Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (comics)

message: 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)
thread_title: Formative Discussion

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Character vs Title 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: This is also being discussed here. CovenantD 15:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character page names 

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: 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)
replies: text: As per the discussion, updating the conventions. - jc37 00:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: (It's now moved to a sub-page of this.) - jc37 17:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Topics for naming conventions

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reprint collections 

message: 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)
thread_title: Limited series and collections with names that need disambiguation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Names in category lists

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re: Disambiguation between volumes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Status of dab phrase "(comic)" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RFC – WP title decision practice 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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. Jhenderson 777 21:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed revision of disambiguation terms 

message: 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 , and this  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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge redundant guideline material 

message: The above subsection no longer exists.  What should it be pointing to now? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 14:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably WP:NCDAB. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 ,  Argento Surfer (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The Circle 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comics and the real world 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Update 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text: Oh, we still have various naming conventions pages. If there's enough material to support both MOS: and WP:NC for topic , 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  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)
thread_title:  Merge proposed: WP:NCCOMICS to MOS:COMICS (which is already ~50% NC material) 

message: 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)
replies: text: Gonnym answered you. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Okay, thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 13:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on disambiguation 

message: 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: ""--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline needs updating