The ComicBook/ Namespace, and the lack of requirements to qualify

That mainly seems to have character tropes, as far as I can tell from a quick glance. Which might suggest:

Option 4. simply consider the pages about individual characters to be subpages of pages like Franchise.The DCU (for Gentleman Ghost) or similar.

This would either mean...moving all the pages like Gentleman Ghost to the Character/ namespace (a huge, frightening endeavor) or simply grandfathering them in under Comic Book/ as a special rule for comics (would require minor adjustments and relinking, rather than a massive page migration).

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

Work pages should just be about the work characters that appear in said works should be in character/ and interlinked between the character pages the character appears in.

It's really just that simple, it's already done with other franchises such as A Certain Magical Index and Mass Effect such. Hell Shepard has a whole page to his or herself, Mass Effect - Commander Shepard, that is quite representative of the way comic characters should be.

No character page should be anywhere but Characters/.

Characters / Superman should linked in the character page of each work he appears in, so like Action Comics and such. If they are too different then don't link it and do a different write up.

edited 14th Apr '17 1:11:57 AM by Memers

Not... quite.

The Gentleman Ghost page does not trope the comics version, it tropes every version of the character, no matter the medium or work. In theory, this would allow fanfic versions of the character to be troped on that page.

I'm unclear what your proposed option is doing, perhaps because I think you're offering a mashup of the Options 1 & 2.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Fanworks never get mentioned on pages of the parent work, so no, fanfic versions of him wouldn't go on there.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?

Except there is no "parent work" for the Comicbook.Gentleman Ghost page.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Franchise.The DCU would be the parent page you're so desperately seeking. (As I said previously.)

I'm not much of a comic book guy, but I've read enough of 'em over the years to know that the DCU (and its Marvel equivalent) constitute one big, huge, monstrously-sized shared work with a (vague and occasionally inconsistent) continuity running through the whole thing. It's as much a single work as something like Discworld or The Dresden Files—if less linear in style.

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

Might as well put my thoughts about the subject down.

Comic characters can have an extremely long history spanning over half a decade (Batman is like 80+ years old), which can involve a lot of book hopping. This can make attaching villains and even some heroes to specific character pages difficult if they've hopped around a lot with no ties to a specific superhero or book; see the character that started this thread being known as a villain to Batman and Hawkman, and I think he was originally a Flash villain, too.

I don't see the issue with having pages in the Comic Book namespace dedicated to these specific kinds of characters, though we need to hold them to a more rigid standard than Character pages. We need stuff like a more in-depth bio explaining their history and powers and a list of books they've appeared in before the trope section.

edited 15th Apr '17 7:42:55 PM by Karxrida

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?

DC Comics defines DC Animated Universe (multimedia series with a single continuity) as a separate work from The DCU (the main comics). The two pages agree with that distinction, and Gentleman Ghost is part of both works.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Two days ago, this happened again. Someone created a page for the Purple Man, for whatever reason, despite his having no individual publication history. It was just copied and pasted from the text that was on Daredevil Enemies previously.

Now, comic book pages are more complicated than most, because a character's story can be continued in books outside their own, such as becoming a backup feature in another book. But there is no reason why Killgrave would require his own page, as he was never more than a supporting character. At best, they should have moved him from Daredevil's character page and into the Marvel Comics: Miscellaneous page, since he's moved on from being associated with Daredevil exclusively by this point.

Speaking of, Lady Shiva also has her own page, and she really shouldn't have. We have character pages for that sort of thing.

Edited by DBZfan102 on Oct 21st 2020 at 2:00:12 PM

"I think if you're capable of entertaining people, then you are doing a good thing. - Stan Lee

Agreed. In these cases, I see comic book pages as single-medium franchise pages for works about that character. Compare, for example, the page for Bugs Bunny.

Basically support for #2, "We should allow characters to be created in medium-specific namespaces without an attached work (treat characters as works independently of their source material)."

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

What about characters who aren't limited to a particular medium, such as Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck?

Also, this should apply only to characters who have franchises associated with them (as opposed to the other way around). The rest should be moved back to their respectives sections on their work/verse's character sheets.

Edited by DBZfan102 on Oct 22nd 2020 at 9:12:57 AM

"I think if you're capable of entertaining people, then you are doing a good thing. - Stan Lee

Mickey and Donald have both Western Animation and Franchise pages, since they originated in the former.

Not sure what you mean?

Paging ~RallyBot2, because this is related to his intended cleanup of comics pages

I had a dog-themed avatar before it was cool.

Ah, yes, forgot about the Franchise namespace.

I.e. characters who have franchises, rather than being part of one.

Did he make a thread about it? Where can I find it?

"I think if you're capable of entertaining people, then you are doing a good thing. - Stan Lee

How do we determine which applies? Is Bart a franchise or part of a franchise? How is Clark Kent different?

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Well, Bart had some video games to himself, and a comic book named after himself. And remember, Maggie has also gotten two solo films recently. But whether that's enough to qualify them as separate franchises, I don't know. I think whether the people making them see it as such is important. For instance, Nintendo considers Wario to be his own franchise, as well as Yoshi. But as for Fox, aside from the comic which has its own page, all other Bart-related properties I could find have the name "The Simpsons" coming first. This is true of all his video games.

As for Clark Kent, I'm not sure what you mean. He already has a page under his other name.

Edited by DBZfan102 on Oct 23rd 2020 at 1:04:57 PM

"I think if you're capable of entertaining people, then you are doing a good thing. - Stan Lee

How do we determine "characters who have franchises" versus "franchises who have characters"? You didn't really explain.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

They would need to be protagonists of their own stories, and not just supporting characters. For instance, Pluto the Pup has appeared by himself. He has a franchise (or had, at least) separate from his owner, Mickey Mouse.

Jimmy Olsen started as a supporting character in Superman stories, but gained his own long-running book later on. At some point it ceased publication and he became a supporting character again, but you could still argue that, while it was running, "Jimmy Olsen" was a separate franchise that spun off from Superman's. After all, by the end, most of his stories didn't feature Superman in any way.

Of course, that's the general meaning of "franchise". In TV Tropes, the namespace itself is used only for those who have had starring roles in multiple media. So Jimmy would not get a Franchise page, he would get a Comic Book page and that would be that.

But this distinction is important, because if the characters are not considered synonymous with a franchise of their own, however small it is, there is no reason whatsoever for them to get pages that aren't part of their franchise of origin's character sheet. Would you give Electro his own page? No.

Edited by DBZfan102 on Oct 23rd 2020 at 3:11:54 PM

"I think if you're capable of entertaining people, then you are doing a good thing. - Stan Lee

Then we need a Harry Potter franchise page, separate from the Harry Potter franchise page. Unless there's another component you intended?

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I've been lurking and trying to understand the arguments so far.

Aren't the Disney, Simpsons and Harry Potter comparisons apples to oranges? All extraneous works are branded as Simpsons or Harry Potter (or Wizarding World, etc.). These don't have the large, intermingled, and convoluted continuities that caused all these comic book pages in the first place.

I don't like how Comic Books and characters have been so entwined. Because then you get ComicBook.Nightwing, which tropes him as a character and his early solo run, but Characters.Nightwing also does that, and then you have Comicbook.Grayson and ComicBook.Nightwing Rebirth, which just trope the books. You get ComicBook.Poison Ivy, which is about the character, but that also functions as a work page for her solo, Cycle of Life and Death. And then there's the previously mentioned book-hopping, etc. Keeping this as-is is uhhh a no for me.

So in essence I agree with converting them to character sheets under Characters.The DCU and Characters.Marvel Universe. Like in Characters.Marvel Cinematic Universe. Then we reserve the Comic Book/ namespace for actual books. So in a hypothetical reorganization, you'd get a page like:

• BIG DCU CHARACTER PAGE
  • Characters.Nightwing: A page for the characters that only appear in Nightwing
    • Characters.Nightwing Character: A page only for Dick Grayson the character, listing works he plays a role in and safely catching his characterization in Teen Titans, in Batman comics, in his solo, etc. I guess this would be analogous, to, say, Characters.MCU Captain America.
  • Characters.Poison Ivy

Characters.Batman would then also function as a mini-index, containing both of them.

This way you don't really have to worry about book-hopping, or about why Janet van Dyne can't get her own page when she's been around forever. She just gets her own character sheet.

(It would take a giant amount of work, but it's the most in line with wiki policies.)

Edited by Synchronicity on Oct 23rd 2020 at 8:34:09 AM

That sounds good.

No. That'd be redundant. I'm saying we should continue as we've been going on and make media and franchise pages for characters who have those things, but avoid making the assumption that a work page should be treated as a character page just because it's named after that character.

So, for instance, if we did end up creating a Franchise.Bart Simpson page, say, that page should be treated as a work. It should not be used to describe his personality or tropes from appearances outside those spinoffs, because that's what character pages are for. If character tropes are mentioned they should be related only to their use in said works.

Look at the Wario page for instance. It does not explain Wario's character, only what he does in his games, as well as elements of those games. That's what all such pages should look like. But most end up as pseudo-character pages.

...I'm still in the dark about why you thought Clark Kent needed his own page. tl;dr never make a work page for a character, only for franchises. Nightwing is a franchise. Lady Shiva is not.

Edited by DBZfan102 on Oct 23rd 2020 at 5:54:34 AM

"I think if you're capable of entertaining people, then you are doing a good thing. - Stan Lee

I think I get what crazy is asking, though, because by himself ComicBook.Nightwing is not a franchise. The non-comic works on his page are Batman-related works (Batman: The Movie), works related to team-ups that have their own pages (like the Teen Titans cartoon) or greater-DCU-related works (like Injustice). There's no, like, Nightwing: The Video Game.

To clarify: I'm using the word "franchise" there as an umbrella term for "a series of works of fiction", rather than the wiki's usage. (Oh, TV Tropes.) As in, "Nightwing deserves his own work page separate from Batman", rather than "Nightwing needs a page in the Franchise namespace".

Edited by DBZfan102 on Oct 23rd 2020 at 6:03:01 AM

"I think if you're capable of entertaining people, then you are doing a good thing. - Stan Lee

That is the wiki's usage. There are single-medium franchise pages and multimedium franchise pages. I'd prefer if the namespace was MultimediaFranchise to cut down on the confusion, but the wiki isn't changing the meaning of the word.

---

That's not what you appeared to say before. Yeah, that's what you said before. You're being inconsistent. Is "Nightwing" a character or a work?

You appear to be advocating that we should treat characters as works independently of their source material, but some of your arguments suggest you approve of moving character-specific pages to the character subpages. They aren't the same thing.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.