Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Volume number capped?

Removing my previous question; I found the answer on the page. Another question arises now: One parts states the format as

Title, Vol. 2, No. 1

whereas other parts give "vol. 2" (lowercase) and "volume 2" (lowercase spelled out). Also, this is the first time I'm seeing "No." used instead of the number sign (and I understand there's discussion about doing away with both "No." and "#", but there's no consensus yet).

My input would be that "vol. 2, #1" works most succinctly. Using "vol. 2, 1" or "vol. 2, 2" seems awkward and almost like a typo. Thoughts? ==Tenebrae (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. This one is easy. "vol. 2, #1" after a title is very clear. You've been away, but there's been a lot of "vol" with capitals cropping up or nothing at all and use of "no." as opposed to standard and accepted use of a "#" sign. Asgardian (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I stumble in here as a stranger, but I come in peace. There was a recent discussion that you might like to consult for your information at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style## in British English where it was pointed out that "#" is not well-understood as standing for "No." or "number" outside North America. This is not to say what is the best style for comic books, but to let you see the reasoning that has led others to a different conclusion about "#". The last thing anyone wants is some mindless 'bot (p.s. I hate 'bots) charging through comic-book articles that have been carefully tailored to your guidelines, changing all the #'s to "No.", screaming "WP:MOS!" —— Shakescene (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

We discussed above about deprecating "#" and most people thought it was better to do that, especially given there's a consensus against using it in the Manual of Style. I expect I'll be teh only person actually changing anything in any article, and I'm not a bot and I'm not someone who fights if it gets reverted. Although someone who pointedly reverted every-time I changed one would get my goat. Capitalisation of the v in volume is something I can't remember what we had agreed on. I've been led to believe capitalisation is best style though. Hiding T 12:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest not capitalizing "Vol." since it's not part of the proper-noun title, as opposed to The Essential Iron Man Volume One, say. Keeping it lowercase would eliminate any confusion in that regard.-- Tenebrae (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think we should try and avoid that as down that road confusion lies. I have also tried to write it as you state not The Essential Iron Man Vol. One because of the possibility of confusion.

There is also the option of writing it (vol. 2) #1 as this seems quite common and the use of parentheses flags the fact that it is referring to the series. (Emperor (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

While I find parentheses can add to visual clutter on a page, I think they're needed in this case if we move away from "#". It can look confusing to have "vol. 2, 3" — the layman can read that as "volumes two and three", especially in a bibliography where there might not be context that suggests we're speaking about specific issues — but "(vol. 2), 3" makes this clearer. (Not as clear as the number sign, but if "#" isn't universally understood and "no." looks award, then I can go certainly go along with something like "(vol. 2), 3". What's everyone else think? Are there alternate ways of saying it? -- Tenebrae (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a good point - I can't see an easy way to replace # and think the Comics Project needed to be consulted before this was implemented as it is pretty significant for us. Is there no way we could have a template like {{#}} which offers a tool tip that says issue number? Or even plugs into personal preferences? I've left a note on this over there but remain to be convinced this is the kind of big problem and we'd need to be sure before we change nearly every comics article.

If there is nothing we can do about this then yes parentheses seem the way forward. worth noting that I don't believe {{cite comic}} follows the current guideline, which is a bit of a faux pas ;) (Emperor (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

What's cite comic goofing on. I thought I'd cast an eye over the docs and couldn't see any use of "#". Have I missed something else? My feeling on the "#" is that we should avoid it in the article body, but I doubt anyone cares enough to make it an issue in meta-data and in lists and the like. So a cite would be fine, but you wouldn't say in the "next #" or "in #456 Superman got caught short". So it's a question of style. ;) On the other issue of Vol vs vol, we're all agreed it is "vol", yes? Hiding T 09:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, with regards confusion over the the proper-noun title, in the article body doesn't the use of italics make this clear, so The Essential Iron Man Vol. 1 wouldn't really offer any potential for confusion, would it? Hiding T 11:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

At the moment it is making the volume number bold so instead of Spider-Man vol. 2 I think you are getting Spider-Man 1. And yes it should be "vol." not "Vol." (as the latter is often used as an abbreviation of Volume in the trade collections - although we should avoid this where possible to avoid confusion - I'd always try and write "The Essential Iron Man Volume 1" unless there are space considerations like an infobox), although it may be we eventually go for "(vol.)" not vol. if there is no # as "Spider-Man vol. 2 2" is confusing.

And yes in the text it should be (and probably should have always been) in the long form. As in "Spider-Man issue 1 saw", I personally try and avoid abbreviations in the main ody of text as much as possible as it can make it trickier for non-native English speakers, which is why I try and avoid dates like 03-01-2008 as the ordering is different in different countries (I know it still gives me a headache) although I don't object to it being used as a timestamp on the accessdate field as it isn't as important as the date the piece was published. (Emperor (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC))

Hang on. At cite comic are we getting Spider-Man 1 instead of Spider-Man vol. 2 or instead of Spider-Man vol. 1? The latter I can live with because the citation style used at cite comics is proper cite style. I don't mind so much if hand-written cites differ to template formatted cites, but I'd rather the cite comics format stayed as it is, it's a standard cite style that all templates are currently using, at least per last time I rebuilt it. If it is doing the former, we have an issue. With the rest I've looked at {{Cite book}} and they're guiding that with the title "The Essential Iron Man Volume 1" it can be either "The Essential Iron Man. Volume 1." or "The Essential Iron Man. Volume 1.", so that's more options into the mix. I'm wondering if it shouldn't even be "The Essential Iron Man. Volume 1: Tales Of Suspence #39-72." or similar? Gosh it is confusing. Although we seem to at least agree that we don't abbreviate in the article body. Parentheses work, so perhaps we have either "Spider-Man (vol. 2) 2" or "Spider-Man vol. 2 no. 2" or "Spider-Man 2 2"? Thoughts? Hiding T 16:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(Heading left) I'm not sure I'd put a period after the series name in titles such as Essential Iron Man Vol. 1 or the awkwardly titled Essential The Incredible Hulk Vol. 1 (and surprise to me — there's no opening "The" in the title; oy). I don't have any here with which to check the indicia, but the covers have no period after the series name, and on bookseller sites, the title appear generally to have a comma: Essential Iron Man, Vol. 1. Also, while I can't check indicia, the covers use "Vol.", and both the covers and bookseller sites treat it as part of the proper title.

The ever-astute Hiding is right — this is confusing!

On a separate note, the more examples we have of variations on number-sign issue makes me believe we need something before the issue number — if not "#," which I agree looks bad on the page (especially when it leans into a "3" or a "5" (#3 #5), making them look like possibly "8" and "6" — "Spider-Man (vol. 2) 2" and "Spider-Man 2 2" seem also to have the potential for confusion.

The example "Spider-Man vol. 2 no. 2" seems the clearest and most unambiguous, which is probably the most salient principle on which to anchor thing: What's the clearest way of expressing this, particularly to students and others who might not be familiar with academic-journal volume designations (the boldface, the italics, etc.). We do want to write for a general audience. -- Tenebrae (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What happened to?

Similarly, when describing things with lengthy publication histories, plot summaries and character biographies should be arranged in publication order, not in an in-universe order. This is so that developments like retcons are not misrepresented as having always been part of the character's history, which can give a misleading impression of the dominant portrayals of the character. I can't see it or anything like it in the current wall of text? Are we now presenting misleading made-up plot summaries as fact? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think it got lost in the wash. I wanted to tweak the writing because I find the term "retcon" too much like jargon, but never got around to tweaking the text properly. My mistake, not an intentional removal. Hiding T 12:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Cheers for the change. Also, I appreciate it is a "wall of text", so editors should feel free to sprinkle shortcuts as they see fit, avoiding the duplication of existing ones on the page. You can do so by adding <span id="SHORTCUT">{{Shortcut|WP:CMOS#SHORTCUT}}</span> just under the relevant header like so, changing both instances of "SHORTCUT" to your preferred shortcut, obviously. Hiding T 13:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it as a criticism, that's simply the nature of what you are trying to encompass on a single page - it's a problem that plagues any detailed document :-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, did I come off as defensive? It wasn't my intention, I was simply trying to get people to make short-cuts to save me the bother. I can't work out whether to short-cut everything or what will need to be short-cutted and so on and so forth... ;) Hiding T 13:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural objection: MoS

I can see no consensus for the move to promote this page to MoS status. I believe that the matter should be posted at WT:MOSCO as a proposal, and consensus gauged. Tony (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor is correct that it's more of a "style guideline" than an "editing guideline", but the distinction between "part of MoS" and "some other style guideline" isn't always obvious. {{Subcat guideline}}, with the | style guideline parameter might have been a better choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Just as an aside from a complete stranger, I'm confused why "Anime and Manga" is at the moment an official sub-page of the Manual of Style, together with abbreviations, dates & numbers, external links, etc., while "Comic Books" is not. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the distinction between between "part of MoS" and "some other style guideline"? --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The tin badge that comes free with the MoS? Hiding T 13:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Podcasts

I don't see any manual of style for these categories of articles. --luckymustard (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• This probably isn;t the best place to either look or ask, to be honest. If you could clarify,. I might be able to help you more. At the minute it just seems such a random question I have no idea how to respond. Hiding T 21:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Title changes - which to use in the references

I'm looking for some guidance to resolve an inconsistency regarding titles used in citations. In the article Sauron (comics), there are cites to consecutive issues as "Uncanny X-Men #114" and "X-Men #115". Those are references to the original X-Men series. It was originally titled X-Men. With #114, the word Uncanny began appearing on the cover. But Uncanny didn't become part of the title in the indicia until #142. So in a situation like this, what the proper citation for (1) issues prior to #114, (2) for issues from #114 to #141, and (3) for issues from #142 to present. Thanks. --JamesAM (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

For me, if we are using it as a reference - such as a footnote, 1st appearance, in text like "...in Foo #345...", or the like - I go with the indicia not the cover trade dress. So X-Men v1 become The Uncanny X-Men with 141, Green Lantern v2 becomes Green Lantern Corps with 205, and so on. (And yes, I one of those that will put in the link ''[[Uncanny X-Men|The Uncanny X-Men]]'' when I come across specific refs...) - J Greb (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Parentheticals "limited space"?

In the Uniform cover artwork crediting convention| section, I see the claim that "Parenthetical references in captions and in article prose represent limited space, as per WP:MOS." However, the linked-to portion of the MOS says specifically "Abbreviations such as Feb are used only where space is extremely limited, such as in tables and infoboxes." Those examples are things that are boxed in, and where word wrap may be problematic. It's hard to see how a parenthetical in article prose has "extremely limited" space. (I'm involved in an edit disagreement elsewhere where someone is trying to use this cover crediting convention for non-cover credit comics reference, and the conflict between the cover credit policy and the MOS guide is at play.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Seeing this again, I have to insert that you are not giving the full story. Our guidelines refer to abbreviating long months for parenthetical cover dates "in captions and in article prose". It's based on the WP:MOS idea of limited space, but each Project is free to adapt WP:MOS as best for each Project's specific circumstances. Uniformity between cover dates in captions and in article prose is a legitimate circumstance for a consistent, e.g., not sloppy look.

A lot of editors worked very hard to come up with a uniform system, built on consensus, for having such things as volume numbers and cover dates presented in a consistent way. In particular, consensus agreed that — given the sheer number of times parenthetical cover dates appear in article prose, and the desire not to have one cover-date convention for one thing and a different cover-date convention for another, creating an inconsistent look in articles — we would have one set of cover-date conventions, which the several involved editors agreed would include abbreviations for long months.

If we're going to change WikiProject MOS and do a major overhaul that affects every article in WikiProject Comics, then clearly this isn't a matter for a talk-page discussion but for a Project-wide Request for Comments. -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If this is to be the policy, then it would best be expressed in some more general location, rather than one specific to cover credits, and it should also not be done under the claim that it is per WP:MONTH, when it is in contradiction to that. I am new to Project-level discussions, so I'm not eager to set off on an RfC... but at the very least, questions of how this policy is presented seem appropriate to this talk page. -Nat Gertler (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you believe I cited WP:MONTH. I don't believe I did, because — since no overall Wikipedia policy can be one-size-fits-all to every conceivable situation — editors at the many projects, from WikiProject Comics to WikiProject Films to WikiProject Electronics, et al., can each set its own Project-wide MOS to address the specific particulars of that Project. In our case, we did so regarding parenthtical cover-date months.

The WikiProject Comics MOS was first edited by one of the Project's founders, User:Hiding, an admin who painstakingly went through reams of archived discussions above on this page, and who condensed and summarized consensus points. Discussions continued from then through 2009: For the purposes of this post, you might want to read the voluminous debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance#Titles/Dates/Issue numbers in article text, where 24 editors — fully two dozen editors — spent well over a month — from September 9 to October 19, 2009 — hashing out some of these issues for what became Hiding's September 25, 2009 summary of consensus revisions up to that date.

Like any editor, you can discuss anything here you like regarding Project style and guidelines.

But it would be a gross disservice to the two dozen editors who spent long, hard weeks and weeks working on the 2009 revisions to not alert them all about a signal change that would affect virtually every one of hundreds of pages in the project, and an RfC is the established way to alert editors on a Project-wide basis. -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you linked to WP:MONTH - this project page links to WP:MONTH in its justification. Go to the page and click on the link marked "WP:MOS" in the relevant section; you'll find that it takes one to specifically the same section as the WP:MONTH shortcut.

We have not reached a point where any signal change is taking place. As for going straight for an RfC, WP:RFC tells us "Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the talk page first." And so, here I am.

As for "where 24 editors — fully two dozen editors — spent well over a month — from September 9 to October 19, 2009 — hashing out some of these issues for what became Hiding's September 25, 2009 summary of consensus revisions up to that date", I see no mention of abbreviating months in that discussion or in that summary. That issue doesn't seem to have been one of "these issues". --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

My mistake: I saw "dates" in the subhead, and knew it was around the time we revised the guidelines. Regardless, that should give you an indication of how hard everyone has work through the years to have reached a Manual of Style consensus, which has been ongoing through 40 volumes of archived discussion. I made a stab at going through the first few topic by topic, searching for threads about this specific issue, and quickly realized that this would take hours.

Unless you can look through these archives and honestly believe that there hasn't been a large number of editors involved in every hard-fought consensus item in the Project MOS, then I'm sure you can understand why I'm saying that wholesale changes to major settled issues should not be taken as lightly as the two us of us and whoever else just happens to wander in to this discussion. An RfC is the only way to ensure that a large number of editors are aware that you're proposing this major change, and to give everyone a chance to weigh in on whether we want to go through this again. -- Tenebrae (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have heard your argument on why I should treat this as an exception to the RfC guidelines and to leap right into RfC, and have decided not to. You are, of course, free to call an RfC at this stage yourself, or to go to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment and suggest a change in the guidelines. At this point, there seem to be three issues, of which only one I could see ever getting to an RfC need:

1. Should it be the policy to abbreviate all dates in parenthetical listing of dates in articles that fall under this project? (My instinct is no. The average "cost" of not adopting this policy is 2.09 characters per parenthetical date, hardly heinous; it doesn't make it consistent within the article, because there will be dates outside of parenthesis that it will be inconsistent with -- "When President McGillicuddy was shot in August 2017, the cover of the then-current issue of All-Lovers Squadron (Oct. 2017) carried the word balloon "I killed the president... with love!" And it makes it inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia.)
2. If such abbreviation is to be policy, shouldn't it be covered in some more appropriate location than in a section on "Images", in a subsection specifically about cover credits? Proper placement would make it both more locatable and less likely to be misunderstood.
3. If such abbreviations are to be policy, shouldn't the policy be described correctly as an exception to WP:MONTH, rather than trying to paint it as being "per" that guideline when it clearly is not, and thus introducing confusion over policy?

Those latter two are not questions of policy, they are merely matters of presentation, and can even be addressed on a for-now basis without settling the first. Comments you have on those are welcome. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you're saying. The current policy is to abbreviate long months in parenthetical cover dates in captions and in article prose. If you're saying the existing policy could be expressed more clearly, either one of us can do in and do that, since we're not changing policy but clarifying what may be an awkwardly stated passage.

I believe you're comparing apples and oranges. Every article has dates of all sorts. But birthdates, for example, aren't given as 14 January 2010 and January 14, 2010 within the same article, optimally. In the same way, parenthetical cover dates, which always appear next to issue numbers, are distinct from all other kinds of dates in a comics article, and we wouldn't want them to be presented two different ways in the same article any more than we would want to present birthdates two different ways in the same article.

WP:MONTH allows exceptions. Scientific articles may use more tables than comics articles, but WP:MONTH doesn't forbid the wide variety of Projects from adapting its guidelines for the specific circumstances of each Project.

In any case: Since we're not taking it upon ourselves to unilaterally change policy, it doesn't matter if I write the clarification you feel is needed, or if you do. Whatever you prefer. -- Tenebrae (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've taken my pass on handling #s 2&3... but despite what you're saying, I'm not calling for parenthetical dates to be handled differently in different places; my seeing this variance as unnecessary holds for captions as well. Perhaps I'm not thinking of something, but the caption uses of this sort that come to mind only have one date in them - the date of the cover being pictured. And as I noted, this saves just over 2 characters per use, on average. This isn't like an infobox, where one may have a multitude of dates listed, nor is it like a table, where one cell with a "September" adds 5 characters to the entire column, and you may have several month columns in a table you're hoping to fit within page width. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The claim that this policy is not a variance from WP:MONTH does not hold up. "Abbreviations such as Feb are used only where space is extremely limited, such as in tables and infoboxes." Space is in no way extremely limited between parenthesis. To create a variance from the primary MOS may be acceptable (though unwise in this case), but if that is the case we should state so clearly, so to discourage habits gained from editing comics project articles from becoming bad habits when editing non-comics-project articles. - Nat Gertler (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We have differing interpretations of WP:MONTH. Each of us believes we are correct and that the other person is incorrect. I could support my interpretation again (the phrase "as in tables and infoboxes" gives examples and isn't meant to list the only applicable instances; we have abbreviations in comics infoboxes, and longstanding consensus is not to have parenthetical cover dates be presented two inconsistent ways; cover-date ranges can be "Sept.-Nov. 1972", for instance, so it's more than one date) but I don't believe I'll change your mind.

That being the case, would the most neutral thing would be to eliminate the disputed phrase?

I guess the final note I'd make is that we've had this consensus for years, and the veteran editors, who include admins, are all fine with this project-convention. I'm not sure what the upside is to fight over it. It hasn't really been a bone of contention for years as far as I know. -- Tenebrae (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

With a bit of research, I find that I am talking to the editor who added this material to the article, that there was no discussion on this talk page about this change. A claim of consensus based on no one having edited may reflect more that it was positioned such that it appears only to those looking for specific information on captioning a photo rather than appearing to be a general rule or showing up where editors may look for the general rules. And now that it has been questioned here, I'm only seeing one editor - that same editor - object to my criticisms of it. The upside of discussing it is that we might bring these guidelines more in line with general Wikipedia guidelines, create consistency, make the work more encylopedia-like. Discussing things that appear to be problematic is key to how Wikipedia works. I shouldn't be assuming that something doesn't need to be fixed just because no one has fixed it before. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm reading something a bit insinuating in your tone, and I'm afraid I take exception to it. We're going back a few years — I've been editing on Wikipedia since 2005 — but discussions occur on more pages than one. And consensus can be reached on matters as simple as punctuation when a properly noticeboarded request for editorial comment, properly up for a week, brings no dissension. Additionally, when admin User:Hiding, one of the founding members of the Project, contributed a hard-working effort to generate discussion by many editors, and to update and consolidate the MOS based on those discussions, this is the punctuation standard that the editors working here obviously feel comfortable with.

If you feel differently, you're certainly welcome to call for an RfC and editors will "support" or "oppose." But with so much substantive work needing to be done on the Project, I question whether this is the best use of our time. None of the veteran editors seem to have a problem with this aspect of our MOS. Do call for an RfC if you feel so strongly about how we abbreviate months in cover-date parentheses. Discussing the issue between ourselves doesn't really go anywhere. Whatever the case, as always, I will follow our WPC MOS. -- Tenebrae (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to take exception to something you choose to read into my tone, that would not appear to be something which I can stop. Checking that request for editorial comment, I see that you put this forth solely as "parenthetical issue dates in captions" (emphasis mine). So again, I do not see how that's consensus for non-caption use. As such, I'll be reverting my own edits that placed the material somewhere else in the article that is not caption-specific, as that would appear to be a change in policy without consensus having been gained. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

I got to this page circuitously from Jack Kirby, where the above, which looks like two bull elephants locking horns, seems to have originated. :)

And like wise old bull elephants they each make a good point. The cover-caption style guidelines says it applies to cover dates in prose, and that's what seems to be followed in the majority of cases, but as NatGertler says it probably needs to be stated with a subhead that actually says that. For my first time doing this, in my attempt at bringing peace, I am calling for editors to comment on whether we should state the existing policy more clearly, in a way halfway between what the two of them were going on about. So we'd have this section, which I've lifted/adapted from what they attempted to do:

--Cover dates--
When cover dates are used parenthetically, as in All-Lovers Squadron #137 (May 1983), abbreviate long months (Jan., Feb., but not March, April). Months are spelled out in regular, non-parenthetical mentions.

---Uniform cover artwork crediting convention---
[moving this part to be a section under "Cover dates," with all the examples that are already there, but not the three sentences at the bottom, beginning "The parenthetical" , which would be redundant now.] -- Farpointer (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

My comment (to little surprise of anyone who read the above) is that it should not be moved, but should be deleted, to be in accordance with WP:MONTH. Thank you for starting the RfC. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support the proposal. Infoboxes and captions represent limited space as per WP:MONTH, and to have one style of cover dates for one place and another style of cover dates for another place in the same article looks sloppy and inconsistent. Secondly, the MOS that all the regular editors in WikiProject Comics have been using for years says we abbreviate the long months in parenthetical cover dates in prose; Farpointer's proposal is that it simply be stated better. Additionally, WikiProject Comics editors don't go to WikiProject Chemistry and tell those editors how to abbreviate chemical compounds; the MOS here evolved out of common sense and common usage throughout the comics industry. Finally, there's the simple practical consideration that there are hundreds if not a couple thousand cover-dates through the many hundred comics articles, that would each have to be individually addressed. -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:MONTH does not require abbreviated months in extremely limited spaces; it only allows it. As such, if consistency is a concern, it can be achieved by not abbreviating any place. I am unclear on the statement about "WikiProject Chemistry"; if it's supposed to be suggesting that I'm some sort of outsider, let me note that I've been editing pages that fall under Wikiproject Comics going back to my first Wikipedia edit over 3 years ago. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

To paraphrase your own words at the end of the previous section: If you wish to take exception to something I'm supposed to be suggesting, that would not appear to be something which I can stop. Now: I had my say of Support, you have your say of Oppose. I don't believe we should continue to re-argue everything we've already said in voluminous detail above. Let's let other editors weigh in now, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week with no comments other than from the two editors who originally debated the issue in the section above. It's a bit disappointing for my first attempt at an RfC, which at least one of the editors did say thank you for doing.

It's pretty clear that this issue doesn't stir passions in the Comics Project, or maybe it's just the limited scope -- there's no change in policy being proposed, but just a proposal to clarify the way that the existing policy is being stated.

That said, Tenebrae makes a valid point that, given the huge breadth of topics in Wikipedia, that MOS guidelines have to be common-sensibly adapted. Abbreviations in Wiki Project Chemistry or Wiki Project South Pacific or Wiki Project Whatever should conform to what's typical in that respective field. The editor here clearly have no problem with the existing policy. Nat Gertler has an honorable objection, but he's only made 9 comics-related edits in his last 500 edits(not counting his debates on this page) in his last 500 edits; his specialty lies elsewhere. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=NatGertler. It would make sense to deduce that someone who's an active and experienced Comics Project editor has a more knowledgeable opinion of the field's norms and the Project's norms.

Given that regular editors haven't responded for a week, I'd like to ask an administrator to give his opinion on whether the existing policy can be stated more clearly. I'm more of a Trekker than a comics fan, though I love the old masters like Jack Kirby, so I'd like to not do anything on my own without approval.

RfC, like I said, is something I was trying out, to expand my Wikipedia experience a little bit. I hope it's been OK, and thank you for reading. --Farpointer (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, not much response. It happens, and again, thanks for trying. But I question the claim as to whether this is actual existing policy just being restated. It's not just that the policy was placed in a specific location, but that when the editor was seeking comment on it, it was specified as being for captions. That's why I undid my previous edits - it was looking to me like stating this as a general policy rather than one related to cover art credits on image captions would actually be a change of policy.

--Nat Gertler (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not so. The policy refers to "Parenthetical references in captions and in article prose" (emphasis added). -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it's filed under guidelines for cover art credits. (And I meant to reply earlier to the claim about my number of edits and my qualifications. I'm not looking at the same Top-500 snapshot as he was, but it sure looks to me like he undercounted at least a bit - and the deduction "a more knowledgeable opinion of the field's norms" seems to make heavy and unfounded assumptions that what a person edits on Wikipedia reflects all of what they do beyond.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC which could affect this MOS

It has been proposed this MOS be moved to Wikipedia:Subject style guide . Please comment at the RFC GnevinAWB (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Bibliographies: Discussion background

I think we need to come up with a Project-wide policy about these, resume-like, laundry-listy "Bibliographies" of comics creators works, such as at Bill Sienkiewicz and Bob Almond. There's no consistency throughout the Project. If we can give a long list of Bill or Bob's credits, should we also list every comic Jack Kirby has drawn? Steve Ditko? Gene Colan? It'd be hard to justify not doing so for those giants if we do so for these estimable others.

Or, rather, following our reasoning on Bibliographies of comics characters, would it be better to give biographical highlights of their work in the prose body of the article, and include links, as we generally do, to their listings in the Grand Comics Database, the Comic Book Database, etc.? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No opinion on the comic book situation, but I would oppose the removal of bibliographies from the articles on European comics creators. Fram (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we need bibliographies (they can be very useful as you can only cover the highlights or key comics in a biography - it also allows for more details like issues, dates, collaborators, collected editions, etc.) and but can see no way to make a "selected bibliography" work (selected by who? What are the inclusion criteria?). If it gets too large then split it off, there is a category for these: Category:Lists of comics by creator (there was a mix of "X bibliographies" and "list of works by X" but Marcus Brute imposed his preferred version, the former, so we might as well stick with that for future splits).

Soooo we have a name and a thumbs up from me but we also need to decide on things like sorting - I prefer listing them chronologically and splitting up into sub-section based on publisher when there are clear groupings of titles (see for example Ian Edginton#Comics) although some people prefer alphabetical listings (e.g. Alan Davis#Bibliography or Jack Kirby bibliography, in contrast see my preferred early versions of those [1] and [2]). (Emperor (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

Looking back over some biblios I added, I notice that I sometimes work chronological (Willy Vandersteen, Jean Van Hamme), sometimes alphabetical (Luc Cromheecke, Raoul Cauvin). The latter is also a "selected" bibliography, only listing those comics that actually had a mainstream book publication, not magazine-only work or bibliophile edition only. While a chronological listing gives a better idea of the evolution of the artist, an alphabetical one is somewhat easier for someone trying to find a particular title, and avoids problems with more difficult chronologies (as with Peyo, listed alphabetical, years given are years of album publication, but the chronolgy is completely different when one looks at magazine or newspaper publication). Fram (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I did my first chronologically and am doing the second the same way. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a real shame to get rid of the bibliographies that already exist and instead suggest adding more of them, honestly. I find them to be invaluable resources for finding works I've missed by my favorite creators and wish there were more of them. I personally prefer them to be purely alphabetical (with dates listed), but organization system probably doesn't matter too much (as long as it's consistent) given how easy Web browser "find" functions make it to find things on Web pages. DeadpoolRP (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Tables can be made sortable, so that the default view when viewing the page is alphabetical, but the reader can click on a box at the top of a column to sort by date (or any other column) instead. See Help:Tables#Sorting. Though I think date ranges might be problematic... postdlf (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be wary of going for tables as it is not tabular data (see WP:WTUT) and trying to fit even the simplest comics data in results in unsortable tables - see any of the "lists of publications by X" articles that use tables, e.g. List of Vertigo publications. So you'd struggle to hammer the square begs of a creator's bibliography into the round holes of tables (you'd have to trim data out to make it fit) and they'd become unsortable. Better to stick to lists (which are also easier to edit). (Emperor (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

My question is, if one is looking for things one has missed, isn't it better to go to Grand Comics Database, for instance, where virtually everything is listed? Given the thousands and thousands of comics there are, and the years it took to build the GCD and similar databases, any bibliography here will almost certainly be incomplete.

Another question: How do we justify not listing all of Jack Kirby's works but listing lesser creators? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I take back that second question: I see we do have the orphaned article Jack Kirby bibliography.

First question still applies.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line is I have yet to find a comprehensive database - you can expect good coverage of mainstream American comic books but things rapidly drop off once you get beyond that (and even then coverage can get patchy towards the edges, plus, as tertiary sources they accumulate data based on primary sources so there is an extra layer between you and the raw data with the chance for errors to sneak in - I have reported errors on a few databases when I've found them). Neither the GCD or the Comic Book DB has a comprehensive index of 2000 AD for example and coverage of other British comics is really patchy (and once you get back a few decades you find a lack of credits on the comics so it can take research from comics scholars to uncover the creators). So once you get to European comics and further afield then the coverage can depend on a few dedicated and motivated indexers or there is nothing. The crowdsourcing Wikipedia does means we can draw on a large body of contributors with lots of eyes for fact-checking, plus we can draw in material from native language sources which is very helpful. Also we can draw on a number of sources - where no one database is comprehensive we can use a range (plus other sources) to get a more complete bibliography. A minor example of that would be Grant Morrison's writing on The Authority, which is credited to Mark Millar in the comics, so requires another source to demonstrate the fact.

Also a good bibliography plays to Wikipedia's strengths as it allows heavy interlinking between articles, so you can click through to collaborators, titles/characters or publisher which allows people to pick their own path through the data. The strengths of a database is they are searchable and sortable, so we can let them cover that aspect.

On the Jack Kirby bibliography - it is incomplete because... well everything is here. The problem was I split off a "selected bibliography" from the main article [3] and it has only been around a little over a year, so it will be more comprehensive given time. (Emperor (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

I use GCD as well, but I like to use multiple sources because I sometimes have GCD issues--their search engine is too picky, making it hard to find things sometimes (For example, "secret invasion x-men" finds no results? Come on, needing exact punctuation is horrible!), some things don't seem to be there at all, and some editors there seem to reserve the rights to update info on particular series and then they just sit on them and do nothing, which is annoying and keeps creator info, etc., unavailable for those issues. Plus, a lot of people probably don't know about GCD, but they know about Wikipedia. DeadpoolRP (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair there is also comicbook DB which is a bit more on the wiki end than GCD. And I believe we've got templates for character, team, and creator search links for both.

Right now we have the option to limit what we put in a bibliography. We don't have to be, and shouldn't be, all inclusive. For characters we can limit it to "key stories/arcs", if that. And we can require sourcing from secondary sources that they are indeed key to the character's development. For creators, we can limit it to "selected" works on the bio page, though I've go almost zero clue as to what criteria to use there, and issue numbers on dedicated bibliography pages. In all cases I'd prefer a chronological lay out ove alphabetic.

- J Greb (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The only possible criteria I can think of for a "selected bibliography" is if you have secondary sources (not tertiary sources like databases) which would be a sign that they were worthy of including but without issue numbers and the like is it worth including? You might as well mention them in the text. Also it could also miss out key items from the bibliography and/or give too much of a recentist skew to proceedings (it is much easier to source recent work through interviews and the like). (Emperor (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC))

Well, a consensus does seem to be developing to have creator bibliographies, and if that's the case, I'll certainly go along. Since we might want to give this a few days' more discussion, we may as well in the meantime start thinking about the best way to structure such bibliographies.

Alphabetical by company? That's certainly more easily compiled that chronological, since creators can work on one series for a while, go do other things, then come back to the first series, etc. I agree that "selected biblio" is problematic, as that's inherently POV, and if the idea is to be comprehensive, then we need to work toward that. (Indeed, I find I often have to use a combination of GCD, UHMCC and AtlasTales.com to get the big picture and, at times, note discrepancies.)

Which brings up another issue: citations. I believe each line or each section should have a cite to a database that can verify the information; otherwise, we're just using our own collections, and that's OR.

The other thing we might need to consider is how many lines of text to allow before breaking a biblio off as a separate articles. As mentioned, the Bill Sienkiewicz and Bob Almond articles have lengthy laundry lists that create an awkward scroll and make the page look ugly and resume-like. I would suggest that for creators with a small number of credits, we keep them in prose. Between 10 and 20 lines of credits — for the most part, that means work on 10 to 20 different series — we have an in-article biblio ... maybe broken into two columns. Any more than 20 lines, we break it out. (From what I've seen, once you've worked on 20 different comic-book series, you're going to do a lot more.)

These are round numbers and obviously arbitrary, but neater and cleaner than, say "14 lines" or "23 lines." More importantly, they're a springboard to start discussion. What say you, o fellow solons?  :-)  --Tenebrae (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Some short additional thoughts...

• In most cases presenting a person's body of work is a chronology to show progresion. With comics that would be listing runs from when they start, not individual issues.
• Refrencing can be one of two ways depending on content. If everything is listed, then using a tirtiary source (GCD, cbdb, or the like) is fair game. If it's "selected works", the best way to limit it is look to secondary sources that compile a persons notable/important/influenctial works. That would be schollarly works not "reviews".
• Citing scholarly works tends to defuse POV issues. If there is a book on Strazinsky (sp) or a few on Kirby, those can be held out as solid sourcing for "These are the important works". The same can be said for a book that covers all or most published during the 1940s. A review of Slotts's current book, or Johns', or Kelly's, or fill-in-the-currently-active-writer-or-artist, plays into POV pushing - "It's been reviewed. It has to be important."

- J Greb (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things:

• I'd be wary of directly sourcing to tertiary sources - as I said above they are fine in general but there is the possibility of errors sneaking in with specific points. I'd say you are pretty safe bunging the tertiary sources in at the end unless there is something tricky that specifically needs sourcing. Or you link to the publisher's details but I think the DC Comics.com information gets purged after a while.
• I'd also be wary of putting a specific number people should just use their best judgement - if a bibliography is getting large and unwieldy like those examples you give then it is likely they'll form the good basis for a standalone article. Or if the bibliography is fairly compact but there is a lot of room for expansion (that is being restricted by being part of a much larger article).

So I'd not try and tie it down with too many rules as that can only end up with wikilawyering. What might be an idea is requiring editors to start a split debate or just throw it out for discussion on the talk page, that way it doesn't come out of the blue for regular editors. Also it is worth a reminder in the guidelines that people should follow the general splitting guidelines (likes linking back to the article it was split from) - something Marcus Brute and his socks have failed to do when splitting off comics creator's bibliography. (Emperor (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC))

First pass at synthesizing editors' comments

OK: Taking all this into account, here's a brief few paragraphs I'd like to put up for comments here, and then after a second pass put up for RfC to include it as part of WikiProject Comics MOS. User:Hiding was great at this sort of thing, and I wish he were here now. Updating our MOS as the Project evolves is a necessary thing, so I'm happy to take this on for this one thing.

(DRAFT)Comics creators' articles may include a Bibliography of their comic-book work. These may be comprehensive or selected; if selected, the rationale must be cited to a reliable source scholarly critic or author. Reviews are not considered a criterion of inclusion under "selected works."

Listings are chronological by date of the earliest issue of a publication, and all issues of that publication are contained in that title's entry. Lists are divided by publisher, chronologically from the first issue of a work under that publisher. Lengthy lists will be laid out as two-column or three-column. Very lengthy lists will be broken off as a separate article titled "[Artist name] Bibliography"

Database sources are stated at the head of list, in this format: The word Sources followed by a single footnote each to GCD, ComicBook DB, Atlas Tales, UHMCC, etc. up to six footnotes. (NOTE on this talk page: These will be spelled out and wikilinked.) In rare cases, such as a disputed credit, some items will require an additional specific footnote.

Does this encapsulate the major points of the discussion? Are there any tweaks to make? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems OK, although I might make it more flexible, so rather than saying something should be done a specific way explain the circumstances when it is best to do that (you wouldn't divide it by publisher if there were only a few items, so perhaps: "where there are sufficient works to make good sub-sections, then long lists can be split by publisher". I'd also avoid columns, unless you have the barest of bones it can get messy, if you reach the point you might need columns then it'd be time to split it off. And I'd allow room for separate listings of different runs on a title if a lot of time has passed or there have been lots of changes, like Kirby's two runs on Captain America or Levitz's runs on LSH) although I don't really understand the last paragraph (it seems to be referring to something I don't recall seeing in an article) - is it saying you footnote the tertiary sources at the start of the list? And where does the word "Sources" come in? It'd be simpler to add the links at the end in the general references section (as I say above they are generally going to be OK but there will be the chance of errors sneaking in so using them to source specific details is unwise). (Emperor (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC))

Can you clarify "all issues of that publication are contained in that title's entry"? As it reads, taking Kirby on 'Thor' for example, that would mean including all issues of 'Journey Into Mystery' and 'Thor' vol 1, although not all of them are Kirby (or for JIM, all-Thor). Perhaps "all relevant issues" or something like? Archiveangel (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Second pass incorporating the above, and clarifying

(DRAFT)Comics creators' articles may include a Bibliography of their comic-book work. These may be comprehensive or selected; if selected, the rationale must be cited to a reliable source scholarly critic or author. Reviews are not considered a criterion of inclusion under "selected works."

Listings are chronological by date of the earliest issue of a publication, and all relevant issues of that publication are contained in that title's entry. Database sources are stated at the head of list, in this format: The word Sources followed by a single footnote each to GCD, ComicBook DB, Atlas Tales, UHMCC, etc. up to six footnotes. In rare cases, such as a disputed credit, some items will require an additional specific footnote.

For example, adapted from Jack Kirby bibliography:

Comics

Sources:

Chronological by earliest issue of a series. Alphabetical within same year.

Interior pencil art includes:

Misc. (1930s-1940s)

• Jumbo Comics #1-3 (1938) (Fiction House)
• Famous Funnies #63, 84 (1939) (Eastern Color)
• Mystery Men Comics #10 (1940) (Fox Comics)
• Science Comics #4 (1940) (Fox Comics)
• Blue Bolt Comics #2-6, 8-10 (1940-1941) (Novelty Press)

Timely Comics

• Daring Mystery Comics #6 (1940)
• Red Raven Comics #1 (1940)
• Marvel Mystery Comics #13-15, 17, 19-28 (1940-1942)
• All Winners Comics #1-2 (1941)
• Captain America Comics #1-10 (1941-1942)

DC Comics (1940s)

• World's Finest Comics #6-7, featuring "Sandman" (1942)
• Adventure Comics #72-97, 100-102, featuring "Sandman" (also co-script with Joe Simon) (1942–1946)
• Star Spangled Comics #7-30,53-56,58-59, featuring "Newsboy Legion" (1942–1946)

Misc. (1940s)

• All-New Comics #13 (1946) (Harvey Comics)
• Stuntman #1-3 (1946) [Harvey Comics)

Atlas Comics/Marvel Comics (1950s-1960s)

• Strange Worlds #3 (1959) (Pre-superhero Marvel)
• World of Fantasy (Pre-superhero Marvel) #16, 18 (1959)
• The Fantastic Four #1–15, Fantastic Four #16-102, 108 (1961–70)
• Journey Into Mystery, featuring "The Mighty Thor" #82-89, 93, 97-125 (1962–66)

For lengthy lists where most work in various timeframes is done for one publisher, divide list by publisher, chronologically from the first issue of a work under that publisher. Lengthy lists may be laid out as two-column or three-column. Very lengthy lists can be broken off as a separate article titled "[Artist name] Bibliography".

Comments? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As the sources are being used in a very general way I don't see the point in footnoting them like that (and haven't seen or worked on a comics bibliography article that does that unless someone has changed them recently). Keep it simple, add them to the "References" section at the end (distinct from the one for footnotes) which is there for general references. It just doesn't seem like we need to reinvent this when the articles work fine in the manner I describe. (Emperor (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC))

Hi. I ran into this circuitously from Jack Kirby. I just want to say I think it's a good idea to give the sources right up front, or up top, I guess, to make it very clear to people who aren't comic-book fans where this information comes from. That is, that it's not people going through their collections and compiling a list. I think it also signals right away that these kinds of lists are based on authoritative sources. Putting them in references at the end feels a step removed. I believe more direct is better.

I think Jack would have liked this, being used as the exemplar! --Farpointer (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

objection to unification

While I agree that it is good for any given bibliography to be non-randomly ordered, I don't believe it necessary or even desirable for it to be uniform between articles, because not one format matches all articles or all types of creators. In particular, I object to the organization by publisher as a default; while it may arguably make some sense when discussing certain folks involved in the corporate-owned American superhero scene of certain time periods, where work and style can be strongly identified by publisher, it makes less sense when comics are viewed on a wider scope, particularly in places and times where creators are not expected to be working exclusively for one publisher. It would make little sense to divide the Astro City information on Kurt Busiek's entry among Image, DC, and "miscellaneous" (for the Homage issue, where it would sit alongside The Adventures of Jell-O Man) and to have that material separate from its thematic cousin of Marvels. For a given creator it may make sense to have the list be primarily chronological, or divided by genre, or divided by the nature of the creative contribution; in general, I expect that reflecting the sectioning of the article itself might make for a good start. All in all, I really don't see much benefit in standardizing this across the various articles; it doesn't seem to best serve the individual articles. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

My idea

Unless the creator output is limited to a few titles, you're going to have to utilize subarticles. Take a page from musician articles: note that you have Nirvana (band) with a minimal Discography section that links to Nirvana discography, which is a complete list of the band's work--that completeness is why it needs to be on its own page; it'd be madness trying to keep it all in the main article, even for a group like this that had a relatively small lifespan and output. Keep it as simple as possible in the main article. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolution cap revisit

Right now we've got here and the copyright page stating "usually with a longest dimension no greater than 200-300 pixels".

The original discussions were referring to the width of the images since:

• The infoboxes currently default to 250px across and it's useful to have the image slightly larger than that. The 300px point.
• Cover as published tend to be muddled if reduced below 300px. And,
• The average default, hard coded or preference reliant, spot image width size floats between 180 and 220px. Images sized between 200-250px across accommodate that range.

Since these ranges, at 72 ppi, still make the image less than useful for commercial reproduction, is there any objection to changing the wording to "usually with a width no greater than 200-300 pixels"?

(Cross posted at the copyright page...)

- J Greb (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Fictional character biography" subhead-change proposal

While WikiProject Comics has long had a guidelines against overdetailed synopses, the Project is now moving to more actively follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), as can be seen in the deletion of Fictional history of Wolverine, the deletion of Fictional history of Green Goblin, and the deletion of Fictional history of Spider-Man.

In order to discourage that type of fictography, I believe it's important that we not use the word "biography" in this subhead. That word suggests a detailed description of a person's (character's) life — that is, after all, the definition of "biography."

WesleyDodds had adapted the replacement subhead "Comic book character" at Spider-Man — which for a few months now has had a properly real-world, third-party-source history of the character — to read "Comic book character history." This might prove a viable subhead.

In any event, we need to get away from encouraging the term "biography." I propose that for now we remove "fictional character biography" from the list of suggested subheads at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (comics), and then come up with more apt title given this new direction that conforms more closely with Wikipedia fiction guidelines as a whole. I think "Comic book character history" works in parallel with "Publication history," and draws a clear distinction between where the character appeared, in what order, and what went on inside those publications involving writers and artists interpretation of the character as times changed. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it, and the exemplar, I'd go with "Character history". Most of the articles this will apply to are solely or primarily about the comics. Noting in the MoS that such a section should be restricted to the development of the character in the comics and critical commentary on the same is also a good idea. - J Greb (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should have this section at all; at least not in its current form. The only valid history of a character is a real world chronology of publications and adaptations into other media. Major character developments and story arcs can be summarized within that history.

Beyond that, any description of the character needs to be completely broken down into its constituent elements, such as [basic] description (appearance, costume, personality, etc.), powers, origin, backstory, character relationships, etc. Within each section, it should then explain how that aspect of the character has developed or changed over time, ordered by real world chronology and firmly rooted in the depicting works. There should be no attempt to compile a single in universe "fictional history" of the character, as these are always just an expression of the current state of the character, giving undue weight to recent stories, ignoring or at least smoothing over retcons and continuity errors, and relying heavily on OR. postdlf (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Character history is a good choice. Nightscream (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea. "Biography" is about a specific individual, "History" is usually meant for events told from a wider perspective. It's appropiate for the real-world information about the character, but not so for the plot section. If you are concerned that "biography" may invite people to write lengthy details, you can add "summary" to it. You can also include remainders to keep the section short at the top of the section, between <!-- --> (they would appear when trying to edit the section, but stay invisible for readers of it) MBelgrano (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the point - "Biography" is about a specific person. None of the topics were are talking about are people. They are elements in works of fiction, pieces of intellectual property, things. - J Greb (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with J Greb on this: "Biography" suggests a real-life person and not a fictional character. Even with "summary," the term still suggests that these fictional characters be treated like real people.

I would go with those suggesting "Character history." This term has the benefit of avoiding the phrase "comic book," which I can see now is redundant in this context.

I do think this section, whatever the name, and "Publication history" should be separate. Given all the series, miniseries, spinoffs, etc. a character may have, a basic road map seems necessary. Not every series, miniseries, spinoff, etc. will get mentioned in the larger, real-world history, and we need to mention them — preferably in context and not a laundry list. Even with secondary characters who have only starred in a few series, having an un-buried sentence can be helpful to anyone who simply needs to know when and where a character appeared and who wrote and drew them. (For minor characters, of course, we can always combine the sections).--Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeing how Tenebrae so eloquently expressed the reason for the change I do agree we should drop "biography" for "history." But should it be "Character history" or "Fictional character history"? When "biography" was in use I thought "Fictional" was necessary to make it clear that these were fictional characters and not real people as the term "biography" suggested, but now that we (presumably) are changing that to "history" I think it would be acceptable to drop the "Fictional" and leave it as "Character history".

I disagree with postdlf about removing this section completely. There are several articles that should have this section shortened, but articles like Spider-Man are a good example of what the section can and should be like. Furthermore, if you remove this section almost all comic book articles will become stubs, and that is the section most readers care about when viewing these articles. Spidey104 18:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A character is not a person, but it's a fictional person. The diference between "Biography" and "History" can be apllied as well to "fictional biography" and "fictional history", to describe the diference between the plot of a big storyline (when we talk about that storyline in itself) and the plot of the way a certain character is used within such a storyline (in character articles). And "summary" reminds to keep it short. My proposal is to use "Fictional biography summary".

Besides, "character history" may be ambiguous, precisely because it would be unclear whenever it's the history of the usage of the character (creation, creative teams, editorial issues, etc.) or the character plot. "Fictional biography" is clear, nobody can misunderstand the content of such a section.

By the way, the inclusion or not of such a section at all is a different thing and should be discussed separately. MBelgrano (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Fictional" might not be appropriate here since, as evidenced by the Spider-Man FCB, there is a great deal of real-world material about the writers and artists, and how and why they did certain things.

And again, I think the term "biography" risks re-creating what has been a very serious issue with the Project. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel the same as MBelgrano about "character history". It can confuse whether or not it's a section about the development of the character vs. the character's in-universe bio. While I get why editors are concerned about the term "biography", I think it's the best term to use. "Fictional" indicates that we're dealing with the fiction, "biography" indicates that we're talking about the character's in-universe history. However, despite being clunky, "FCH" seems to accomplish what we want while skirting the "biography" concern. And actually, I kind of see/agree with postdlf's point, but also agree that it's best saved for a separate discussion. Tenebrae, I think that real-world associations with storylines are what the Publication History section should be for. In that space, one discusses the character's appearance or use in titles, the storylines, and what goes on in their development by writers/publishers, etc. That's also part of why I can see the FCH being redundant to the PH.Luminum (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

ARBITRARY REFACTORING Luminum makes reasonable points, and I think we're actually all in agreement on the content of this section, whatever it is called — and given the plot-dump history of WikiProject Comics, that's a great step forward in and other itself. Maybe we can look to Superman (a featured article) and the shorter Spider-Man (a good article) for guidance and reconvene here with thoughts of what we can take or not take from those two. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Just to keep in mind, everyone: you can have a preferred or suggested name for such sections, but it's not a requirement that article sections are uniformly titled on Wikipedia, or even that each article needs to have all sections indicated by the project guidelines. In fact, we're allowed a lot of leeway, as long as the end result best serves each individual article. For example, here's two FA-level album articles I've written: Loveless (album) and In Utero (album). Note that both have very different layouts, which are ultimately determined by what sort of sources are available on the topics. Whatever is settled upon, it's best to provide a few choices for editors to utilize. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The word "history" is indeed used with people. ("He has a history with her"; "Here's your case history"). Nightscream (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• The word fictional is important because the character has real world history: behind the scenes story of the character's creation, real world impact, etc. You could discuss a lengthy history of the Superman character without mentioning his fictional biography. Doczilla _STOMP! 22:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

comics character article more like a Wikipedia article.

Per of what was said here, I think we need a change of style on comic book character articles. Lot of times it's just mainly plot which is something we don't need in Wikipedia. We seem to copy Comicvine's style a little bit too much on how to make them. I really think we need to focus on those 90% character articles (and I quote) "contains nothing but character bios, plot lines, and appearance". If it wasn't for common sense, (when it comes to sources) we still haven't proven that Green Lantern and Flash have met notability guidelines yet on the article. Yikes! Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

For most comic books characters, "Character/Fictional history" or "Biography" sections need to be incredibly trimmed/summarised, or perhaps even removed entirely (for example on a FA without a "history" section, there's Homer Simpson. Though Homer Simpson probably isn't a perfect example, coming from an episodic negative-continuty-filled show). And we really need to stress the importance of a "Reception"/"Cultural impact" section somehow. For instance, looking at Jimmy Olsen, it goes into far too much detail on in-universe matters, and I can't see any reception for the character. I say "I can't see" rather thane "there isn't" because the TOC is so large that there may be be the off-chance I have actually not been able to find it. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

How about Superman and Batman. Are they a good example? And for GA we got Spider-Man, Anole (comics), Batgirl and Batwoman. If we follow these character's tracks we could go somewhere. I do think Spider-Man can go for some improvement and experienced attention though definitely his supporting characters and villains article though, they are terrible when it comes to Wikipedia standards. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep. WikiProject Comics has long had a guidelines against overdetailed synopses, the Project consensus is now to follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), following the months-long debates and decisions in the deletion of Fictional history of Wolverine, the deletion of Fictional history of Green Goblin, and the deletion of Fictional history of Spider-Man. It's just a matter of finding time to do it. One model of an updated FCB with third-party, real-world-oriented content is Spider-Man#Fictional character biography. As as JHenderson rightly says also the Superman and Batman articles.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful with the powers and abilities section too. Lot's of POV and trivia can happen with that kind of section. And why is it necessary if the infobox already explains what power the character has? And why is there no reception section of characters? That helps determine notability. And the "in other media" sections and articles are too much plot sometimes. And a "cultural impact" section seems more important than a "in other media" section does. I like the way Batman did it, the IOM sections is a subsection of the Cultural Impact section. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think a cultural impact section is a great idea. A few representative samples of parodic appearances and such, as examples of points made in context by third-party authorities, would be much better than the catch-all, generally uncited lists we now have. I think that would help create a much better understanding of the impact a character has had. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts...

I agree in general terms that the in-story bios need pruning - with fire and backhoes in some cases. And we have a number of good examples of what should be the aim of a GA or FA. Some of the articles that will continue to exist as Start or C/B class may not need to hit that standard.

Powers and abilities also need serious revisions. We shouldn't be going into the OHOTMU style "how the powers work in detail", but in some cases the evolution of the powers are tied to how a character has been used or abused - Power Girl and Iron Man both come to mind here. So there are going to be cases where the Powers section is justified, but not to the degree we've got them right now.

As an aside to that... and this may be something to repost to the new FC Project... We need to draw a bright line about assumptive skills categorization. I know we've been around it on things like "anti-hero" and "vigilante", but we need to be crystal clear that including "Fictional mass murderers", "Fictional bojistu practitioners", "Fictional <fill in the blank>" cannot be added to an article without the term/category being mentioned in the article. And in the vast majority it will need to be included with a cite that labels the character as <fill in the blank>.

IOM should be cases where the character has been prominently featured in a book, film, show, play, etc. Not just mentioned or referred to obliquely. These can be relatively through lists, unlike Cultural Impact which really can't be all encompassing. I guess the IOM can sit within the CI, I'm just leery of the conflicting scopes.

AVs... another nice hot one. FWIW, I would think these should be compressed into the PH - "Marvel used a revised version of the character in "Age of Apocalypse" and Marvel 1609..." and so on instead of pushing them off to their own subsections. We've got scores of cases where we have sections that consist of a single sentence or sentence fragment. And yes, this means I think we should commit the ultimate sacrilege - screw only worrying about the "current" continuity in favor of treating the character a whole from initial appearance through to now.

One last thing... And I know this bucks V, R, and N, but I think we are going to run into non-notable characters that will need some sort of article if they keep cropping up in other articles.

- J Greb (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are worried about having many non notable comic book characters being out now, you are too late. It's already been going on. I don't know of where to begin as examples. I think the main problem for it sometimes is we don't have a decent place to put information of them. But seriously we got comic book characters that have appeared in only one or two issues around in some places and that isn't notable. We need list articles for the minor characters to be placed at. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style

Stale

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica^Tea? 00:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources used for content

I think an addition/alteration should be made to the Project's MOS page. I'd like to request responses on two separate points:

1. Primary sources can be used for the purpose of sourcing the content of a work, such as its date, plot and credits. This is why plot summaries of articles books, TV shows, movies, etc., typically do not carry citations, and is explicitly indicated by the MOS pages of projects on those media, specifically WP:TVPLOT and WP:FILMPLOT (both of which quote WP:PSTS). Here's a snippet from TVPLOT:

Since TV episodes are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable. WP:PSTS says, "...a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source."

I'd like to add a similar passage to the Comics MOS page. Any objections?

2. Also, the section on Citations says,

"In general, any statement for which a citation has been explicitly requested by another editor should be provided with one as well."

This is wrong. What if a newbie editor who doesn't understand policy comes along and requests a citation for the publication date, plot info or credits of a comic book? Nightscream (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. By default, the credits for a comic book should be assumed to be sourced to that comic book, at least for anything post 1970. We do not need a ref after a mention that an artist worked on SwordGuy #327 that sources it to SwordGuy #327. And yes, this has actually been a point of contention from a purposely-contentive editor at Steve Lieber. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

In other media section

Can it be worked on to create a paragraph discussing this section (or sometimes pages) regarding what should or should not be included? In my personal opinion, these sections should only be limited to actual appearances, not just mer mentions or slight references in passing. It could be modeled after the already existing "Popular culture" guideline here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This isn't really a meaningful post out of context, so it's surprising that you haven't explained why you think it's a problem that needs to be solved or why it keeps coming up. This has been a recurring issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics, particularly regarding the TV and movies of the Marvel Cinematic Universe which have mentioned characters that have not yet been depicted on screen. Sometimes it's worth including in the character's article, sometimes it isn't, but the fact is that even mentions of a character have brought a lot of secondary source commentary as there's a lot of interest in the expansion of the MCU and the incorporation of more from the original comic book source materials. So a simplistic prohibition of the sort you're seeking is not only a bad idea that would often disregard how sources treat the subject, but it's also an idea without consensus. postdlf (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I basically agree with you Favre1fan93 on this (if you couldn't tell by all the related threads I've started on WT:COMICS), but I wonder if such an inactive talk page like this is the best place to start it - although an RFC could bring more attention to this issue. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for not providing the context for which I was posting here. However, I still think there is some benefit to having something regarding this, beyond the (mainly) isolated incidents regarding MCU mentions. What if a character is just mentioned in an animated TV series, or is referenced in a comic-themed video game (this instance came up recently on the project talk)? It would be nice to have something where we can point to, that says something along the lines of "Are a number of secondary sources talking about this? Does it have importance given its context for which it appeared?", things like that. And through this guideline, I'd like to create a consensus for the matter, because at the moment, I feel it is a lot of varying opinions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me - I would say start an RFC to attract some responses. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Proposed rewording for instructions for disambiguation

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.

---

Proposal 1 (withdrawn)

• This proposal has been superseded by Proposal 2 below.

The current WikiProject Comics Manual of Style reads:

"When disambiguation is needed use (comics), or (company) where that is not appropriate."

This should be reworded to make it clear that (comics) is a fallback when something more general is not available, especially in the case of characters. Perhaps:

"When disambiguation is needed and a more general disambiguation such as (character) is not applicablesufficient use (comics), or (company) where that is not appropriate."

—Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Note: Please place rationales in the "Discussion" section so they can be discussed

• Support as nominator per rationale below. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Project MOS should supplement the site-wide MOS. Would also be fine with "is not sufficient". AIRcorn (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: "(comics)" is a sufficient disambiguation for all comic book-related content; characters, groups, locations, objects, etc. If a particular incarnation of a comic book-based character becomes notable in its own right then it should have its own article such as Batman in film or Superman in film .--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per TriiipleThreat. BOZ (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per TriiipleThreat - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support: It makes sense for "character" to be the default when a particular character has an firm presence in several types of media. As I stated below, each article requires its own consensus and the actual scope of the article should be taken into consideration, using "comics" instead where that is appropriate. It also makes a difference whether we are talking about the character itself or an eponymous series. This guideline should not be mistaken as trumping the need for consensus on each article. Nor is "sitewide consensus" an absolute that dictates the titling for a particular article; only actual policy does that. Taking these things into account, I support modifying the MOS here. Naturally, we will continue to argue about what is appropriate for each article. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 20:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per TriiipleThreat. Fortdj33 (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per TriiipleThreat. postdlf (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Curly Turkey's proposal is more in accordance with WP:TITLE policy criteria, and normal WP:DISAMBIGUATION guideline practice. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose It ain't broke. Why fix it? --BDD (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @BDD: The current wording is being cited as the rationale for page moves from (character) to (comics), wasting time and effort, and violating policy. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As long as the (comics) name is accurate, those moves are maintaining consistency with other articles, which is one of our core naming criteria. I don't see how that violates policy. --BDD (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@BDD: Consistency is also broken, as (character) is accepted as the norm for characters in every other medium across Wikipedia, and the content of many of these articles is not limited to comics. It is a violation of policy for local consensus at WP:COMICS to enforce such moves and circumvent global consensus. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I do like consistency, but as long as disambiguators are consistent within a topic, I think it's a fool's errand to try to standardize them all. This comes up in sports fairly frequently. With titles like Foo Barson (tennis), every now and then someone comes along and says, "Hey, he isn't a tennis!" But what would the benefit be to changing it to Foo Barson (tennis player), and applying it to all disambiguated tennis players? That's unclear to me, as is the benefit from this proposal. --BDD (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That's actually a mischaracterization. This argument is made about cases where "a [whatever]" is actually grammatically possible, e.g. "a baseball". The vast majority of WP disambiguations describe the topic, not the over-topic of the topic: "Mike Smith (physicist)", not "Mike Smith (physics)", "The Big One (song)" not "The Big One (music)", etc. This is for good reason, and "Mike Smith (baseball)" clearly illustrates why since Mike Smith is neither a baseball nor a brand of sporting goods. Cases like "Mike Smith (tennis)" should be normalized to "Mike Smith (tennis player)" because they simply make more sense that way and the usage is more consistent. Attempt to mock this idea by suggesting people want this because Mike Smith is not "a tennis" is a blatant straw man fallacy. This is all relevant here because "Mike Smith (comics)" is an unhelpful disambiguation for reasons that never have jack to do with "is Mike Smith 'a comics'?" nonsense. The real questions is "WTF does that mean? Is Mike Smith a superhero secret identity? An artist? A publisher executive? A graphic novel title? A...?" Any pattern of disambiguation that leads to more questions is a very poor pattern of disambiguation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@BDD: The current wording is being interpreted as a mandate to move articles on media franchise characters such as Hulk (character) and Wolverine (character) to Hulk (comics) and Wolverine (comics), "fixing" what was never broken. The proposed wording is not an attempt to enforce any standardized disambiguation, but to discourage these time-wasting, policy-breaking moves. You'll probably want to see Propoal 2 below, which makes this intent much clearer. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe you're mistaken, or perhaps misreading the page histories. (Incidentally, this may be partially my fault, as I moved Wolverine before I was an admin and seem to have neglected to move the talk page archives along with it.) Wolverine (comics) has long been a stable title. It was moved in January 2013 to (character) but moved back in March, both times as a result of consensus from an RM. See Talk:Wolverine (comics)/Archive 7#Renaming article and the logs for the page. Wolverine (comics) has been the title for over ten years; we had Wolverine (character) for a bit under three months! Hulk has never been the subject of an RM (until now, though it's a different question), but Hulk (comics) has been around over 12 years. Hulk (character) was the title for a few hours (!) in 2010. Again, see the page log. --BDD (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@BDD: If the Wolverine move were simply a matter of consenus that (comics) was more appropriate for reasons XX, YY, and ZZ, that would be one thing, but that is clearly not the case—the rationale is explicitly "The standard is to have (comics) in the title, not (character)"—this Project's MoS simply cannot mandate such a thing (and technically doesn't, but is being misrepresented as doing so). Will we next have to undergo RMs for articles like Tintin (character) now that it has been pointed out that it's not following the "standard" and Tintin (comics) is free and ready for such a move? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support: because "(comics)" is clearly not a sufficient disambiguation for all comic book-related content, much of which refers to more than one thing (titles, characters, etc.), and much of which is not only in comics media. Disambiguations like " (character)" make more sense except where the character has separate articles for comics vs. movie version, and so on. The preference of this wikiproject for using a terribly unclear disambiguator, " (comics)", which often raises more questions than it answers, is not a policy, and a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here does not override wider consensuses that, e.g., disambiguations should make sense and that the normal pattern for them is to have them refer to the topic, not to the over-topic of the topic: "Jane Garcia (musician)" not "Jane Garcia (music)", thus "Jane Garcia (character)", "Jane Garcia (comics character)", "Jane Garcia (comic book)", "Jane Garcia (graphic novel)", "Jane Garcia (artist)", "Jane Garcia (comics artist)", "Jane Garcia (publisher)", "Jane Garcia (fictional ship)", whatever on earth it is that the hopelessly vague "Jane Garcia (comics)" might refer to. The rationale I give here applies equally to either of the revised options of the RfC/poll below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • While I'm thrilled to see another "support", the situation with comics creators is a lot more complicated than you're aware, especially in the assembly-line comic book world. Jeff Smith (cartoonist) and Jack Davis (cartoonist) are easy to disambiguate with "cartoonist" because they handle all the chores of comics creation, but in the superhero world there is a division of labour—fine if someone did nothing but artwork, but so many have had different roles over their careers: Al Feldstein doesn't need disambiguation, but he's an example of someone who has taken on the roles of writer, artist, and editor, usually not at the same time, or at least not every combination at the same time. Then there are "plotters" who are not necessarily writers, pencillers, inkers, colourists ... who again often take different roles throughout their careers. And then there are those artists such as Frank Miller (comics) who have handled all the creation chores, but whom their fans would be mortified to have called a "cartoonist" (the industry doesn't rake in enough to deal with these fans' psychological issues). "(comics)" isn't perfect, but it's the best we're likely to get. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Sitewide consensus is that disambiguation should be as general as reasonable—when there is more than one "Schloing", "Schloing (band)" is preferred to "Schloing (rock band)" except when there are two bands in different genres named "Schloing".
  In the cases of articles that are specifically about comics—say, Louis Riel (comics), which is about a specific book, and not a media franchise—"comics" is the most reasonably general disambiguation.
  On the other hand, Hulk (character) redirects to Hulk (comics), even though (a) (character) is more general; (b) Hulk, the character, is a long-established media franchise, in movies, TV shows, etc etc.; and (c) the article is under both {{WikiProject Comics}} and {{WikiProject fictional characters}}.
  There are precedents for this: there is no Tintin (comics) (the series is at The Adventures of Tintin), but there is Tintin (character). Outside WP Comics (character) appears to be the norm in these situations. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

To be fair on the Hulk redirect, a quick scan of that article suggest that it actually has very little on non-comics uses of the Hulk; while the fact that it has been adapted to other forms gets two sentences in the lede, searching for "television" and "movie" and "film" through the article finds me one paragraph on reaction to the Ang Lee movie. There is no mention of David Banner. So I suppose the question is whether, in the general case, these articles 1) really are about the character in a cross-media sense, and 2) they do not more frequently need to be disambiguated from similarly-named character in other media (much as, say, Rocky (character) would still leave you wondering if it meant Rocky Balboa or Rocket J. Squirrel). --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@NatGertler: If there are two "characters" called "Rocky", then further disambiguation is warranted—there are well-established conventions for that (check out The Sleepers (San Francisco band) and The Sleepers (Chicago band)). The further disambiguation is only done when necessary—there's obviously no necessity when the more general title redirects to the more specific one, as in the case of Hulk (character).
(And isn't it suspicious that there is no mention of Lou Ferrigno in the Hulk article? Kinda tells you there's a lot of work to be done on it to meet the standards on comprehensiveness.) Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, not everyone agrees with this idea, as evidenced by the recent discussion at Talk:Hydra (Marvel Comics). The policy is "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." (WP:AT) The scope of the articles in which this project takes an interest varies; some are wholly focused on comic books, some are more broadly focused on several types of media. So, to my mind, it needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I don't think that we ought to say that "character" is the preferred term of disambiguation, because in some cases, it won't be. Perhaps we could change the wording to give the option of "character", "comics", or "company" depending on the scope of the article? --GentlemanGhost (converse) 22:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@GentlemanGhost: The argument given there was that Hulk (comics) falls under WikiProject Comics, and that the WP:CMC guideline states only (comics) or (company) as acceptable disambiguations for articles under the Project. Of course, this interpretation contradicts policy. What is necessary is not a longer list of options that this Project agrees to "allow", but clarification that this Projects supplementary MoS does not override the sitewide MoS—that the Project-specific disambiguations are not default disambiguations.
The spirit of the current wording is that we prefer "comics" to other terms ("comic", "graphic novel", "comic book", "graphic album", "sequential art", etc). It was never meant to mandate "comics" over something more general, and it was never meant to override (only supplement) sitewide guidelines. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey:Alternatively, instead of "is not applicable", we might say "is not precise enough." Every term which is more general would naturally still be applicable, much like the example of "band" vs. "rock band." Rock bands are a subset of bands, so both terms are applicable. But in some situations, merely using "band" may not be precise enough. Also, for the specific example of Hulk (comics), on the face of it, I would think that would be a great example of an article which might be titled "Foo (character)" instead of "Foo (comics)." The character has a well-established history—indeed a life of its own—in media besides comics. Of course, it sounds like the article doesn't reflect that and is limited in scope to mostly the comics medium. But I am inclined to your argument that it ought to cover more, at which point a name change would be appropriate. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 00:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

As long as the wording doesn't put the idea into people's heads that the disambigs here should be the first option, I'm more or less fine with it. I'm afraid that "is not precise enough" likely would encourage those who are not familiar with the rationale behind having general disambigs to find something ever more precise: "Oh, this isn't just comics, it's a graphic novel ... but not just any kind of graphic novel, it's a ..." As a comics fan, I'm sure you're more than familiar with the obsessive hairsplitting comics fans are naturally drawn to.
How about "is not sufficient"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That would work for me, but of course, I'm hardly the only opinion on this. :-) --GentlemanGhost (converse) 03:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• (Replies to TriiipleThreat's oppose rationale)
  1. The proposed wording is only a clarification of the established sitewide consensus—that we begin with a generalized disambiguation and then narrow it down when that's not sufficient. You are challenging not simply the wording but the sitewide consensus itself—that we should start more specific, and only work backwards to a generalized version if the content warrants it. You'll have to explain to the community why WikiProject Comics should be the lone exception to the general consensus—local consensus simply does not have the power to override it (that's policy, as you know).
  2. When and how content should be forked into separate articles can only be determined by the content of those articles and the editors working on them, and not mandated here—such a radical departure from accepted norms that another RfC would be required.
• —Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • 1. "(comics)" is sufficiently general.
       • You haven't explained why WP:CMC should be the only WikiProject to be granted this exception from the sitewide norm, or why attempts to conform to that norm should be discouraged. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    2. I wasn't proposing any changes just reiterating that when an incarnation of a character or other such comic book-based entity is deemed notable per our existing standards then it should receive its own article thus negating the need for a different disambiguated name. Until such time, the scope of the article is usually primarily focused on the base "comics" version.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
       • There's is nothing in the link that has anything to do with the scope of articles, or that suggests in any way that an article on a character should focus on the medium in which it first appeared. Such decisions are editorial decisions that should not be handled by a MoS in the first place, and is unrelated to this RfC. I'll repeat: this RfC is about a proposed change in wording to conform to existing guidelines. If you want ot change the guideline itself (which can't be done at the level of a local MoS), you'll have to launch a separate RfC. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, I am not nor am not proposing any changes. The fact of the matter is that we are currently discussing comic characters, other derivative incarnations can be deemed notable or not based on their own merits.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

1. "We" are discussing no such thing—we are discussing a proposed clarification of wording of a single passage so that it conforms to well-established global consensus to avoid future misunderstanding and conflict.
2. Whether "derivative incarnations" should or should not be spun off into separate articles is not something that can be predetermined by any WikiProject (no WikiProject can OWN any article). There is nothing like consensus for that at any level of Wikipedia, and it is something that cannot be determined locally, at the WP:CMC level. It's disturbing that someone could be so determined to use this WikiProject to circumvent global consensus. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

All articles are judged against WP:GNG.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

How on Earth is that related to anything that's been discussed on this page? Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

See above. I'm growing bored of this circular discussion. I've stated my opposition, carry-on without me.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TriiipleThreat: Waitaminnit—waitaminnit—you're not seriously suggesting that WP:GNG says that noted appearances of characters in different media are mandated to be segregated into separate articles, are you?! And you're not seriously polluting an RfC about precision of disambiguation with this horse manure, are you?! Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please, dial it back a notch. I can't see how this line of discussion is helping anything. BOZ (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "(comics)" is sufficiently general. Per WP:TITLE, article titles should be "precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". Therefore per WP:NCC, "(comics)" should be the default disambiguation for all comics-related articles, unless something more specific is required. Fortdj33 (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Fortdj33: The issue is that the guideline is in conflict with higher-level guidelines established with a far broader level of community consensus. As per Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."—which is policy, not mere guideline. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, with all due respect you are arguing against yourself. You acknowledge above, that there is a community wide consensus for article titles to "begin with a generalized disambiguation and then narrow it down when that's not sufficient". WP:NCC already follows this policy, by using "(comics)" as the general disambiguation for all comics-related articles, which was decided by consensus. Using "(character)" or "(Marvel Comics)" would be more specific, not less. Fortdj33 (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Fortdj33: I can't follow your argument how a character article disambiguated with (comics) could possibly be less specific than (character). How can moving that to (character) restrict the scope of the article? A character such as Tintin (character) can appear in multiple media. Further, (Marvel Comics) is not restricted to comics, as the flood of Marvel movies in recent years attests. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Further, you keep ignoring that, as per Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus, local consensus cannot trump sitewide policy—plus, the local consensus was to prefer (comics) to (comic), (graphic novel), (sequential art), etc, and not to mandate (comics) as disambiguation even when a more general disambiguation is sufficient (which the Project simply cannot do). Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Even though I agree with you about changing the wording, I have yet to see evidence that the broader Wikipedia community has said that they prefer "character" to "comics." So far, it seems like it's mostly you (and now me). Are there discussions about this which have taken place which we should be aware of? (FWIW, I'm not being flippant, I'm just asking.) --GentlemanGhost (converse) 00:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I've never insisted that "character" was preferred to "comics", only that something more general is preferred to something more specific. Even at the "Hydra" discussion I never insisted on "character", and neither does the wording I've proposed does insist on "character".

• Per WP:PRECISION: "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that."
• per WP:NATURALDIS: "when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. For example, it would be inappropriate to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term Queen."

These are both from Wikipedia:Article titles, which is hatnoted with this: "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors must normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus."

The insistance that a WikiProject can mandate a level of precision article titling that conflicts with the letter and spirit of widely-accepted sitewide policy is not acceptable. The idea presented here is that "(comics)" should come first and the more general "(character)" (for instance) only allowed when it proves its necessary is the reverse of what sitewide clearly policy states—we simply do not go from one level of precision to a more general one, nor can a local guideline override sitewide policy. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, but that idea isn't presented in the MOS, even though it has been expressed here in the comments by some editors. Nowhere does it say that "comics" is preferred over "character". Rather, it says that when you are disambiguation titles for comics-related article, the preferred keyword is "comics." Editors ought to take into consideration that when an article's scope is broader than comics that a more general keyword might be needed, which is why I support the change in wording for the MOS. That said, I don't think this is a case of trying to overrule consensus, but rather a disagreement on how best to implement it. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 20:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The interpration of the WP:CMC/MoS that (comics) is the default has been expressed by more than one editor here (Fortdj33: "'(comics)' should be the default disambiguation for all comics-related articles"; Dream Focus: "The standard is to have (comics) in the title, not (character)"), and was the rationale behind the move requests for Hulk, Wolverine, and Hydra. This interpreatation is being enforced, and reinforced through precedent and inertia, and time and effort is being wasted on unnecessary (possibly policy-breaking) moves. The proposed rewording is intended to clarify policy discourage this behaviour. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I've never understood why we have Wolverine at Wolverine (comics) when (for example) José Jiménez is at José Jiménez (character) and George Hayduke is at George Hayduke (character). Nothing anyone has said above explains it, either. However, changing the project guidelines means moving a whole ton of articles, and now that it's been proposed I have to admit that "This is the way everyone else does it" isn't by itself sufficient reason for such an undertaking. And when I hunted for a better reason, I came up short. I had assumed that there was a site-wide policy on naming fictional characters, but WP:Naming conventions (characters) clearly indicates that there is not. Curly Turkey provides a good rationale above, but there's an intrinsic flaw with it: "(comics)" isn't really any more or less detailed/precise than "(character)". They're just different ways of diambiguating; not all comics subjects are fictional characters, nor are all fictional characters from comics. In summary: I'm ashamed to say this, since I was the one who brought it up at Talk:Hydra (Marvel Comics), but I don't know if we have strong enough reason to prefer "(character)" over "(comics)".--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@NukeofEarl: Did I propose a mass rename? No, I proposed a change in wording to the WP:CMC/MoS to reflect sitewide consensus to avoid having moves proposed based on "the WP:CMC/MoS said so". Curly Turkey (gobble) 19:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

To make this whole experience even more work, you would have to evaluate every comics character individually rather than do a mass-move with bots or a plugin or something. Sometimes there is more than one character (comics or other medium) known by a certain name, so we would literally have to hash this out with every single comics character currently using a disambiguator. And if we don't have a more solid rationale beyond "following the herd", that sounds like a lot of un-fun manual work. Unless we have a mandate from above stating "move everyone to (character) or else", I can't see a particular reason why we need to do this. BOZ (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As for the specific example of Wolverine, it was actually moved last year (after a brief discussion) to Wolverine (character) and moved back after a much longer discussion. BOZ (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"Conforming to sitewide policy isn't a lot of fun" isn't a very strong argument for WP:CMC to be the only WikiProject not "following the herd"—besides, it's no less fun than moving Tintin (character), Kick-Ass (character), Dilbert (character), Garfield (character), Astro Boy (character), Asterix (character) ... plus, the rationale for moving Wolverine back was "The standard is to have (comics) in the title, not (character)"—once again using a narrow interpretation of this local guideline as rationale for the move (rather than to solve any practical problem). How many times has that happened, I wonder, and how much "un-fun manual work" has it consumed with discussions and movings back and forth? It appears Hulk (character) was moved to Hulk (comics) in 2010.

Moving titles with (comic), (graphic novel), etc, in them to (comics) was no fun either, but eventually it was done (in fact, I did a lot of that work). Curly Turkey (gobble) 19:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, if the two sides are based on arbitrary reasons ("everybody else is doing it" vs. "it's a lot of work to make a big change"), then I prefer to stick with leaving things as they are. That's my position and I'm sticking with it. BOZ (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Following policy is an "arbitrary reason"? Please explain. Curly Turkey (gobble) 19:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, when you start talking about horse manure, you've really stepped in it. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 18:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (tweaked to remove "character")

The intention of the above proposal was to clarify that the WPComics Manual of Style cannot override the sitewide Manual of Style or policies such as Wikipedia:Article Titles or Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus. Somehow some editors have seen the proposed wording as preferring or even mandating (character) as a disambiguation, when (character) was only provided as an example. I'll now propose another wording that (hopefully) gets to the heart of the matter. Instead of the current:

"When disambiguation is needed use (comics), or (company) where that is not appropriate."

I propose something like:

• (1) "When a more general disambiguation is not sufficient use (comics), or (company) where that is not appropriate."

Or, to make the rationale behind the ever-aggravating seemingly-plural "comics" clearer:

• (2) "When a more general disambiguation is not sufficient use (comics)—to signify the medium—or (company) where that is not appropriate."

Notified: @Aircorn:, @TriiipleThreat:, @BOZ:, @Favre1fan93:, @GentlemanGhost:, @Fortdj33:, @Postdlf:, @In ictu oculi:, @NatGertler:, Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters, Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Article titles.

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Note: Please place rationales in the "Discussion" section so that discussion can be centralized

• Support either (prefer (2)) as nom. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support, preferring (1). GentlemanGhost (converse) 00:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support in spirit (preferring 2), but "(comics)" is a poor disambiguator". "Mike Smith (comics)" is an unhelpful disambiguation because it simply raises the questions "WTF does that mean? Is Mike Smith a superhero secret identity? An artist? A publisher executive? A graphic novel title? A...?" Any pattern of disambiguation that leads to more questions is a very poor pattern of disambiguation. We avoid disambiguations like "Mike Smith (physics)" for a reason (no matter how many tendentious blowhards insist on that pattern in a few sports and other areas, for now). I support the notion of this proposal, that this wikiproject cannot dictate a " (comics)" disambiguator where others make more sense. One fix at a time, I guess. I.e., my "support" here is for reducing this project's WP:OWNishness and should not be take as support for their " (comics)" thing in the first place. See my rationale for support of the original RfC/survey, above.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support in principle, but I also have problems with the proposed wording, as it may reinforce the problem from the opposite side - from below. There are times when (comics) is too generic, and it should be further disambiguated when there are several related articles for the same character or series with the same title; but the current wording makes it look like (comics) would still be preferred in such cases. I'm looking at you, Wolverine (comics) and Wolverine (comic book). I would add some wording reinforcing the idea in WP:PRECISION that "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, so (comics) should be further disambiguated if there are several comic articles with the same base title". Diego (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• The interpration of the WPComics MoS that (comics) is the default has been expressed by more than one editor (e.g. "'(comics)' should be the default disambiguation for all comics-related articles") and has been used as the rationale in move requests (e.g. at Talk:Wolverine (comics)/Archive 6#Renaming article: "The standard is to have (comics) in the title, not (character)") This misinterpretation is being enforced and reinforced through precedent and inertia, and time and effort is being wasted on unnecessary moves that do not conform with sitewide policy. The proposed rewording is intended to clarify policy and discourage this behaviour, and not to mandate for or against any particular disambiguation scheme. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• The proposed addition in (2) serves two purposes:
  1. To make it clear that "comics" refers to the medium, and not to the plural of "comic"
  2. To make it clear that "comics" is preferred to other synonyms or closely related words ("comic", "graphic novel", "sequential art", etc), rather than to more general terms if appropriate—so that the MoS cannot be interpreted as, by default, requiring Tintin (character) or Mad (magazine) to be moved to (comics).
• Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• I appreciate the goal, but I think it's still phrased confusingly due to inconsistency, at least as far as I understand it. We want to encourage having the actual string (comics) in the title (as in, say Panel (comics) to distinguish from say Panel (conversation) and Panel (electronics) and such... but I don't think we're generally encouraging the phrase (company); there may be some cases where that actual phrasing might be needed (to distinguish, say Dark Horse Comics (company) from Dark Horse Comics (comics title)), but I think in general we're trying to distinguish Daredevil (Lev Gleason Publications) from Daredevil (Marvel Comics). --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @NatGertler: Well, there are a number of ways to handle that: for example (company name) or something. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

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.

"Plot" vs "Synopsis"

The suggestions provided for section names does not specify if an article about a comic title should name the plot summary "Plot" or "Synopsis". I've seen plot more frequently, but synopsis seems to be the preferred term on higher quality articles. I have no strong opinion either way, but it seems like something that should be decided on. Any thoughts? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• That's one of those things that are left to editor discretion. I think I've used both over the years. I suppose "synopsis" is broader than "plot", in that it would be appropriate to a nonfiction work that didn't really have a "plot" per se. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 14:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• I generally equate "synopsis" first more with "premise" (ie a broad overview of the plot) where the "plot" is the more "play-by-play" aspect of the narrative. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• They're synonymous, for fiction; both are shortenings of the term "plot synopsis". WP's use of "Plot" in such headings is actually sloppy writing, but it's common enough we can get away with it. Agreed with CT's point that "synopsis" without "plot" is used when referring to nonfiction.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Wrong venue, and merge titles material to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics)

The form that article tiles should take is not a matter for the MOS (a style guideline for the content of articles), this is a matter for the Article title policy and its naming conventions (see also the disambiguation guidline), Therefore this talk page is not the place to hold RfCs on the titles of articles. -- PBS (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

PBS: The discussion was specifically about wording that appeared in MOS:COMIC. You're suggesting discussion of the appropriateness of wording that appears in MOS:COMIC should take place elsewhere? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes this is a Manual of Style (MOS) sub-page guideline . It is not a naming convention guideline (a sub-page of the Article title policy. The MOS and AT are semi-detached. The Manual of Style worries about the sytle content, AT worries about the title of the article. While the two are often similar they are not he same and whether a page has a dab extension of (comic) or (character) or whatever is definitely not a style issue but one of titling. -- PBS (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Please, PBS, read this very, very carefully: this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics was very specifically about wording that actually appeared in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and whether it should be kept or reworded in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics. You're suggesting that wording that appears in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics be discussed elsewhere than Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics? That's simply not credible. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I always read things with care! Yes "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics was very specifically about wording that actually appeared in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and whether it should be kept or reworded in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics." I agree. "You're suggesting that wording that appears in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics be discussed elsewhere than Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics? " No I am not. I am stating that anything to do with changing the rules on how an article is titled should be addressed to the talk page of the AT policy, or its naming conventions which explain and enhance (but do not contradict) the policy page. In this case the specific convention is Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (comics). -- PBS (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

After skimming thorough this MOS guideline and the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (comics) I cannot see anyting in the naming convention that concents itself with the internal style of an article, however there is a very large section of this manual of style guideline that ought to be removed with any details that there is a consensus to keep merged into the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (comics) -- PBS (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Right, this merge of naming conventions material out of this MOS page and into the comics NC page was proposed in May, unopposed. So, it should proceed immediately. Three months is way more time than necessary for objections to have been raised.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Just an observation: I have a really, really hard time taking this wikiproject's venting about article titles seriously when it cannot even bother to merge its own forked naming convention material after over two years.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)