Ask The Tropers

There is a project for the Comic Book namespace going on right now. GateStarX seems to have just gotten involved a few days ago.

If they only recently joined the project, then it would seem that these actions are unilateral on their part, no?

Edited by StrixObscuro By now, it should be clear to all except the most dense of us that sheep are secretly conspiring to kill us all and steal our pants.

Yeah i'm just helping out with the project. If there is any questions, feel free to ask them. Check out Gigan Kills the Marvel Universe for more information also.

Edited by GateStarX It's gonna be fun on the bun!

Okay, thanks for clearing things up.

@Gate Star X: maybe edit your Troper page to link to the forum thread and mention it in edit reasons, it'll save you time having to come here and explain to everyone what is going on.

Keeper of The Celestial Flame

The change from Comic Book page to Character page is just supposed to be for those who have never had their own series. But these characters have *all* had their own series (I've included the names of the series if it was different):

• America Chavez -> America, America: Made in the USA
• Angela -> Angela: Asgard's Assassin, Angela: Queen of Hel
• Black Cat -> Black Cat (2019)
• Darkhawk
• Doctor Doom -> Doctor Doom (2019)
• Emma Frost
• The Falcon
• Gambit
• Gwen Stacy
• Hellcat -> Patsy Walker, Hellcat!
• The Hood
• Iceman
• Invisible Woman
• Ironheart
• MODOK -> MODOK's 11, MODOK: Assassin, MODOK: Head Games
• Mystique
• Quicksilver
• Red Skull
• Rocket Raccoon
• Scarlet Spider
• Scarlet Witch
• The Sentry
• Shatterstar
• Silk
• Silver Sable
• Star-Lord -> Legendary Star-Lord
• The Thing
• US Agent
• The Vision
• War Machine

Slightly more complicated than that. We still need the page to be mostly about the work(s) and not the character. Any article in a medium namespace is supposed to be about a work in that medium with that title. Details for the character (especially since they show up in multiple titles) would belong in a characters subpage. The plot tropes for U. S. Agent shouldn't be showing up on an article about the character John Walker, and an article on the character shouldn't be showing up in a medium namespace.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

As I understood, "have their own series" is meant for those big names that had their own series for a long time, with several comic book runs of their own and/or a franchise in themselves. Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, Wolverine, those ones.

Ultimate Secret Wars

For comic book characters, the “about the work not the character” thing sounds problematic. For example, let’s take Supergirl and Comic-Book Time. That is a trope that covers the entire breadth of the character, and is specifically about THEM wholesale. Likewise Breakout Villain, which specifically refers to a character who may have started as the archnemesis in one work but branched out and became more popular in other works.

Every comic book character is a mini-franchise that can and does appear in any given work at any given time. They are relatively unique in that regard.

Edited by NubianSatyress

That isn't true. You'll almost never see a Donald Duck in Action Comics, despite their famed superhero identity. Two large American comicbook publishing companies happen to have a unique model where they tend to include characters under multiple simultaneous titles. This doesn't apply to every comicbook character ever made by every comic publisher.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

There's a distinct difference between Donald Duck and, say, Wonder Woman. And even then, you can't say that when Superman has teamed up with Bugs Bunny within the 21st Century.

It's also inaccurate to argue that the "unique model" only applies "two large American comic book publishing companies", when said publishing companies account for the majority of the market. And nor does this ONLY apply to those characters; even non-DC/Marvel comic book characters like Red Sonja, Lady Death, Witchblade and others, still regularly engage in crossover material even outside of the comic book medium. As per my point above, American comic book superheroes are basically their own beast — each and every superhero is a franchise that can and does appear in any given work at any given time.

Edited by NubianSatyress

In the sense that Donald is a longer-lived and more popular character than WW, sure. But that's a matter of scale, with Donald being the more impressive figure, with more comics and multimedia appearances. Both are famous comic characters that have appeared in often incompatible comic histories under multiple titles.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I'm honestly not sure where you're trying to go right now. It sounds like you're actually agreeing with my point that comic book characters are franchises who appear in a wide assortment of works, media and interpretations. Donald Duck enjoys slightly less universal applicability like Superman, Spider-man, Wonder Woman, etc. have. That isn't to say that he isn't beloved and recognized by diverse audiences. Just that, in terms of how he is used in fiction, there is a distinct line that the Donald Duck brand will not cross.

You will not see Donald Duck snap a supervillain's neck in a feature-length film. Donald Duck cannot appear in a comic book story that features cannibalism and prostitution, then appear in a cartoon about fighting gorillas in Atlantis, and then appear in a gritty crime drama. But Batman can and has.

This is to say nothing of the fact that, at times, many stories have tried to go with an "All stories are canon" approach to the characters and setting. Such as the Teen Titans crossing over their comic book, animated and "GO!" interpretations of the characters.

My point remains that comic book characters are, themselves, a "work". If anything, Donald Duck is only further proof of that fact.

Would this conversation be better suited for the original forum thread?

Old Enough to Be Your Absurdly Youthful Mother

Yes, unless the OP is also forum-banned like in this query.

I'm not sure how to resolve that in that case.

Yes, I am. So if I'm here, I may as well make my points now.

I understand the theory for treating characters as franchises, but in practice it has mainly just made a mess. If you read through the thread, the problem that kickstarted this discussion is that characters that do not have the same universality (even within their franchises) as Wonder Woman have gotten their own pages because users have run with "characters as franchise". I've outlined my reasons for favoring the current approach here.

To answer your points:

No, it's a plotting trope and is thus suited for the work. She is not the only character within the Superman parent franchise or within the DCU grandparent franchise that is affected by it, either.

The current approach does account for this. Their new character sheets still list everything they're affiliated with. The only change is that instead of Comic Book/, a namespace meant for works, they are listed as characters under the parent franchise (Characters.The DCU or Characters.Marvel Universe). So a Supergirl breakout villain who gets a Rogues' Gallery Transplant to idk Nightwing would have both Supergirl and Nightwing on their page.

The approach I believe is to separate characterizations and plots. So for America Chavez, you have Characters.Marvel Comics America Chavez for her as an individual, ComicBook.America 2017 for the solo.

Edited by Synchronicity

Sorry, I don't know how to do the quote thing. And anyway, I'll take this to P Ms with Synch, since I don't want to turn this into a debate thread.

Honestly, guys, I think this whole thing is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Yes, you want to prevent minor villains and characters from having their own Comic Book pages, but having main characters without their own Comic Book pages is silly.

Take a look at The Wasp, for instance. I know this was debated back in the thread, but Janet van Dyne has never had her own solo book. And yet she has been a character for 50+ years in comics, led the Avengers multiple times, has been in several Avengers cartoons, and was in Ant-Man and the Wasp MCU movie. If that doesn't mean she should get her own Comic Book page, I don't know what will.

Or, to use another example, Hawkeye. Hawkeye has had multiple series, as well as mini-series, so would the Comic Book page about him be about one single one? The Fraction/Aja series? The recent Hawkeye: Freefall? Would each book get their own folder? Or would they all be lumped together?

I honestly think you guys jumped the gun with moving all of these characters. Yes, there were some issues, but none that couldn't be fixed by fixing the page or by moving some minor characters to the character pages.

IMO it is better to have one hard rule (that also follows the rest of the rules on the site) than it is to debate about who is or isn't "worthy" of a Comic Book/ page. Because there will always be one person willing to argue their favorite character has appeared in enough things to get their own Comic Book page.

And I think that it should be up to that person organically growing the page enough to prove that to be the case. If it they fail to do so, then just cutlist the page.

The current "solution", IMO, creates more problems than it fixes.

I think having one rule is bad. Having multiple rules would probably be better and allow us to avoid, again, throwing out the good with the bad.

My proposed rules: In order to have a ComicBook/ page, a character must have two of the following applied to them:

1. Had their own solo book.
2. Been a main character in multiple team books.
3. Existed for longer than, say, 20 to 30 years.

Now, Janet Van Dyne applies, because she has been a main character in multiple solo books and existed for longer than 30 years. Someone like, say, Gentlemen Ghost wouldn't get their own page, because, while they are older than 30 years, they have never had their own solo book nor been a main character in a team book.

Instead of "been a main character in multiple team books", I would simply say "Has made appearances in multiple books". Otherwise, characters like Stepford Cuckoos and Lady Shiva are only barely skirting the line, as it would depend on how one interprets "main character".

But that brings up what I believe I'll call "the Gentleman Ghost Problem." Gentleman Ghost is a C-list Batman villain, but he had his own Comic Book page. He has made appearances in multiple books...as a villain, though, and generally as a minor one.

The Stepford Cuckoos have been main characters, especially in Bendis's Uncanny X-Men and in the current run on X-Force (although that was really just Phoebe Cuckoo). Lady Shiva is slightly more complicated, as she's been a recurring character and villain for lots of books, but she has never really been a main character.

Oh, wait, the Stepford Cuckoos won't count anyway, because they are just twenty years old this year.

Edited by alliterator

Then feel free to word it however you feel it applies, if you feel that a recurring villain like Lady Shiva applies but Gentleman Ghost does not. I was only stating that the wording was insufficient.

Edited by NubianSatyress

Neither would apply anyway, because the Stepford Cuckoos aren't older than 20 years (they just turned twenty this year) and Lady Shiva has never been a main character.

But that's the thing with rules — if you can find a good reason for why these characters should have pages, add that as a rule to the list. Lady Shiva has never been a main character, but she has been adapted numerous times into other media. So perhaps that can be a rule.

That rule could also apply to the Stepford Cuckoos, as they made a huge appearance on The Gifted.

So to get your own Comic Book page, two of these rules must apply to you:

1. Had their own solo book.
2. Been a major character in multiple team books.
3. Existed for longer than, say, 20 to 30 years.
4. Been adapted as a major character in another form of media.

(I changed "main" to "major," as there are technically major characters that aren't main.) As you can see, with these rules, the Stepford Cuckoos would get their own page...while Quentin Quire would not. And I'm okay with that.

Edited by alliterator

No offense guys, but this isn't really the place to change the new rules already established by the cleanup thread. Obviously you guys can't go there (and we've been trying to get the contributors to come here instead), but this fractures the conversations and there's not much that can change if everyone else still wants to do the moves.

If there was a discussion page for these things I'd suggest we go there, but...IDK. ATT just doesn't seem to be a good place for this sort of thing, and obviously discussion is needed here.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I though what was going to happen is that we were just doing a hard move of everything and then everything with enough work tropes was going to be recreated. That’s why I’ve just been moving everything over. That’s supposed to just be step one.

Edited by GateStarX It's gonna be fun on the bun!

The main point of this I thought was to separate the characters and works pages.

It's gonna be fun on the bun!

⏏️⏏️⏏️⏏️ I don’t really agree with this, sure, you do have some valid points, but it misses the point as to why Character Pages exist in the first place, not just for comics, but in general.

Character Pages are not, I repeat, are not, awards we give to characters of high significance, they exist because the character has accumulated so many Tropes that they must be removed from another page and given their own, they are the most Trope Overdosed Characters, NOT the “best”.

For example, let’s look at The Batman Who Laughs, he violates most of Alli’s rules, but still has his own page, simply because Dark Nights: Metal was getting too long (if I’m wrong about this, tell me), by comparison, the Stepford Cuckoos pass Alli’s test with flying colors... but they still have very few tropes and could easily fit onto a character sheet.

Edited by GeneralGigan SKREEEEEEEONK!

I feel like we are bumping heavily into There Is No Such Thing as Notability here, though. What makes Cyclops different from, say, Shatterstar? Can you tell me why Cyclops gets his own ComicBook/ page and Shatterstar doesn't?

Again, I'm fine with minor characters having character pages or major characters having character pages in addition to Comic Book pages in order to keep the main page for the works, but mass moving them all to character pages is, I think, jumping the gun a bit.

ETA: I just realized that Carol Danvers has been shunted to her own Character page as well, even though Carol has her own movie, multiple solo series (one in the '70s!), and is generally considered a major player in the Marvel Universe now. And yet, somehow, she has a character page rather than a Comic Book page?

See, the thing with Carol is: she has many books, but because of how long some of them lasted (not very), her page consolidated things, so that her trope section was about all her books, not just one. This is why I don't think this is going to work for comic book characters.

Edited by alliterator

^ Not what the Notability rule means. That just means that any work with tropes can have a page so long as it's not porn. Has nothing to do with anything else.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Well again at least from my perspective that's only step one. Works pages are supposed to be recreated afterwords.

It's gonna be fun on the bun!

And what is a work? Isn't the Shatterstar comic I have a work? Is "Sherlock Holmes" a work? Yet we have a page for him (franchise and literature).

But you didn't have to cutlist the original if they were only going to be recreated. Create the Character page, move all of the character-specific tropes, I understand, but not cutlisting the original page.

Edited by alliterator

Yeah but as far as i can tell its just describing character tropes. If the page were to be recreated it should have tropes describing what actually happens in the comic with character specific tropes going to the character page.

It's gonna be fun on the bun!

Yes, but you're talking about Shatterstar the character above, and that's a necessary distinction to draw here. I don't think people would oppose having ComicBook pages about the books themselves. The issue was that they were work page namespaces about characters, not about actual distinct works. (Another issue is that these characters also appear in other media, such as movies and TV shows. If you wouldn't put a character page for Sherlock Holmes in Literature/, it doesn't feel right to treat Comic Book characters differently.)

Beyond that, I don't want to be in this debate, I was just trying to clear up something that seemed to be an error since a lot of people misunderstand the scope of TINSTAN.

Edited by WarJay77 Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Everything I cutlist should have been just YMMV and trivia pages which i moved to the parent work i.e. X-Men. I just redirected the comicbook page.

It's gonna be fun on the bun!

Which one? Surely not all of the pages you moved only have character tropes. Again, Darkhawk had plenty of tropes that were about his solo book.

...at this point, I'm beginning to think there isn't any difference between "troping a work" and "troping a character." A work has a character in it — by troping the work you automatically trope the character. If I troped the comic book Shatterstar then you'd just say that I troped the character "Shatterstar." Every work page could be turned into a character page if you applied the rule rigorously enough. Go look at, say, Paddington and see how many tropes apply to characters.

Edited by alliterator

Again this is only supposed to be step one which is why i wasn't making a distinction atm. After the move was finished i was going to go through them all. If you want an example i seperated the The Awesome Slapstick from Marvel Comics Slapstick

It's gonna be fun on the bun!

Also, again, what's the difference between Cyclops and Shatterstar? Why does one have a ComicBook/ page and the other have a Character/ page? If ComicBook/ pages are only supposed to describe works and not characters, Cyclops should not have one, because his page describes him, not his books. Neither does Jean Grey or Storm or Psylocke.

Superman has a Franchise/ page and I'm seeing many character tropes on that. I think we put the character tropes on these pages because these pages are, in fact, about the character because the character is the work. The character goes beyond one book, the character is developed across multiple books and authors, so the main page is about them as a whole, as a work. The Character page, I think, should only be used when you have a supporting cast that needs to have their own section or when you have characters confined to one work/series. And even then a lot of time, a supporting cast can get their own pages due to them becoming central characters in their own stories.

^ I understand what you were doing, but I just think it was jumping the gun to cutlist the Comic Book pages.

Edited by alliterator

Well the cyclops issue is because im not done yet as shown here.

Also im only working on Marvel ATM

Edited by GateStarX It's gonna be fun on the bun!

I didn't cutlist the comicbook pages. they should all just be redirects

It's gonna be fun on the bun!

Okay, so, you're going to recreate the pages afterwards then? I just think splitting them into work and character one at a time would have been easier than redirecting all of them and then splitting them. That just creates unnecessary confusion.

And, again, sometimes a character is a work. Superman and Batman both have pages describing who they are. That's character. (Although those pages also really need to be cleaned up.)

Edited by alliterator

Well If not me someone else. I'm not entirely sure how everything's going down. I;m just helping with the move and following the plan as it was laid out to me.

It's gonna be fun on the bun!

To repeat my own arguments from elsewhere:

The problem I have is that every comic book character is a franchise. That's how comic book companies use them. Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc. are obvious because they're big ones. But Comic Book/Robin is also a franchise. Kamala Khan is a franchise. Deadpool is definitely a franchise. The basic litmus test is this: if you can find merchandise for that character or their iconography, then in general, they are a franchise.

My problem with dumping them into character pages is: What about tropes that don't neatly fit the "characterization" label? What about Comic-Book Time, which is about the character themself over a long period of time? Likewise, if Kamala Khan gets a toy released that has a "Kamalamobile", can we place that on the character page? Do we make a brand new page just for the toy just for to add Thememobile? That's my main problem with all this; it just creates a lot of unnecessary complication about what tropes should or shouldn't be applied to a page dedicated to a character. Granted the Comic Book/ namespace had many of the same problems, but I feel that this is just making the problem worse in the wrong direction.

Captain America once shilled for Hostess Cream Pies. Superman has promoted WW 2 war bonds. Multiple superheroes have given public service announcements. It makes ZERO sense to me that each of these different interpretations/appearances of a character need to be scattered across pages for Toylines, Advertising, Film, Theme Parks, etc, etc. For what good reason can we not just have a page about the character and have it contain the tropes they have accumulated throughout their various uses as a franchise?

...Then why are these pages in Comic Book and not Franchise if that's what they're meant to be? Because there's a difference between troping the franchise and troping the character as a character, rather than as a multimedia icon.

That's where the disconnect here seems to lie. I and others don't see this as anything more than reclassifying character pages in the proper namespace and then splitting off what we have to after that. You guys see the character themselves as a work, and I just can't agree with that mindset. Otherwise the same would have to be said for, IDK, any other massively known character that shows up in a variety of works and mediums- such as Garfield or the aforementioned Sherlock Holmes.

Anyway, what I said before was kind of entirely glossed over, so I need to point it out again: ATT is not the place for this debate. ATT isn't the place for any policy debates.

Edited by WarJay77 Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Yeah, no. Discussions like these need to occur on the discussion page or the forum, not here. Locking.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman