Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-1038387-20150101215847/@comment-1038387-20150120024350

Tony ingram wrote: Byfield wrote: I think they've done a fair job of answering why Tony, you just don't want to accept it.

What was published outside of DC's ownership and/or control is not necessarily within the scope of an reference work that has a stated focus of DC. Where they fall varies: The best solutions given the limited scope in use here is for those mentions to link to similar wikia that specializes in that topic or one that wants to cover it all.
 * Articles on the companies that DC bought out, competes with, and works with are important.
 * Comics that DC actively folded into cannon can be important.
 * Comics that DC either didn't acquire or use are only important insofar an mention within notes sections on character pages or, if they are notable works, in the body text of a creator or company page.
 * Characters follow the same split. And that means if DC ignored it or didn't use it, it's material for notes, at best.

As far as clutter goes, even if individual characters or comics that fit the "notes only" category above could be justifies, they would open the door for material than can't. And that would make the project cluttered beyond the point of being useable under the topic of DC comics. Still not really seeing where "cluttered" even comes into it. I could claim that any article on a DC title post 2011 is "clutter", because I've no interest in current DC. But I suspect others would disagree. Personal opinion isn't the point here. It's not important whether we like or hate the Fox years. It's not DC. As such, having it on the site clutters things up.