DC Database talk:Licensed characters and crossovers

Point 1.3.1
Just a small clarification or two: - Byfield (talk) 22:20, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The Nedor/Better characters are assumed to be in the public domain, correct? Or at least the material published under the Nedor/Better banner.
 * 2) Would we be nutshelling the Nedor material on the ABC character page or point to some thing like this.


 * I know one of the admins from the Public Domain Database. We've discussed working together in the past but never saw a real opportunity. This may be one of those times. Kyletheobald (talk) 22:23, September 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * That may not be a bad thing. At a spot look at one of their Black Terror articles, they do point to the ABC character here. - Byfield (talk) 22:27, September 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there's interwiki potential. Probably include a note on historical first appearance just like we do on Prime Earth characters. I'm mainly saying this because those Terra Obscure characters have, in addition to crappy 100px cover crops, quite often Golden Age Nedor covers in their image gallery. They should be deleted. -- Tupka 217 22:42, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Point 1.4
For what it's worth, I think we should just note the odd character that Lee didn't own that appeared in a WildStorm book while at Image and leave it at that. IIRC, his books had very few cross-overs with the rest of the IU.

This would be the tact to take on things like the Batman/Spawn inter-company books.

- Byfield (talk) 22:23, September 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Savage Dragon comes to mind. He's a creator owned Image hero. He also had a crossover with Supes. Would he get a page, or do we just link to Image wiki? -- Tupka 217 22:37, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
 * With Batman/Spawn: War Devil Vol 1 1 we link Spawn out to the Image wiki, I don't see any major reason not to do the same with Savage Dragon. The only tweak I might suggest is the idea Rab suggested of a soft redirect - a page on this wiki for Spawn (Image Comics) and/or Savage Dragon (Image Comics) that basically explains that the character is covered in more detail on the Image wiki and provides a "Please follow this link for more information about the character."
 * This would also work with Star Trek characters and give an option for character based appearance categories...
 * - Byfield (talk) 23:15, September 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not overly fond of soft redirects. They look sloppy, and if people don't know much about wikis, they might think the page is broken. -- Tupka 217 23:24, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
 * True. And with characters that have one or very few appearances it would be more work than the potential benefit. I was looking more at thing like the core Star Trek characters were the appearance categories might be nice to have here. - Byfield (talk) 23:30, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Point 2.2.2-3
Just a note on the last option there: It is very likely that Wikipedia may not have an article for a licensed character to point to. There is a tendency for even the primary characters in a game or film franchise to not get an article.

Having a centralized page might help. Might, it depends on if it's to be an umbrella or franchise by franchise.

- Byfield (talk) 22:34, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
 * That's for the insanely obscure properties that don't have an own wiki. But Wikipedia usually has "List of XpropertyX characters" or something. -- Tupka 217 22:40, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

I do have a wiki that is supposed to cover everything, called the Database Wiki. It has a lot less articles than Wikipedia because I was the only one contributing to it. Well, if all else fails, just leave the character as a black link. SeanWheeler (talk) 22:44, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Point 3.2
The DC characters are non-canon appearances of the then-current mainstream version? Does that mean they don't get a reality? Will we have to delete the DC characters of Earth-Mortal Kombat like Superman? Is MK vs DC just a non-canon New Earth story? Or does it mean non-canon as in another reality entirely? Can you please clarify? As much as I didn't want pages on the MK side, I didn't want the DC side to go too. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:03, September 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * That line is about comic crossovers. In the case of MK vs DC, it's not New Earth, we treat them as a separate universe native to the game, like we do all games, even obscure crap ones like Aquaman: Battle for Atlantis and Batman: Dark Tomorrow. (Earth-Mortal Kombat) is a misnomer. I prefer (MK vs DC). -- Tupka 217 23:13, September 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * If we are dealing with properties based on a game, I would agree a dab based on the game is better than an "Earth-whatever".
 * If we're dealing with the inter-comic-book-company crossovers, it almost might be better not to try and generate appearance categories or links to character pages on this side unless it is crystal clear that the DC characters are within the DC mutiverse in some way or the cross over encompasses multiple books/issues.
 * - Byfield (talk) 23:21, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Phew, at least I don't need to worry about Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern, Captain Marvel, Joker, Lex Luthor, Catwoman, and Deathstroke of Mortal Kombat getting deleted. But I would want to read about the DC side of those Marvel/DC crossovers. Marvel has a reality for that and we don't? I know that we talked about this a long time ago, and I lost that argument, but I won this argument, so I'll push my luck. >:) SeanWheeler (talk) 23:45, September 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope. Any info about them will be on the issue synopsis. -- Tupka 217 09:06, September 3, 2013 (UTC)

Random
Well as i said on the other thread, I strongly disagree with the notion that licensed characters don't deserve pages. Plenty of licensed characters published by DC like the Phantom, Shadow, Tarzan were notable and distinctive to deserve pages. We don't have to be totally comprehensive (I sense that that's the real problem here) and add everybody that appeared in one page of a licensed Cartoon Network issue, but the notable ones should stay. At the very least, the existing ones shouldn't have their pages deleted. Tec15 (talk) 22:38, September 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Address individual points. And provide arguments. -- Tupka 217 22:40, September 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry should have gone under points 2.2-2.3. But I don't see any particular need to delete the pages of licensed character now. For what its worth, my view is that character that appear in licensed comics are potentially liable to have pages, but not necessarily so. Maybe that can be decided on a case by case basis? Oh, and the Impact and Red Circle characters should definitely stay, but perhaps not the MLJ versions since they were never acquired like the Quality, Fawcett or Charlton characters. Tec15 (talk) 22:52, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Continued from Talk:MK vs DC
Yeah, this is a better place for the discussion about rules! Not on Scooby-Doo or MK vs DC. SeanWheeler (talk) 22:37, September 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Just creating some clarity. -- Tupka 217 22:40, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Point 2.3
This covers a lot... - Byfield (talk) 23:23, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I really have no problem with treating the Dakotaverse as part of the DC multiverse, up to and including having articles for the characters and locations. Milestone, for whatever reason, never took the properties elsewhere after DC stopped publishing for them. There is also a general miss-interpretation all around that these are DC properties.
 * 2) This is a case where a centralized page could be helpful. I tend to agree that we probably shouldn't have (MJL) tagged character pages, but I do think we need something to put context to the Impact characters and the 2008 experiment. This could either be in the notes sections of character pages, as notes on dab pages if the survive, or a MJL Publications page. Just as an aside, would it be possible to move what we have for the MLJ published stuff - comics and characters - to the Archie wikia?
 * 3) Did DC create any characters for the Tarzan or other ERB properties that are unique to what DC published or did they just stick with the novels? If there's nothing new, then we may be able to collapse the character articles into single reference page.
 * 4) Doc Savage and the Shadow are a bit more of a problem...
 * 5) * The 1985 and 1988 Doc Savage series used the pulps as a starting point. DC though then added a Clark Savage III and Clark Savage IV to pull the stories into the present. There may be room to argue that those are "DC characters", but not a whole lot.
 * 6) * The Shadow is worse... DC to three runs at the character: 1973-75 which was integrated into present of Earth-One with appearances with the Earth-One Batman; 1986-89 set in the 1930s, no overtly linked to the DC multiverse, and increasingly strange, almost to the point that it wasn't the Shadow; and 1989-1992 again set in the 1930 and which linked to the then running Doc Savage title. All three have the main character lining to an Earth-One character page. I'm thinking a reference page and leaving the issue summaries to spell out what was going on.
 * 7) Did DC purchase it from the Ellis estate? Is DC doing omnibus/trades of the old stuff. Or do we just have the First Wave and the series just before that to worry about?


 * Of course we're keeping Milestone.
 * I checked, Wikipedia lacks pages for a lot of MLJ guys. Maybe just a note "X is based on Y".
 * No idea. And another thing is Earth-ERB is used for both - was it ever made clear both Tarzan and John Carter were part of the same universe (this is also my gripe about ABC - Terra Obscura, Top 10 and Promethea seem different worlds)
 * Maybe just a page Doc Savage.
 * Spirit needs more research. -- Tupka 217 23:18, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2. I think that would be doable.
 * 3. Lord help me, but I think there was a DC story that linked Tarzan, Cater, Innes, and maybe Napier. So we aren't relying on Wold Newton for it.
 * 4. I've got no problem with converting that dab and Shadow into reference pages.
 * - Byfield (talk) 23:36, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Point 3.4
From the stand point of maintenance, this would be a good idea.

I'd side with a separate template over a switch. Frankly a switch could wind up getting royally misused. A "licensed comic" template would be a lot cleared.

- Byfield (talk) 23:40, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Point 4
I'd put together Real People, Adapted character, and Traditional a while back. They were meant for insertion in the Notes or Links section of a character article to acknowledge the character was based on something else and point the reader to the relevant Wikipedia article. - Byfield (talk) 23:46, September 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Adapted character? We'd probably wouldn't need that anymore since most of them are going to get deleted. Characters like Mad Hatter would be getting Traditional.
 * Actually Traditional would be for characters based on, and sticking close to, faerie tales, myth, forlklore, and religion, like Abel (New Earth) or Aphrodite (Earth-One). The Mad Hatter's appearance was taken from Caroll's character, but DC's character deviates drastically beyond that.
 * As for Adapted character, it's likely you're right, though we may still wind up with some that stick around.
 * - Byfield (talk) 00:49, September 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * I would consider Alice in Wonderland as folklore. SeanWheeler (talk) 00:56, September 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * It's literature. -- Tupka 217 09:08, September 3, 2013 (UTC)

Point 3.3
I'm a little confused by all of this but I figured this would be the point to discuss Scorpion (Injustice: Gods Among Us) and Kano (Arkhamverse).

I admit I made the Scorpion page and I don't want to see it deleted. But, I'm afraid, by deleting it, we would be losing information. I've seen the Mortal Kombat wiki page. The last time I was there, the only mention of Injustice was in the Trivia. "Scorpion is a downloadable character in Injustice: Gods Among Us." That's it! Nothing about his moves, his animations, his appearance, his personal epilogue. In the game, I see Scorpion as an Injustice character who just so happens to be a Mortal Kombat character, too. --- Haroldrocks  talk  17:00, September 3, 2013 (UTC)