph Macchio (editor) in February 2007. [1] I'm not sure if we should change the example or move the page back. --GentlemanGhost 15:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article back to Ralph Macchio (comics) and left a note on its talk page referring to this naming convention page. I feel that if someone wants to change the convention, it should be discussed here first. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reprint collections

What is the proper nomenclature for reprint collections? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) seems to indicate that series titles get italicized. Would this apply to reprint collections? The reason I ask is that there are two different styles employed between the articles Essential Marvel Comics and Showcase Presents. One bolds the overall series, the other neither uses bold text nor italics. --GentlemanGhost 15:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Limited series and collections with names that need disambiguation

I have recently come across Strange Bedfellows (Angel comic), and I was wondering if it should stay there, or be moved to just Strange Bedfellows (Angel). If it were a TV episode, the TV naming conventions would suggest the title with minimum disambiguation - unless there was something else with the same in the same series, for instance a movie, which would force disambiguation to Strange Bedfellows (Angel episode) and Strange Bedfellows (Angel movie). You may think this is a fairly unique case, but given the increasing number of TV-comic adaptations, and the ever-growing number of articles on limited series and collections( TV-ralated and otherwise), I suggest a guideline should be developed, and furthermore I suggest it be modelled on the TV convention to keep consistency throughout the encyclopedia. --WikidSmaht (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names in category lists

Apologies if this has been asked before but I'm a little unclear on something. On category lists, where should articles that are named for both a superhero's codename and real name fall?

The categories are really inconsistent on this. The same list might have Atom (Ray Palmer) under P (for his last name) and Mister Terrific (Michael Holt) under M (for his codename). It's very confusing. Is there a standard for these kinds of articles? Rajah1 05:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a de facto standard for this as yet. My preference would be to sort depending on what the category is for. If it is a category of superheroes, then use the superhero name, but if it is a category of alter egos, use the person's name. Where a character has had numerous identities, use the most common. For example, Hank Pym should in my opinion be sorted to Pym. But it is a knotty one. I think it's a suck it and see hodge podge, to be honest. Nothing will suit every situation. Hiding Talk 07:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. I think a standard should be agreed upon. The lists are a bit of a mess the way they are now. Sorting by codename for the two part name articles (like Atom (Ray Palmer)) and by last name for the civilian name articles (like Henry Pym) makes the most sense to me. What do others think? Rajah1 05:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the examples chosen by Rajah1, Atom (Ray Palmer) and Mister Terrific (Michael Holt), are alphabetized by codename, not the person's name. However, in glancing at Category:DC Comics superheroes, I see that there are other instances where this is not true. I agree with your solution, Rajah1. I think we should sort based on the main part of the name, not the parenthetical text, e.g., alphabetize by Atom, not by Palmer. In cases, such as Henry Pym, where there is no parenthetical information, my opinion is that we should by "last name, first name". --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Disambiguation between volumes

I'm not convinced that distinguishing multiple like-named series from the same publisher by volume number is the correct approach.

For one thing, DC seems to have stopped identifying volume numbers in its indicia some time ago; applying volume numbers to series that don't technically have them makes me uneasy on several levels.
- It seems like original research; even if there is some citable consensus within fandom about what volume number belongs with what series, one must be careful, when incorportating such information into Wikipedia, to do so in a way that does not create a false impression that these are publisher-originated, official volume numbers.
- In many cases, I believe debates over how to assign volume numbers can be difficult to resolve. (ex: is it worth assigning a volume number to a one-shot like the Challengers of the Unknown issue from DC's "Silver Age" event? I suspect a reasonable case could be made for both points of view.)
Another issue is failures by the publisher to maintain consistency in this area. For example, Marvel has published two different issues as Giant Size Hulk vol.1, #1. I remember reading on Newsarama or some such (citation needed, don't have info handy) that it was a simple mistake; they had planned to make the more recent (2006ish, IIRC) issue Giant Size Incredible (emphasis mine) Hulk vol. 1, #1, but got mixed up about it somewhere. Similarly, both the 1963 X-Men #1 (series that became Uncanny X-Men) and the 1991 X-Men #1 are described as vol. 1, #1.

I believe it may be a better idea (at least in those cases where there are potential problems with using volume numbers) to disambiguate using launch year instead of volume number. What's everybody else think?

Your friend, Augustus Chip (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul thoughts for discussion, revision, inclusion

Initial naming conventions: An example might clarify the slightly clumsy phraseology of when something needs disambiguation (i.e. There is already an article of that name referring to something/someone non-comics-related).
1. NOTE: However, if the comics-related article is more known/relevant/extensive, it surely supercedes the "(comics)" suffix, and one should be appended to the non-comics article. e.g. Alan Moore.
2. If it's uncertain which is more known; if there are more than a couple of similar pages, then the "main" page should be a full disambiguation page, and list all necessary option.

Standardise the example format: "(e.g. XXX..."
Link to the articles cited, rather than just emboldening them.

Lois Lane as Superwoman is a bad example. Not least because she's barely known by that title at all, and because the "better"-known Superwoman is surely the Crime Syndicate's Wonder Woman analogue. Far better to use the example of "Marvel Girl"/Jean Grey.
Donna Troy would be a fair additional example to multi-codenamed individuals, and help address the fairly likely overly-male example list.

Codename disambiguation: First and foremost, codenames that are already in use in a non-comics forum should be automatically (as per the initial convention) suffixed with "(comics)". (e.g. CABLE, AZRAEL)
Several characters with the same codename:
1. Cross-company - See below for Company disambiguation conventions
2. Tenuously or unlinked (e.g. Sandman) may require "Codename (Character name)", but may be better suited just being listed by character name.
Green Lantern example is redundant, as the GLs are all just listed by character name (hence addition above). Use: Robin (Tim Drake)

Character name disambiguation (clunky title): The "Codename (Character name)" example is the wrong way round.
1. It needs clarifying, re-exampling or deleting that the current Hal Jordan example is not actually working as described - there are no sub-pages named after individual characters. Yet.

Suffixes may need brief explanations - particularly the non-obvious ones.
The Amazing Spider-man/AS-m (comic book) are the same page, hence the need to also include AS-m (disambiguation) and mention that the redirect is because the core AS-m page will most commonly refer to the comic, as per earlier notes.

Multiple examples (which could then be cross-referenced earlier) would be ideal. My preference:
1. Amazing Spider-man (disambiguation, [main], comic book, comic strip, TV series, video game, Game Boy)
2. Batman ([main-character], comic book, comic strip, TV series, video game, 1966 film, 1989 film)
3. Sandman - (comics)=disambiguation, because Sandman (disambiguation) is non-comics-related. (DC Comics, Wesley Dodds, Vertigo, Marvel Comics) NOTE: While "Sandman, volume 1" and "volume 2" could be used to separate Simon&Kirby from Gaiman, the publisher differentiation is simpler and more concise/clear.
4. Scarecrow (comics, Marvel comics) NOTE: The DC comics character is far better known, hence there's no need to disambiguate with "DC".
5. Captain Marvel (DC, Marvel) NOTE: Here the characters are arguably as visible as each other. N.B. The Marvel Captain's are not "Captain Marvel (Mar Vel)", as per earlier suggested guidelines... So either the earlier guidelines need revision or these pages do. I argue the former - the pages are fine.
6. The Flash - "The Flash" and "Flash (comics)" are synonymous. The Flash (TV series); Flash (G.I. Joe) is a different character - disambiguated by main character/series; Flash Comics and (soon) The Flash (comic book) are discret pages about different periodicals - there's no need to add "(comic book)" to "Flash Comics". Flash (Jay Garrick) and Flash (Barry Allen) follow convetions; Flash (Wally West) redirects to Wally West, since he's AKA Kid Flash. Likewise for Bart Allen and Kid Flash (Wally West). An excellent, if maybe over-wordy hands-on example of how these conventions are used impeccably. Likewise: Kid Flash (Iris West), who is not known as anything other than Kid Flash; is not best known by her name, but can't be "Kid Flash" because of Wally and Bart.

That's - quickly! - my main points/thoughts on what ought to be revised, changed or clarified, and rough reasons for the "why". ntnon (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to response in some semblance of order:

Your first point comes from the fact that Wikipedia:Disambiguation isn't quite an orderly place. I think we should hold off on those, for a broader discussion about disambiguation pages.
For the most part (I believe), the examples roughly follow the same format. (Note also that actual publications should be italicised.) Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you?
As for linking, originally I decided to not link to specific articles as examples, but to just "bold" them instead, due to the fact that tomorrow, that specific article may be deleted. That, and it (hopefully) helps the blue links to policy/guidelines pages to stand out more. That said, I recently decided to link the dab phrase examples, following the example of the list of publishers. Since they aren't surrounded by supporting text, the blue links shouldn't distract.
Feel free to change Superwoman/Lois Lane. It was honestly just a placeholder example until something better came along.
Specific examples: I used Green Lantern because it works both ways. Hal has several identities, and there have been several characters with the name Green Lantern. I would agree that there are not such articles "yet" (and this comes back to another reason for bolded article names instead of blue links), but it was the best multiple name example I could think of at the time.
As for your suggested substitutes:

Donna Troy is too complex. For one thing, she has the multiple-earth mess of confusion. (Green Lantern/Hal Jordan's examples are much more straight-forward.)
Dick Grayson/Robin might work, except he's only been Robin and Nightwing. And adds the complexity of Jason Todd (who now has a similar problem to Donna Troy).

Sandman, Starman, Captain Marvel, and Flash (and many others) are all such multiple-company examples. We should pick one or two and move on. That said, I had intended to add Flash as the second example in the section with Sandman (per the recent discussion, once the discussion was resolved).
(Note also that "Vertigo" isn't on the publisher's list. There've been several lengthy discussions about Vertigo. See: talk:Vertigo (DC Comics), for example.)
suffixes?
"Well-known" (who gets the dab and who doesn't) is not something we should go into detail with here. A link to WP:COMMONNAMES should suffice for now.

I hope this helps clarify. Further thoughts/discussion are most welcome. - jc37 17:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status of dab phrase "(comic)"

I have recently been given to understand (here) that dab phrase "(comic)" should never be used under any circumstances. If this is indeed intended, it would be helpful to list "(comic)" on this page under Phrases not used. — Pi zero (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British comics naming convention

Recently, the British children's comic (which are different to American comics that this project appears to cover) Krazy (comic) was moved to Krazy (comics) - to me, this makes little sense, as you wouldn't get (for instance) "Empire (magazines)" or "The Godfather (novels)" as Empire (magazine) is an example of a magazine (singular) and The Godfather (novel) is a novel (singular) and this appears to be how most article suffixes are applied. In addition, it would be natural for anyone adding a link or searching for such a comic to search for "name (comic)" not "name (comics)". I would be grateful if anyone had any advice in this matter. Stephenb (Talk) 15:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See previous discussion [2] and if you are feeling strong: [3], [4] and [5]. That is only the most recent discussions and has been thrashed over a lot - not that there isn't room for more refinement (see below).

While I would have been happy to stay with "(comic)" I have come to accept that sticking to "(comics)" avoids a lot of mess and confusion (and we have had a lot of that because some many comics, characters and stories share the same name) which we have only just really got under control. My main concern was the number of "X (comic book)" articles the irony of which is that some of the name changes have ended up with clunky compromises which I still don't feel is properly resolved (e.g Eagle (comic book) - which clearly isn't correct).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperor (talk • contribs)

Note: the examples at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming_the_specific_topic_articles for class are singular. Whilst I appreciate there have been previous discussions, the outcome is certainly incorrect :) Stephenb (Talk) 15:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is also touched on in the most recent discussion [6] that I gave above. There is no set centralised disambiguation - it was left to the various projects to thrash out the naming conventions depending on their specific needs and comics have a lot of things named with similar names which means we need a standard top level disambiguation with further levels of disambiguation below that. The "previous discussions" therefore are correct, because that is what the naming convention is based on: consensus. J Greb's reply in that discussion explains why the top level is "(comics)" because they various classes are based on the specific industry: the music industry, the film industry and the comics industry. (Emperor (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the lecture, but consensus doesn't always mean "correct" in the wider sense, just agreed by a relatively small number of people! Of course, this is added partly tongue-in-cheek - I know about Wikipedia's consensus, but I also know that consensus is not always permanent, so if the right small number of people came along such consensus might change. And I hope it does, to be honest... While (comics) is a fine suffix to distinguish a person working in that industry from someone working in the film industry (which would usually use (director) or (producer) or whatever) Krazy is a comic, and the article title ought to reflect that. (Now read my comment below :) )Stephenb (Talk) 15:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As further evidence of expected usage by editors, 2000 AD (comic) has far more entries in "What links here" than 2000 AD (comics). Who on Earth would type "2000 AD (comics)" when looking for or linking to the comic itself? Stephenb (Talk) 15:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who's been reading Wikipedia long enough to notice that that dab phrase is fairly common throughout.

Note that you could create a redirect... - jc37 18:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of links pointing to 2000 AD (comic) is purely evidence of the fact that the article was recently (ish) moved followed further clarification of the consensus on this. I could task a robot to fix all the incoming links but I can't see how it has any bearing on the what the top level dab should be either way. The article is the first result returned for a search on "2000 AD comic" and "2000 AD comics" and, as is clear, 2000 AD (comic) redirects there so no one is going to struggle in finding the article. (Emperor (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Oh well, I will leave the article, this discussion and the project with its nonsensical decision! Cheers, Stephenb (Talk) 15:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC – WP title decision practice

Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed revision of disambiguation terms

It seems that "comics" is the catch-all disambiguator for anything to do with comics, characters, etc., without a set hierarchy. However, in order to bring into line with other projects' disambiguators (films, books, etc.), and with WP:WikiProject Fictional characters, I would propose that in the case of characters, which could of course be included in other franchise media (Wolverine for example), we should default to the disambiguator "character" in the first instance, then add additional disambiguators "comic book character" then "Marvel comic book character" as necessary.

As far as individual titles go, i would propose that "comic book" should be the default disambiguator (which may also go some way to addressing the UK objection to "comics" shown above), but "comics" should probably be retained for individuals working in the comics field, etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would support using "character" to disambiguate characters. This causes much fewer problems, since many books are titled using the name of the main character. It would also remove the idiosyncratic characteristic of using "comics" to disambiguate character articles separate from all other Wikipedia character articles, which use "character" normally, with additional disambiguating terms as necessary (such as "comics character"). Using "comics" for the field is also reasonable. "comics title" may be better than "comic book" / "comic strip" / "comics serial", since it would cover all options without needing to discern books from strips or serials excessively, until going to a more specific disambiguator. This would work better for those titles which are serialized into anthology books and then collected into their own books later, and similarly for strips that are serialized out in various publications and then collected into books. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Wolverine (comic) for the character and Wolverine (comic book) for the comic book. Works out fine that way. When comic book characters have the same name from different companies, you put (DC comics) or (Marvel comics) or whatever comic publisher they have in their name. Examples can be found by looking through the results at[7]. Far more useful information than just a vague (character). And how many characters are there which aren't comic book characters on Wikipedia? Don't the characters with (comics) in their name outnumber those with (character) many times over? And don't most fictional characters just list what series they are known from? Ares (Hercules and Xena) shows the fictional character from that show, and Ares (Marvel Comics) and Ares (DC Comics) show the characters from those series. We need specific labels for fictional characters, not a vague pointless (character) definition. Dream Focus 11:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that "(comic)" doesn't work for its primary disambiguation purpose, at least not in all cases. The case that initiated the discussion is directly against the WP:PRECISION guideline, since it's not at all clear from their names what's the difference between the contents in those articles. Here you said that you "didn't believe anyone would confuse" both; well, I was confused and therefore suggested the move. Diego (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm searching for (character) and I see almost everything with that in their name, show the name of the series its from, if its not evident. ([8] Sonic the Hedgehog (character), Terminator (character), Jerry Seinfeld (character), etc. show what series they are from and don't need anything more than (character) in their name. Other things are more specific. A vague (character) should never be used unless the name of the series the character is from, is in the title already. How about a rule for that instead? Dream Focus 11:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that disambiguation only gets more specific when necessary. The point is to bring all fictional characters in line with each other, regardless of which medium they are presented in. Only when we need to disambiguate further, i.e. a TV character or a comic book character, should we use the additional disambiguator "comics" or "TV". This way, when we have the same character that appears in multiple forms of media, we don't have conflicting disambiguation rules between projects. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If more than one thing has the same name, you add in proper information to easily identify it. Mention the name of the television or video game series the character is on. Just saying (character) would be meaningless, unless it was obvious as in the examples I have mentioned. And (comics) works great at showing the character was first and most notable as a comic book character, regardless of it later going to movies or whatnot. There is no reason to be vague with one word (character) when you could be specific with another (comics). Dream Focus 12:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have to see this on a wider level, not just within the realm of comics. You only get specific if necessary to disambiguate from other characters. A character only gets any kind of disambiguator if there is another person (fictional or real) with the same name, so it's not correct to say that the disambiguator "character" is meaningless without an indication of media or series, any more than saying "footballer" is meaningless without saying which team they play for. You would only disambiguate further if there were two footballers with the same name, the same should be true for characters. I've asked for input from the fictional chararacter Wikiproject, so contributors there may have some insight. Also, the disambiguator "comics" is vague in itself, as it seems to have a multitude of applications, people, characters, titles. I think we need to bring a system of hierarchy to this guideline, in line with other projects, as it doesn't seem to have had any real discussion for 5 years, since Wikipedia was practically in its infancy! --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because, as has been discussed at length, British comics are not traditionally called "comic books". I would also oppose trying to nail down too restrictive a hierarchy of disambiguation terms because that would tend, out of ignorance but perfectly good faith, to impose American comic book terminology where it isn't normally used. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "comic book" issue was an afterthought. The main issue here was the use of the disambiguator "character" to specify a character. I wasn't intending for this to be brought down to a simple "support" and "oppose" argument - I was hoping for some open discussion on a guideline that doesn't seem to have been discussed for 5 years! --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I appreciate Rob's very good work on Wikipedia, particularly his dedicated efforts to keep fancruft out of Star Trek Into Darkness, which is a formidable task. So it pains me to disagree with a good editor in this instance. (I use the "oppose / support" form here only since it seems to have begun organically, and consistency is easier to digest than not.) Each Project has its own guidelines that best expresses that project's particulars — it's rare to have a one-size-fits-all style that works across the board. I'd have to go with those who feel that if someone is looking for a comics character, they would search with a keyword "comics" rather than "character" since there are a number of comics characters that share names with other fictional characters. I see where Rob's coming from, and I agree that overall consistency helps make things easier to find and makes Wikipedia look more organized. I would extend this and say that well-delineated topics is equally important to organization, and having the "(comics)" disambig helps to delineate the topic of comics and also provides internal consistency within the Project. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what categories are for; disambiguation terms should not be used to group completely separate articles together only because they're on the same topic, since it won't serve that purpose - there are many articles that don't follow the (comic) convention, so there's no "internal consistency within the project" to maintain. And it actively hurts their original purpose, to distinguish between related articles about the character and the media in which it appears. Diego (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who requested the initial move from Wolverine (comic) to Wolverine (character), the problem I found is that the titles Wolverine (comics) and Wolverine (comic book) are ambiguous in the sense defined by WP:PRECISION; it's difficult to find out which one is about the character by the titles alone, so it's not clear what one will find in them when starting to read the article. Since I don't know the naming schemes of comic-related articles, I couldn't know what to expect. And the title should definitely not be chosen by relying on readers knowing the naming schemes; the primary purpose of parenthesis must be always to disambiguate between articles related to the same topic, with concerns of consistency throughout the project being secondary. The number and type of ambiguous articles will differ in each case, so perfect consistency is not desirable if it means the primary purpose is abandoned.

I agree with the argument above that "comics" is a good target for searching; but then the title of the other article should be made clearer. Something like Wolverine (comic book series) or -whatever a regular publication is called- would be enough to separate them. Diego (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fear I don't have much to add because I am more on the neutral side of this. I do feel it deserves to be talked about so I got to respect Rob Sinden on bringing it out. I am both on the comics WikiProject and the fictional characters WikiProject and I do feel that the comic book characters are standing out from the other different characters on the name titles. Although keep in mind that there is quite a few different things like "In other media" articles and "Alternative versions" as well. Should they need to change as well? Another thing to note is that the comics book WikiProject is clear on how they want it to be done but I can see the other WikiProject having it's own set of rules for the future that I can hope can consistently agree with the style done here too. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long story short: It's OK to have (comics) as the disambiguator when there's only one article with that title on the topic of comics. It's not OK for the case of Wolverine, where the regular series shares the name of the character. Here an expanded disambiguation is required to avoid ambiguity. The current guideline doesn't contemplate this need to disambiguate between a character and its main series, so it should be expanded to cover it. Diego (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wolverine (character). When I see Wolverine (comic) I either think that this will be an article about the comic book, or a stand up comedian. --GRuban (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support character is clear, as opposed to comic, which is ambiguous at best. I applaud and agree with GRuban's rationale. Killer Chihuahua 00:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: makes sense to do so to me. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 11:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge redundant guideline material

Closing based on a request at WP:ANRFC there is a WP:SILENCE consensus for support here but as silence is the weakest form of consensus, this is not much more than "permission" to be WP:BOLD and see what happens via WP:BRD, albeit with proof that you were obviously acting in good faith and via the fact that the RFC stayed open so long was certainly long enough for people to voice any concerns. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics#Naming conventions is an enormous pile of redundant and occasionally contractory material to this entire NC guideline. The whole section at that MOS subpage can be replaced, after any conflicts are resolved between what it says and what this page says, with {{Main|Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics)}}, and this should be done, because naming conventions are not MOS material (even if they defer to it on style matters), and having detailed instructions on these cases will inevitably lead to POV forks. Just the editing histories of the two pages shows that while editorship overlaps it is not at all identical, and two different pools of editors have been developing them concurrently. The NC page did not even mention the MOS page until I just now added it as as see-also. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The very existence of this page is suspect, as certain cliques could too easily use this little-watched page to slip in new "rules" to sidestep sitewide guidelines. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, along with a review of the guidelines to make sure they're consistent with the general naming policy and MOS guidelines. Diego (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions concern the name of article they are to compliment, explain and enhance the Article title policy. The MOS is a manual of style for the content of an article. Merging them makes no sense. Strip out anything from this naming convention to do with the internal style of the article and strip out anything to do with the article tile from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Comics so that the two are distinct and support, explain and enhance the AT and the MOS respectively. -- PBS (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal isn't to merge the pages, it's to merge the naming convention material in the style guideline into the naming convention guideline where it belongs. Yes, also remove (merge if necessary) any article content style advice from this page, since it belongs in the comics MOS page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:AT#Proposed naming conventions and guidelines any major change (such as turning it into a redirect) should be notified on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Like the MOS, AT and its naming conventions are under an Arbcom ruling about such issues. -- PBS (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Broken link

The above subsection no longer exists. What should it be pointing to now? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 14:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably WP:NCDAB. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC re: naming conventions

An RfC at Talk:The Phantom#Requested move 5 July 2015 concerns what appears to be a violation of WP:NCC/THE. Interested editors are invited to comment. --Tenebrae (talk)

The Circle

Y'all may want to take a look at The Circle (comics)(by Gail Simone) and The Circle (comics)(by Brian Reed), which seem exceedingly odd, but I'm not sure what the conventions say regarding this. older ≠ wiser 12:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. The correct DAB would be by publisher. I was able to move the Simone story to The Circle (DC Comics), but the Reed one (which was originally at The Circle (Image Comics)) was moved, then moved again, and now we'll need an admin to help preserve the history. I have submitted a request. Pinging editors involved with the original moves as FYI @Anthony Appleyard:, @Karmeow: Argento Surfer (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you may also want to review the moves proposed here. In many cases there is ambiguity between a series and a character (or multiple ambiguities). older ≠ wiser 14:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer and Bkonrad: At 14:03, 15 June 2017‎ User:SkyWarrior moved page The Circle (comics)(by Brian Reed) to The Circle (Image Comics). Is that what you wanted to happen? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - that works. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It works for me. Only thing I wasn't clear on was whether limited story arcs were disambiguated the same as series. older ≠ wiser 15:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A story arc would also be Foo (comics). If there's overlap of the name Foo, it can be further DAB'd as Foo (YEAR comic series) or Foo (comic story arc). If you're ever unsure, you can seek guidance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. I believe it's watched by more users than this page. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the technical request. Thank you for the clarification. I'll be sure to check for this scenario in the future. Karmeow (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the use of (YEAR comic) for series that belong to the same publication, I think the way The Punisher comic uses it is much better when they are different volumes of the same comic, it uses (YEAR series), becuse it's a series of the same long runing publication. (YEAR comic) would make sense if it was the same title but by different publishers that have nothing to do with each other.★Trekker (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comics and the real world

What about characters whose name is unique within superhero fiction, but can't use that name because a topic unrelated to comics has the main usage? For example, Cyclops (comics), unrelated to the Cyclops of greek myths. Should it be "Cyclops (comics)", "Cyclops (character)" or "Cyclops (Scott Summers)"? Cambalachero (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be Cyclops (Marvel Comics character). It can't be (comics), because conceptually a character is not a subset of comics (for example, the character can appear in movies, animation, novels, etc). It can't be (character), because it's not the only character named Cyclops. So we disambiguate further by using the owner of the property. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update

The page does not seem to have been actually updated, it still says to put comic series at (comic book) instead of (comic).★Trekker (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is still an option "when comics is applicable to more than one article of the same name", such as a comic strip. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but that doens't seem to be explained anywhere, it just says (comic book) as if it was the standard.★Trekker (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Disambiguation section says "Articles primarily about a publication should use the phrase (comics)". (comic book) appears in the Publications and other media types section after "when needing to further disambiguate a comics-related article related to media..." Argento Surfer (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, I see now, but shouldn't it be (comic)? "Comics" is plural and if there is only one series does that realy make sense?★Trekker (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying and often use it that way myself in speech and writing. For some reason, the plural version is used more widely and preferred by more people. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess it would be good if we tried to implement both when they are relevant, for example The Punisher title would be at (comics) because there have been several series/volumes of the title, while something like Nick Fury should be at (comic) because there has only been one series by that title. But maybe that would be to hard to implement.★Trekker (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's a one-shot, some could argue there were multiple comics in the series. I suggest seeking more input on the main comic project discussion page and/or an RfC before you start making any changes. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really planning to make any changes right now, it's just food for thought for me. I might bring it up in the future when I have some more time over.★Trekker (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of outdated guidance

I was reorganizing this guideline and wikilinking several examples. In doing so, I discovered that several sections ("By codename", "By character name", "Disambiguation page example") give article organization and disambiguation guidance which is no longer used. The relevant sections are visible with their wikilinks in this edit, so anyone is free to verify that the links are actually redirects, not an organizational practice which is in actual use. I had removed those sections as they are clearly incorrect, but have been reverted now twice. If anyone can speak to whether there is any actual value to the removed sections, please do so, otherwise the sections should be removed. -- Netoholic @ 18:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this a look and see how I feel about it, but I must say that I'm pre-disposed to oppose you here. You've opened several move requests recently that didn't go your way. Some repeatedly. The opposers often cited these guidelines. Now you come here to boldly edit them without discussion? And pursued it further after being reverted and asked to get consensus first? Even if your edits here are good, this is bad form. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASPERSIONS. Also, I didn't open the Venom move, but I did suggest the alternative which is winning consensus. Spend more time looking at my edit here and less gathering "incriminating" links. --Netoholic @ 15:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - I was mistaken about who opened the Venom move. Sorry.
If you think my comment above is part of a continual or routine line of accusations of misbehavior, I'd appreciate some diffs showing such. Otherwise, please consider my comments about your behavior as the constructive criticism they were intended to be.
I provided those links so other editors who stumbling into this discussion are aware of the background of this non-neutral proposal.
I'll comment on your edits here when I'm ready. At the moment, I'm still trying to find a neutral frame of mind to review them. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, once you rise out of your fainting couch and review the edit, you'll see I didn't touch any part related to (character) dab. By your own admission, you haven't reviewed the edit, so you cannot claim that its a "non-neutral proposal". Such "constructive criticism" is more appropriate for my Talk page, doing so here is casting aspersions, made worse because you've already made at least one admitted factual error in this "criticism". Feel free to delete this whole sub-thread between me and you, if you like, since its kind of embarrassing for you and an baseless personal attack on me. -- Netoholic @ 17:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your initial comment on this page, and describing a portion of the guideline as "clearly incorrect" is not neutral. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess we'll keep going down this hole you're digging. By way of example, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics)#By codename is OBJECTIVELY INCORRECT as if you look up any of the Codename (full name) pages given in the example structure, they are redirects and not standalone articles. This structure also contradicts with sections higher up in this same guideline (ie to use (character) as disambiguation). Me saying it is "clearly incorrect" isn't based on me being "non-neutral", its based on the section being fucking wrong. -- Netoholic @ 18:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The examples may be incorrect, but the format is still applicable in other cases. Why not update the examples to Nova (Richard Rider), Nova (Sam Alexander), and Nova (Frankie Raye)? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Green Lantern (Hal Jordan) appears to have been moved to Hal Jordan in January 2007 without discussion. The edit summary cites these guidelines, but at the time the guidelines were using it as an example. Ditto for Kyle Rayner and Guy Gardner. John Stewart was moved back to Green Lantern (John Stewart) in 2012, but it was reverted with one-sided commentary. @Aoidh: who reverted the move. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, doesn't this prove my point about this all being outdated? About a year after the "By codename" stuff was added here, the PRIME example was moved to differ from it and has been at that stable title for ELEVEN years. The Nova articles you cite are simply low-visibility topics which just happen to be still sitting at bad titles and haven't been fixed yet. Its understandable why there would be inconsistencies since this guideline is giving conflicting guidance, and I'll add there is even further confusion since WP:CMOS#NAME also gives naming guidance which conflicts (noted since at least May 2014). Frankly, within the comics wikiproject, article naming is a clusterfuck. And based on the response I've gotten here recently, I can see why no one is motivated to work on it. -- Netoholic @ 22:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose behind this part of the guideline is for occasions when multiple characters from the same publisher share a codename, and that codename is without question their common name. Moving Nova (Richard Rider) to Richard Rider (currently a redirect) is not an improvement. And what would you do with Captain Marvel (Mar-Vell)?

Just because the example given in the guideline was changed doesn't mean the guideline is useless. I suspect (but can't confirm, since I can find no explanation) that the GL articles were moved because at the time of the move those characters were in the midst of being other-colored lanterns and/or using different codenames like "Warrior" and "Ion", which puts them in a Carol Danvers-type situation. She's located at her civilian name because she's waffled between three or four codenames that all had notable use and duration. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the stated purpose of the sections, but it fails in its implementation and the guidance runs counter to how characters are disambiguated in other media. Parenthetical disambiguation usually follows the pattern A (B) where A is a B - in other words, B is a term used to describe a broad class to which A belongs. We use Pink (singer) not Pink (Alecia Beth Moore). In other media naming conventions (WP:NCTV, WP:NCFILM, WP:NCBOOKS), characters use the title of the publication (ex. Ishmael (Moby-Dick)), or sometimes (character) if the name is the same as the franchise title (ex. Austin Powers (character)) but don't use codename/fullname combinations (ex. James Bond (literary character) not James Bond (007)). Recently, the comics naming convention has been moving in this typical direction, but these sections are old and contradict that. -- Netoholic @ 20:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, in most cases, the comics project follows that too. This section is for a small subset of characters. How many singers are named Pink? How many Ishmael characters are in Moby Dick? Argento Surfer (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Creating a consistent naming convention style for character names across media types

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Creating a consistent naming convention style for character names across media types . Gonnym (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposed: WP:NCCOMICS to MOS:COMICS (which is already ~50% NC material)

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics#Merge in WP:NCCOMICS

We have WP:Manual of Style/Comics, the top half of which is naming-conventions material. Then we have WP:Naming conventions (comics), a competing comics naming convention. This is a silly WP:POLICYFORK. Having a combined guideline is thus proposed, based on successfully combined MoS/NC pages in other topics. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish I think it was the way it was done back when I started all of these, there were naming conventions and manuals of style. They were never meant to be policy forks, and should support each other rather than be in opposition. If we no longer have naming conventions, then yes, merge. I see Naming conventions went to article titles,. so what's the best way forwards? Hiding T 18:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we still have various naming conventions pages. If there's enough material to support both MOS:FOO and WP:NCFOO for topic FOO, and a combined page would be uncomfortably long, then we have separate ones, but for many narrow subjects, they're just merged into one (the MoS one, since MoS pages might have naming material in them as a type of style matter, but a naming conventions page would only be about naming not about all style matters). Having forgotten about this for a long time, I think a reasonable approach would be simply merging the naming material out of MOS:COMICS into WP:NCCOMICS (other than maybe a tiny bit of summary with a {{Main|Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics)}} on it). What's not good is having a really huge naming conventions section at MOS:COMICS that is in direct competition with a WP:NCCOMICS guideline on the same thing. At very best it's entirely redundant, but what's more likely is slowly forking apart over time so that there are conflicting rules and people fighting over them. I have a lot of experience resolving such issues, so I'll probably just draft up a merge in a sandbox, and implement it after people have had time to point out me messing something up in it somewhere. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question on disambiguation

I should have looked here before I did the disambiguation. So, here's my case. In 2010, WildStorm/DC Comics put out a comic series based on the God of War video game series. The article here was initially titled God of War (comics). No problem there as that's how the style guide says to do it. Well, now here in 2018, Dark Horse Comics has put out a new series also based on the game series and they used the exact same name (just as the 2018 game did: God of War (2005 video game) and God of War (2018 video game)). I retitled the first one as God of War (2010 comic series) and the new one as God of War (2018 comic series) (currently a redirect as I am sandboxing it). The year's made sense to me as that's how games are disambiguated. Since both of these series are part of the same universe, should I still disambiguate by the publisher? Please ping me on response. --JDC808 ♫ 12:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics)#Publications and other media types When a title has been published by more than one company, use the publisher name to disambiguate, i.e. James Bond (Dynamite Entertainment). --Gonnym (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JDC808: Gonnym answered you. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: @Argento Surfer: Okay, so how would I disambiguate the first one? It was a six-issue series. WildStorm published #1-5, but they closed and their parent company DC Comics published #6 as well as the trade paperback. Should I just go with DC for it? --JDC808 ♫ 13:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use DC. If you think there could still be confusion, you can make God of War (Wildstorm) as a redirect to God of War (DC Comics). Argento Surfer (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 13:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline needs updating

The guideline needs updating on what to do if there are multiple notable characters with the same name but appear in different media. I suggest we add the sentence: "Articles primarily about characters appearing in a comic may use the phrase (comics) if another article exists about a character with the same that appears primarily outside of comics."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you meant "with the same name that appears". Otherwise, support.--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]