This page is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
As the remit of this group is to put more focus on non-Marvel/DC articles I think the first aim should be to get the entries for the main publishers as quite a few of them have only just managed to shake off notability tags and still need a lot of work, sometimes to less the impact of editing by people connected to the company. So for example: Dark Horse Comics. (Emperor14:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
This got my thinking as Dark Horse Comics, Image Comics, IDW Publishing, etc. all have big old lists on their main page which seems unnecessary and leads to bulky and unwieldy pages. It struck me all we really need there are the current titles and then we can keep the big assed lists on a separate page. Oddly Dark Horse has a separate list for List of current Dark Horse Comics publications which seems to be the wrong way round to me, obviously current publication lists take a bit more work to stay up-to-date and having them on the main page seems ideal as they get the focus there.
So that is what I'm suggesting (and exactly the kind of thing the project is for ;) ): Keep the main page for a company history and current publications and move the lists of titles to a separate entry.
Not specific for these articles (not my specialty), but in general, I dislike the focus on "current" in any Wikipedia article, be it the "current squad" of a sports team or the "current magazines" from a publisher. The "current" are no more important than any that have stopped, and are too much in need of reworking. More logical (all IMO) would be a list of major "whatever" (players, magazines, series), e.g. for a publisher, all magazines with more than 5 years or 100 issues (random numbers) are listed in the main article, and a link to the complete list of publications is given (separate article). It makes little sense to not list a series that ran for thirty years and 1500 issues in the main article, but on the other hand to list a 6 issue miniseries, only because the second is "current". Fram15:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd see a few things there - firstly important works that have a few years under their belt and/or a big following are going to be mentioned in the actual history of the publisher in a more prose style which actually explains their importance. Equally, I have seen articles with sections for "notable titles" and it is impossible to police because they are so subjective and the "notable" always gets knocked off - leaving us where we are now.
My idea for keeping the current series on the front page was because they'd tend to get updated rather than if they are lost on some sub-page - its clear the list of current Dark Horse publications doesn't get updated often enough to be viable where it is.
Of course, this raises the other option I didn't mention - don't have any lists of publications on the main page. There isn't really a need to have a list of any publications on the main page if there is a separate page with them on. This could have the effect of forcing people to actually write longer histories rather than simply dropping an item into a list. On reflection, this seems like the option I might lean towards although I'd need to ponder the issue some more before coming to a firm conclusion. (Emperor15:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Either a complete list in the main article (for minor publishers with a short list) or a separate complete list is probably the best option. Such a list can be made into a good, informative table (not just a list of names), with first and last publication, number of issues, and probably a few things more as well. This would probably be the best option in most cases. Fram15:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like your idea of a table as there is a real limit to the usefulness of a simple list (as currently exist) unless you are quickly looking for the link and moving on. What would you do about things, like Hellboy published largely as limited series? Have them in the same cell or something more cunning?
If we went down this road I could see how we could "add value" to the list which we couldn't do on the mainpage without drowning out the important bits. (Emperor17:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
...And that's where my limits of knowledge wrt superhero comics and the US scene comes in. I don't know enough about all this, I have indeed noticed a multitude of miniseries, one-offs, crossovers, ... The good old days of Action Comics 1 - 9999 seem far away sometimes. How to actually turn this into a readable, informative table is something else. In some cases, something like the tables in Buffy comics may be preferable (ordered from an in-universe perspective), in other cases an ordering by publication date (out-of-universe) may be better... I'll let the members of this work group decide on that :-) Fram19:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - it is less about the actual publications and more about stylistic/layout issues - which tend to be more universal (so your input has been very useful). I'll have a look around the various options and see what I can come up - perhaps sandboxing something to see how it looks. (Emperor15:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Just chip in to say I agree with the consensus here. Tables seems to be the way to go after a perusal of featured lists. With Hellboy I'd just list them by publication date, or maybe split them onto a separate page along with BPRD books. HidingTalk00:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you guys handling the original English-language comics published by companies like Tokyopop? Bizenghast, I Luv Halloween are a couple of examples. As I was putting together some resources for the world comics group, I realized that Anime News Network might be helpful for some general info and news on those types of series. It's an independent, pretty complete database for "manga-style" comics and is, by and large, considered pretty reliable. Great as a starting point, anyway! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?
There is currently an RfC on the article discussion page for DC Extended Universe regarding the inclusion of the as-yet unmade Batman movie; to whit, is there notable, reliable sourcing that the film is within the subset of the DC Universe called the DC Extended Universe? More eyes and voices are always welcome. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am very thankful and grateful that the article is accepted within the scope of the Comics Work Group months ago. However, I am having some trouble trying to rework the article to fit more within Wikipedia's "fictional universe" standards/requirements. And that is the reason why I wrote the article in a manner largely similar to the way the articles for both Marvel Universe and DC Universe were written. Any help or input from anyone would be greatly welcomed. LonerXL (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
