DrJohnnyDiablo

No. The era or "Age" in which these characters debuted is known on this wiki as the "New 52" era. It is the age following the Modern Age. All characters introduced after 2011 fall into this category.

Characters whose first appearance is not a comic book need to have their debut year category and era category added manually.

Ok, thanks for the answear. Didn't knew that other media characters had to be given with a era.

It's from The Brave and the Bold Vol 1 45.

Thank you, I'll edit that as soon as I can leave my apartment bathroom without being instacooked. I think the heat's getting to my brain.

Cool.

I just added the Snapper Carr mention. Adding the missing characters tag has become a reflex when I add one appearance or mention.

I stumbled on a mention in Batman (Volume 3) #7. I'm not sure if he's made an actual appearance in PE as yet.

Thanks

Great minds think alike.

But, really, it's the best image of Judson Caspian as the Reaper in that comic.

yea the flashback was really brief so that was the only image of Caspian in the Reaper costume not facing back.

stop

No, it is just my personal preference to only have the original creators in the creator field.

Well, my personal preference is to list the original creators alongside the creators of the specific version of said character.

It is a rule. Adapted characters only list the original creators in the infobox. The staff on Lego Batman or whatever elseworld didn’t create Batman.

But they created that alternate version of him. They still deserve some credit, imo. Not all of it, but some

That’s what the adapted template in the notes section is for.

The AdptBoilerplate? I thought that one was for list just the original creators

While it might not be exactly the right term for it, that information should go in the notes section on the issue page. I'm not sure about the template. One of the other admins might be able to weigh in on that.

That's... a terrible solution, frankly. For one thing, it's a huge chunk of information that seems to violate the more to-the-point nature of the notes section. For another, it's atrocious from a information discovery perspective. In all other contexts, information about the book precedes details about what's actually inside of it. We don't talk about the publication history of (choosing a book at random) Justice League Europe (Volume 1) before we list the characters, locations, vehicles, et al. that appear in Justice League Europe #12. You move from more general, background information to specific details. And yet, with this solution, we're burying the lede all the way down at the bottom of the page. If we're absolutely insistent on overloading the comic template this way, is there any chance we could get a proper history section added and placed? —Seancdaug (talk) 02:25, April 17, 2019 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm more concerned with layout that terminology. "Notes" does seem like a weird term to use to me, but it's hardly a big deal. I'm more concerned with information structure and discovery. I absolutely understand while having a volume article for one-shots is more than a bit crufty and less than ideal, but there's information captured in the volume template that simply cannot be presented in a sensible way on the comic template.

If there was some way to extend the existing comic template to present this kind of information above the fold (perhaps in a contextual fashion, like how the character template can be "themed" to provide, for instance, an "Oath" section for Green Lanterns), or even the ability to add a second, "stub" volume template of some sort to the top of the article (stripped of redundant information and categories), that would more than address my concerns. —Seancdaug (talk) 02:47, April 17, 2019 (UTC)

If we're being frank from the start of things, then I should tell you in all candour that it's the only solution you're going to get. Likewise, the tone of your response makes me inclined to give a less diplomatic response than I might otherwise have given.

That's accurate. And the majority of that information is readily available on the one-shot's issue page. e.g. publication dates, creatives, and featured characters. That information is not needed. It would also have been readily available in the infobox on a volume page.

Okay, your flare for the dramatic is noted. Please try to keep a lid on it. Your clear bias is in thinking that the information that people will be looking for is not "who is in this book, what is it about, and who worked on it?" - all of which is (or would otherwise be) readily available on the issue page. In short, you're being more precious about your contribution than it deserves.

Again, this assumes that the lead is either a) information already available on the page, or b) an admittedly interesting piece of trivia about paper allotments in the second world war, which would be best placed in the trivia or notes section of the issue page.

We can safely (and rightly) pare down your publication history to the following:

Which, as I said, is an interesting piece of trivia, but hardly a lead to be buried. The Notes section is its rightful place.

I mean, I meant no disrespect to anyone, but I stand by the sentiment. Information science is my field, and I would hope that it would be given some consideration rather than a simple defaulting to "that's not how we do things." That said, if I came across as more brusque than intended, I apologize. It was jarring to me to have an article I researched and wrote over the course of several days reverted without change in mere moments.

Fair point. As I suggested in my followup (which you wouldn't have seen, given the post times), that wasn't the information I was concerned with.

There's nothing "dramatic" about it. As I said, this is my field. I mention that not to pull rank (that would be as ludicrously irrelevant as it would be rude of me), but because information discovery is an actual thing, and there's a well-studied logic to it. I'm not claiming any sort of final word, nor do I have any desire to shut down discussion, but because it's the perspective I'm coming at the problem from, and one that I would hope can be considered, at least at some level.

That's just it, though: if that bias exists, it's not exactly mine. The rest of the wiki is structured that way, with the volume articles containing broad-scope publication information and linking down to the more detailed individual issue articles. Because of the way we're doing one-shots, it turns that on its head, with the issue details preceding broader publication information. There's a lot of redundant information that we don't need to capture twice for one-shots (dates, creators, characters, etc.), but the overlap isn't 100%, and that's where the problem lies, IMO.

This is exactly the kind of information capture right at the top of the "history" section of every volume article we have. It's real-world historical context, and what I'm having trouble understanding is why it's above-the-fold data in those cases, but "trivia" for one-shots. (And the term is "lede," BTW. It's the introductory paragraph in a article.)

In any case, I think I've come across as more combative here than was my intention. As much as I question the policy and want to encourage a reconsideration, I acknowledge it as the status quo and I certainly mean no disrespect to anyone. With that, I think I've spammed Dr. Diablo's wall more than enough for the time being.