FANDOM

A FANDOM user
  Loading editor
  • Why did you put New 52 characters to characters from this movie ? Is that because it is based on comic from Prime Earth continuity ?

      Loading editor
    • 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.

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

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

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Do you remember where you've got this image from?

      Loading editor
  • I'm going to run the bot through category creation/deletion when I've emptied the Move category, there's no need to do it manually and pollute Recent Changes.

      Loading editor
  • Why the missing characters tag? Who'd I miss when I indexed it?

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

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hey where did Chase appear? I've read pretty much everything Manhunter-related. I'd like to check it out.

      Loading editor
  • Lol I literally got that same image and was uploading it when I saw the page and found out u already did...

      Loading editor
    • Great minds think alike.

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

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

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Done now: Heroes in Crisis #9.

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Vroom vroom Vroom VrOoM HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK BEEP BEEP BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP rrrrrrrr Vroom Vroom

      Loading editor
  • Why are you always removing the adapters from the character pages? Is there some rule I didn't know about?

      Loading editor
  • If we don't have volume pages for one-shots, where is the appropriate place to include publication information for the book? It's hardly a "note" or "trivia," given that it's central information about the book, there's no "history" section on the issue template. If the title is a legitimate one-shot (i.e., not a special tied to an ongoing or mini) there doesn't seem to be any place to put it. For that matter, why is "one shot" even identified as an option for the volume template? —Seancdaug (talk) 02:09, April 17, 2019 (UTC)

      Loading editor
    • View all 6 replies
    • Hatebunny wrote:

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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.

      Okay, your flare for the dramatic is noted. Please try to keep a lid on it.

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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.)

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
See archived talk page
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Bring Your DC Movies Together