Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/exemplars

message: Some thoughts on exemplars and format for articles about superheroes and super villains and teams:
====Introductions to articles====
I think most articles about superheroes, supervillains and teams should begin under the following structure:
“{Name of character} ({birth name}) is a {Name of comic book company} {superhero/villain/team}. Created by {creator(s)}, he/she/they first appeared in {Name of series} #{issue number} ({year}).” 
For example:
Daredevil (Matt Murdock) is a Marvel Comics superhero. Created by Stan Lee and Bill Everett, he first appeared in Daredevil #1 (1964).
And then the intro should include a small overview about the character or team and his/her/its significance to a certain comic book family, comic books in general and, if applicable, popular culture in general.
Some exceptions would include: 
* When several different characters have used the title, such as The Flash and Green Lantern, the birth name of one particular character should not be not in parenthesis next to the name of the character.
* When a superhero has been owned by more than one company such as Captain Marvel, then an explanation of ownership can wait.
* When a character is not exactly a superhero or villain, such as Catwoman or Venom, then perhaps “character” should be used instead of super hero or villain.
* When the exact circumstance under which a character was created or developed is complex, such as Wolverine, whose creators did not develop him into the character we know today or X-Force, which developed from prior concepts and using mostly previously created characters, then the exact manor of creation should wait until an appropriate section. No one person and persons should be misleadingly listed a the “creator.”
* When the character’s first appearance was not in an numbered issue, such as the Sub-Mariner or The Tick, then just the creator and year is needed.
Some things I think should be prohibited, unless there are specific circumstances to warrant them:
* “{Name of character} is a fictional character…” or “{Name of character} is a fictional superhero.” Readers can assume that a superhero or villain is a fictional character.
*  “{Name of character} is a {superhero} in the {Name of comic book company} universe.” This is common but is a pet peeve of mine for several reasons. Firstly, people unfamiliar with comic books may not know what a “universe” is and those who are familiar know that Marvel characters usually exist with other Marvel characters, DC characters with other DC characters ect. It would warrant a special explanation if a character was owned by Marvel or DC did not exist in said company’s collective setting. It particularly bothers me in the articles about culturally significant superheroes, such as Batman, Superman, Spider-Man ect., which discuss franchising and rise and falls in popularity and other things happening far outside any fictional universe. 
* "{Name of character} is also the name of a series featuring {Name of character}" In an era after the Silver Age, it would warrant explanation if the series were named anything else.
====Publication Histories and “Fictional Biographies”====
The idea of having both a “publication history” and a “fictional biography” is not a bad one but it leads to several problems:
1) What is the definition of either term? Is a publication history simply a recap of which series have featured a character and when? Or does it also include creators who worked on the series and the contributions they made to the character’s mythos? Is a fictional biography a telling of the history of Peter Parker or Reed Richards as if he were Sigmund Freud or Mohammed Ali? Does it identify reconned information as so or does the fact that Wolverine was born on an Alberto plantation at the turn of the century go up top even though it is a recently added part of the characters’ mythos?
2) In my opinion, a “fictional biography” heading is not a license to speak about a fictional character as if he were a real person. It is more useful, in my mind, to discuss how Wolverine and his character have changed over time than it is to recount the whole messy history as if it were fact.
3) Often bits of information are repeated. Both the publication history and the fictional biography in the Wolverine section tell readers that:
* Wolverine was once a Canadian government agent
* He first appeared in comics as an enemy of the Hulk
* He’s had a hostile relationship with Alpha Fight
* He joined the X-Men in 1975
* He has a crush on Jean Grey
* He often clashes with Cyclops
* The mini-series Origin filled in many gaps in his history
Personally, I think publication histories should be just that. A short description of the publications the character has starred in or regularly appeared in over the years. This may not be nessescary for characters whose history has, more or less, unfolded in only one series (Daredevil, The Fantastic Four).
"Fictional Biography" should include a character's history, who added what aspects to the character and when. Writers should resist the temptation to discuss a fictional character as if he/she were a real person. Writers should not be afraid to use phrases like "Claremont then changed…" or "Marvel decided to..." or "Fan reaction was mixed” in the "fictional biography section." - User:Rorschach567, 12/21/04
*Dammit, Rorschach, now you've nearly convinced me to drop the whole dichotomy. Perhaps the "fictional biography" should contain the essential character background that everyone can agree upon and which a reader would need to know? "Peter Parker was a brilliant but socially awkward student when a radioactive spider bite granted him super-powers. The subsequent murder of his Uncle Ben taught Peter that "with great power comes great responsibility," and he dedicated his life to fighting crime as Spider-Man. Over the years, he has married his college sweetheart Mary Jane Watson, but also cultivated many enemies, such as the Green Goblin and Venom." "Bruce Wayne's parents were murdered when he was X years old, prompting him to dedicate his life to fighting crime. After years of training, he began stalking the streets of Gotham City in costume, fighting criminals as Batman. He was soon joined by the young acrobat Dick Grayson, who fought beside him as Robin. blah blah blah" etc. All the juicy stuff could then wait until the other section, whatever we call it, which would detail major writing/art/continuity/popularity changes, naming names. Something in the style of the current X-Force article, I suppose.
Or is that too vague and useless? I really haven't wrapped my mind around this problem yet. I could live with your suggestions, though. -leigh (φθόγγος) 08:37, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
*Hi, I'm new here, but it occurs to me that we could save ourselves a fair amount of trouble by retitling the "fictional biography" as "character biography" or perhaps "character/team history".  This would get around the criticism Rorscharch expressed about using the word "fictional" in these biographies. [This comment left by Lokicarbis, 15:52, Jan 5, 2005]
***"Character/team history" does not equal "fictional biography". Each character has real-world history which includes its development, publication history, controversies, and repercussions. Doczilla 20:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rorschach567's Thoughts on Exemplars

message: The idea of having both a “publication history” and a “fictional biography” is not a bad one but it leads to several problems:
1) What is the definition of either term? Is a publication history simply a recap of which series have featured a character and when? Or does it also include creators who worked on the series and the contributions they made to the character’s mythos? Is a fictional biography a telling of the history of Peter Parker or Reed Richards as if he were Sigmund Freud or Mohammed Ali? Does it identify reconned information as so or does the fact that Wolverine was born on an Alberto plantation at the turn of the century go up top even though it is a recently added part of the characters’ mythos?
2) In my opinion, a “fictional biography” heading is not a license to speak about a fictional character as if he were a real person. It is more useful, in my mind, to discuss how Wolverine and his character have changed over time than it is to recount the whole messy history as if it were fact.
3) Often bits of information are repeated. Both the publication history and the fictional biography in the Wolverine section tell readers that:
* Wolverine was once a Canadian government agent
* He first appeared in comics as an enemy of the Hulk
* He’s had a hostile relationship with Alpha Fight
* He joined the X-Men in 1975
* He has a crush on Jean Grey
* He often clashes with Cyclops
* The mini-series Origin filled in many gaps in his history
Personally, I think publication histories should be just that. A short description of the publications the character has starred in or regularly appeared in over the years. This may not be nessescary for characters whose history has, more or less, unfolded in only one series (Daredevil, The Fantastic Four).
"Fictional Biography" should include a character's history, who added what aspects to the character and when. Writers should resist the temptation to discuss a fictional character as if he/she were a real person. Writers should not be afraid to use phrases like "Claremont then changed…" or "Marvel decided to..." or "Fan reaction was mixed” in the "fictional biography section." - User:Rorschach567, 12/21/04
*Dammit, Rorschach, now you've nearly convinced me to drop the whole dichotomy. Perhaps the "fictional biography" should contain the essential character background that everyone can agree upon and which a reader would need to know? "Peter Parker was a brilliant but socially awkward student when a radioactive spider bite granted him super-powers. The subsequent murder of his Uncle Ben taught Peter that "with great power comes great responsibility," and he dedicated his life to fighting crime as Spider-Man. Over the years, he has married his college sweetheart Mary Jane Watson, but also cultivated many enemies, such as the Green Goblin and Venom." "Bruce Wayne's parents were murdered when he was X years old, prompting him to dedicate his life to fighting crime. After years of training, he began stalking the streets of Gotham City in costume, fighting criminals as Batman. He was soon joined by the young acrobat Dick Grayson, who fought beside him as Robin. blah blah blah" etc. All the juicy stuff could then wait until the other section, whatever we call it, which would detail major writing/art/continuity/popularity changes, naming names. Something in the style of the current X-Force article, I suppose.
Or is that too vague and useless? I really haven't wrapped my mind around this problem yet. I could live with your suggestions, though. -leigh (φθόγγος) 08:37, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
*Hi, I'm new here, but it occurs to me that we could save ourselves a fair amount of trouble by retitling the "fictional biography" as "character biography" or perhaps "character/team history".  This would get around the criticism Rorscharch expressed about using the word "fictional" in these biographies. [This comment left by Lokicarbis, 15:52, Jan 5, 2005]
***"Character/team history" does not equal "fictional biography". Each character has real-world history which includes its development, publication history, controversies, and repercussions. Doczilla 20:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Publication Histories and &#8220;Fictional Biographies&#8221;

message: *I think we can agree that articles should generally be about characters, not series, except (of course) when the titles are different. With that in mind, I think it would be useful to separate the different information that we're trying to present:
#Which comic book series the character has appeared in. When and by whom these comics were produced.
#A history of the character's or series' reception, by fans or the general public. This also includes "cultural relevance".
#A summary of the stories that have been told about the character over the years.
#The current "canonical" take on the character (if it's not obvious from #3).
:Is that an accurate breakdown? Can these all be smoothly synthesized? Or should they be broken into groups? The introduction should probably have a brief nod to each one of thse facets. What are your thoughts? -leigh (φθόγγος) 19:36, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
::This may sound evasive because one of the purposes of this project is to come up with some universal guidelines about comics-related articles, but I think it is only important that contributors include all four and that where and how they do so can change depending on the character and the writing style of the contributor. --Rorschach567 19:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More thoughts on structure of ''character'' articles

message: Partly in response to Hiding's post at Talk:Wolverine_%28comics%29#Section_listings, partly because this came up before, we didn't get anything near a consensus and it fizzled out.
I accept, even if I don't like, the fact that most people want Ultimate versions included in the main articles. With that in mind, here's how I think articles should go, as a starting point. Characters like Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, etc that have become more general pop culture icons aren't included so much in this.
(Introduction)
Obvious, no actual heading. Basically listing current/primary codename, real name, other significant codenames, publishing company, creators. Since long intros seem to be frowned upon in general, that should be pretty much it.
Publication history (open to renaming suggestions for most of these)
Real-life history of the character, who wrote it, what series they've had, their longevity, etc. Focusing on the comic, but passing mentions of all other-media versions, and acknowledging where these versions have impacted on the comics. Also mentioning reboots, etc.
Primary continuity - Golden Age version', Pre-Crisis version, Post-Crisis version, Marvel Universe version, etc if there's more than one comics version, Character biography if there isn't.
Filling in the first (or primary, if the "main" version isn't the original) continuity version of the character's history. Subsequent sections, Ultimate Marvel version, etc should follow if necessary, noting divergances. If the character is sufficiently different, in name, etc, or the article is excessively long, then this should be short and a Main article: ARTICLE NAME link should be provided.
Appearances in other media
Again, this depends on the significance of the other-media versions. If it can be covered in a sufficiently short space, here, otherwise breakout.
Powers and abilities
Discussing the commonalities only of the "major" versions (except where one, as with Superfriends Wonder Woman is completely different), leaning towards the primary and current versions but not excluding the others. Should not be excessive, or copyvio OHOTMU, etc stats - which are rarely held to in the comics anyway.
Bibliography
Sub-heading: List of titles
This should be a complete list of all solo stories of the character, as with most comics bibliographies now [i.e. in the form Booperman #1-499 (Geldof 3092 - Hexember 3189, Fictional Comics), etc as a bulleted list]
Sub-heading: List of Significant stories
What it says on the tin, with the same idea as #Essential Reading above. Need to be checked for POV, etc, obviously.
External links
Bet you can't guess ;)
Comment? - SoM 20:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Characters like Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, etc that have become more general pop culture icons aren't included so much in this..  However, yeah, I take the point.  I think Jamdav86's version down below solves that problem.  What do you think? I have some objections I'll address there. Hiding  talk 17:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: The way these are phrased, these don't have much context to them.  They would read much better if rephrased:
:{character name} (real name {real name})...
It also allows for easier clarification of ambiguous or special cases like Deadpool, Wolverine, and Moon Knight.  -Sean Curtin 01:06, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
:I'm not sure I follow, but feel free to amend the page to how you would prefer. Hiding  talk 18:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real name 

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

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

message: All.  Any idea if someone is going to propose or put forth some kind of template for comic publishers?  I've been doing a lot of editing/creating of such pages, mainly for the smaller, now defunct, companies.  Typically I try to cover a history of the company (who started, when, when they went under), what characters (especially superheroes) they created/published, and what titles they put out (with number of issues, dates).  I know others have included the company logo(s), which I think is great, etc.  --Emb021 19:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last thought I remember us having was that, given they are businesses the Template:Infobox Company would suffice. Hiding  talk 22:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comic publisher template

message: Should the article include a list of main characters and the different arcs within the series (particularly for finite series that ended/will end after a number of issues)? Sin City is a good example of this.
Does a comic book series that is now published in graphic novel form fall under this category? Eilu 21:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * okay, thanks. --Eilu 11:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphic Novels 

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

message: In light of some recent problems of comics-related pages, I'd like to propose some changes to our exemplar guidelines. Please, share your thoughts, everyone.
*“Since long intros seem to be frowned upon in general, our guidline is that the preceding information is sufficient.” 
I’d like to change this to:
*“The length of the article should determine the length of the intro. For long, in-depth articles, usually about important, long-standing characters, an intro should gives the casual reader the information needed for a basic understanding of a character and his or her importance. For shorter articles, the preceding information may sufficient. Pedantic information, even if it relates to information in the intro, should be included later.” 
As the comics project and Wikipedia in general grow, articles are becoming longer and readers are forced to plow through the entire article to get the basic gist of the character.
*"The opening sentence is currently formatted as '{Name of character} ({birth name}) is a {Name of comic book company} {superhero/villain/team}. Created by {creator(s)}, he/she/they first appeared in {Name of series} #{issue number} ({year}).'"
**I’d like to add that occasionally a character’s ties to a greater franchise or singular contribution to comic book history is noted in opening sentence. Some examples:
***Shadowcat (Kitty Pryde) is a Marvel Comics superhero, a member of the X-Men. Created by writer Chris Claremont and artist/co-writer John Byrne, she first appeared in Uncanny X-Men #129 (January 1980). 
***The Riddler, real name Edward Nigma, is a DC Comics supervillain and an enemy of Batman. Created by Bill Finger and Dick Sprang, he first appeared in Detective Comics #140 (1948).
***Northstar (Jean-Paul Beaubier) is a Marvel Comics superhero, a member of Alpha Flight and the X-Men. He is best known as one of the first openly gay superheroes in American comic books. Created by writer Chris Claremont and artist/co-writer John Byrne, Northstar first appeared in Uncanny X-Men #120 (April 1979).
*I'd also like to add that it is usually not nesescary to note that a superhero or villain is also fictional character.
*Under Fictional character biography, I’d like to include "Biographies that retell storylines in detail are discouraged." I think this is becoming a problem. 
*Like the Other versions section the (Character) in other media should note divergences. 
Rorschach567 00:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to sign up to all these changes bar the move to exclude stating that "foo is a fictional character".  The lead should always state that the character is fictional, although whether that takes the form "foo is a fictional superhero" is fine by me. Hiding Talk 20:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the "foo, real name Foo Foo, is a fictional (character/superhero/supervillain) in the Example Comics Example Universe" format. It provides links right in the first sentence to both the company and the larger universe in which the character exists. Useful for first time readers. CovenantD 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure "The length of the article should determine the length of the intro". Spider-Man has an enormously long entry, so why make the intro longer? Even for a character with Spider-Man's history and influence, a concise, tightly written intro is just as good for him as for any entry. I also believe the final two sentences in that suggestions are redundant, and that the sentence "Pedantic information, even if it relates to information in the intro, should be included later". The term "pedantic information" in particular is open to wide interpretation. What one person consider pedantic information, another considers necessary perspective. -- Tenebrae 15:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Highly agree with "Biographies that retell storylines in detail are discouraged." -- Tenebrae 15:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. Me too. --Chris Griswold 17:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have anything to say except what Tenebrae and CovenantD have said. --Chris Griswold 17:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some changes to the comic book charactrers section of the exemplars page 

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

message: I have questions about this new part: "unless there has already been substantial hype and press coverage about comics not yet published, information regarding such comics may be considered speculation"
I am not a fan of including solicitation information; I think it's unreliable. See Emerald Twilight, The Sentry, and Infinite Crisis solicitations and hype for example. How much press are we talking about? Mainstream press attention for Civil War and Batwoman? Newsarama's Joe Fridays Marvel PR days? Preview pages? Solicitation information? Wizard interviews?
Where do we draw the line of these things? I really think we need to have a vague understanding at least of what's viable information and what's hype.--Chris Griswold 19:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: hype and press for future comics

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Navboxes 

message: Posts on other talk pages suggest that this section is no longer recommended, for pov reasons? Is that so - and if so, do we need to update the exemplars? --Mrph 20:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say yes to both, but a larger discussion should happen first. CovenantD 20:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, we can list "award-winning stories". Much precedential discussion throughout the Comics Project has established that "List of significant stories", "List of notable issues", etc. is inherently POV, and it's only an oversight that it hasn't been removed from the exemplar. As User:Jamdav86, for just one example, stated in Talk:Iron Man on 3 October 2006, "Reference the issues in the pub. and character histories, remove the list." --Tenebrae 13:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Characters - Significant stories

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

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

message: The current standard calls for two subheadings to be used for the sections of the article dealing with the character's history.
:;Publication history:real world history, titles, creators, etc.
:;Fictional character biography:character's past, in-universe.
However, there's been some concern that "Fictional character biography" is redundant, since the lead section already establishes that we're talking about fictional characters and not, say, moral characters or typographical characters.
Also, the "fictional character biography" tends to be too in-universe, while per WP:WAF it should be written from an out-of-universe, real-world perspective, and avoid plot summary as much as possible.  Also, what heading does one use when the article is quite short?  For instance, if the character doesn't have a lot of appearances or their publication history is extremely straightforward.  (Publication history: Spider Jerusalem appears in Transmetropolitan #1-60.  Every single issue is by Warren Ellis and Darrick Robertson.  The end.)
Therefore, I propose a revision.
For shorter or less complex articles:
:;Character history: describes both real-world and fictional details, such as creators, first appearance, origin story, etc.  In practice, most will be initially written from an in-universe perspective, but should be translated to to out-of-universe as soon as possible.  "Writer A wrote that Character X's origin was YZ in Foo #5, while Writer B later elaborated EFG in Foo #46."
For longer and more complex articles, as when characters have multiple titles, multiple creators, have been relaunched, have been reinterpreted, etc., that can be split to be more readable and accessible:
:;Publication history: describes titles, sales, creation disputes, and so on.
:;Character biography: describes in-universe events, overarching plots and major developments, but still with out-of-universe perspective (what creators changed what, what issue stuff happened in, any creator comments on specific changes) whenever possible.
Articles about real people (non-fictional characters?) who appear in comics should not have "character biography" or "character history" sections, as they are not characters, and anything said about them may have to conform to WP:BIOGRAPHY guidelines.  I can't actually think of any off hand, so I can't offer anything else on the subject.  In many cases it would be best to link to their biographies.
So, what else? --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 19:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Character history" is the one that struck me as potentially the most confusing. When going through these articles's history sections to see where they fail to make their fiction clear, that's the version of I had to check most carefully to make sure what it was about, whether it was strictly the fictional history, real-world back story, or a mix of both. There's no consistency. In terms of content, what makes the fiction-check most difficult is when the section starts off with in-universe details about the character's bio the same way you'd write a real person's biography, then at some point bounces into publication history. Right now, I'm playing wikignome with this thing, making my best guess as to what will fit both (1) our previously established consensus for the headings and (2) whatever mix of material is actually in that section. Most of them need for editors to either separate fictional biography from publication history altogether (which reads clearly but runs into problems given Wikipedia's intentions regarding encyclopedic content) or invest the time to write an appropriate encyclopedic blend of both. Such a blend, in the unfortunately infrequent cases when it has been done right, could probably be labeled "Character history". Doczilla 20:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character history, publication history, biography sections 

message: As Tenebrae has pointed out over at Talk:Blood Brothers (comics), the WP:CITE guidelines for these sections are no longer exactly in line with the WP:CMC article format. So do we need to start revising exemplars to reflect this, or is there some reason to stick with the current format? --Mrph 22:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, could you be a bit more specific on how they are not in line? A quick summary, maybe with a suggestion or two would be appreciated. CovenantD 01:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote Tenebrae's summary from the Blood Brothers page, current WP:CITE guidance is that "sources used to write an article go under "References", and other helpful citations go under "External links" if they're linkable and "Further reading" if they're not online". Footnotes go under "Footnotes", not under references. I believe this is based on the latest citation guidelines - Wikipedia:Cite sources#Notes_2, although I've not been following the discussion behind that myself, so I'm probably not the best person to explain the full background. --Mrph 08:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes and references

message: Okay, I went back to WP:LEAD, on which I based this part of the guidance, and I'm in two minds.  The relevant passage is below:
I'm thinking that the guidance to "begins with a clear description of the subject at hand" might imply publication detail should be included, as might the direction to "summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article".  So I throw it to the floor, based on WP:LEAD do we need to put first publication in or not? Hiding Talk  13:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading over that it makes me wonder how general we would need to be. Would "Character is a fiction character that has appeared in material published by Company. S/he first appeared in Year in a story published in Comic." work? — J Greb 18:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. Anybody else? Hiding Talk  14:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realized after starting this thread that there might be some conflict with WP:LEAD. Ideally, the amount of info in the lead would have a direct relationship to the size of the Publication history. A minor character that only appears in one storyline would probably be fine with XX is a fictional character that appears in the ZZZ Comics universe, in the lead, with details about creators, titles and dates left to the PH section. Somebody like Iron Man would have more info in the lead, including the original appearance info and a mention of the various publications in which he's featured. CovenantD 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:LEAD]]

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

message: I concur with User:WesleyDodds. Aside from spelling, punctuation, etc., changes to the exemplars page is a serious proposition that requires discussion. --Tenebrae 16:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Essentially, anything that changes the meaning of what we're trying to say with the exemplars needs discussion. Doczilla 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree with Oct. 7 rv

message: As we note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance#Uniform cover artwork crediting convention, parenthetical issue dates in captions abbreviate the long month names, which has also been the convention admins and others have noted, on Talk pages, as WPC style. (Overall Wiki MOS is to spell out months except in limited-space circumstances, such as parenthetical issue cites.)
There's a single erroneous non-abbreviation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars I'd like to correct. I'd also like to make clear at Uniform naming convention what might seem obvious but should be stated: that for consistency, the caption issue-date style doesn't change throughout the article. Any thoughts? --Tenebrae 16:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As one week has passed with no comments, I will make what seems confirmed as a con-controversial punctuation edit, and the clarifying statement about existing policy. --Tenebrae 14:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to correct / clarity

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

message: What's with them in #Comic book characters? I followed the sample of Riddler from this page to make an edit to Baron Mordo and wound up reverted . Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize that the italicized text is there to highlight the type of text the bullet point is talking about, right? - J Greb (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I know what you mean. It's for emphasis? Or something. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, but only for the example. It isn't how the test should look in an article ;) - J Greb (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics 

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