Would famous artists and people like Neil Armstrong be qualified to make a profile on? I’ve already made one for Andy Warhol, but since you removed his appearance from the movie, I would like to know if there’s something wrong about it.
Sorry, I didn't mean to undo Andy Warhol, as the page already existed. I'll fix that.
For the rest, see the link I referred to (which you may already have done). And you may be right, Neil Armstrong and Leonid Brezhnev and a few others may qualify for pages under #3 (Major Historical Figure), but not all of them...
Personally, I'd say no to them because they are too recent (who knows if rock & roll will even be around in 100 years?), but since we didn't come up with a definition for Major Historical Figure yet, I won't object if you make redlinks for them. (Someone else may, but not me.)
What I'm gonna ask might date a bit, but on the issue Adventure Comics #218, you added this a few years ago:
This issue of Adventure Comics is considered by some comic indexers to be the first issue to regularly feature the Green Arrow of Earth-One. Other indexers place the dividing line between Earth-Two and Earth-One elsewhere. The DC Comics Database has selected thus issue.
Do you, by any chance, remember the source of the indexers using #218 as a reference ?
No. I just added that note because Adventure Comics #218 was already where we were making the split, so I figured it needed a note, but because I didn't know the exact reasons I left the note vague. The decision to use that issue as the first Earth-One issue was made in 2011, long before I was here.
Actually that someone saw the movie redlinked everywhere and decided not to let it be a redlink. But I shan't take that jibe personally, as I genuinely did not know how the situation was and the practices were different back then.
We should probably apply the same logic to the other movie - it's by Spirit Films, LLC, OddLot, Lionsgate and Sony. Pity, there were a lot of nice subjects for Actor Pages in it.
What I meant was, the 2008 movie had such nice actors in it. It was Seychelle Gabriel's first credit.
We should get rid of images, characters and appearances. And honestly, I think all of it. First Wave might be a problem but that also affects Doc Savage.
I think most Spirit pages should go, but the Earth-Spirit page can be renamed Spirit (franchise) and be the place where we explain the relationship, thru the years, between DC and the Spirit.
I also think Denny Colt (First Wave) (and any related pages) should stay, as First Wave is (was?) an actual DC universe, and all the characters in it should get pages. This would be similar to how we have a page for Kent Allard (Earth-One) because that version of the Shadow was integrated into Earth-One, but we don't have pages for the Shadow from Shadow Vol 2 or the Shadow from Shadow Strikes Vol 1, because they were in their own non-DC universes.
I'm just asking, but what are the rules for Real People on the list? Should every single one be on the list, or just historical characters that are general knowledge?
Oh wait, are you talking about the Real People page (and not about which real people get their own pages)? In that case, I think every real person should be listed on Real People, but I've never seen any discussion about it....
Hey I'm a little concerned about your note on the Fawcett villains pages. First, I'm not even sure DC owns all those characters. The only thing I've ever seen says that DC bought the Marvel Family and related characters, not the full line and roster. Second, this is a similar note to adapted characters, which I'm not sure is even necessary here. Also, for most of the characters so far, it's the only piece of text on their entire page. I'm curious what others think but I'd hold off on them for now.
Since the characters are labeled as "Earth-S" and DC managed to stuff all of the Fawcett characters there with "Crisis on Earth-S", it seems mostly unneeded. Especial in the a format like the Prime Earth characters.
As far as DC's ownership of the characters. I think DC wound up buying them lock, stock, and barrel. The aforementioned story got DC into trouble since they used characters outside the Marvel Family/Stable, which is all they had licensed at the time. IIRC this is way All-Star Squadron only used the Marvels, and then sparingly.
From Power of Shazam on, it seems DC has ownership of the rest of the Fawcett characters though.
Hey I'm a little concerned about your note on the Fawcett villains pages. First, I'm not even sure DC owns all those characters. The only thing I've ever seen says that DC bought the Marvel Family and related characters, not the full line and roster.
As Byfield pointed out, DC certainly bought more than the Marvel Family characters in 1991, because they have used more that that. Bulletman & Bulletgirl, Ibis, Spy Smasher and even Mister Scarlet and Pinky all showed up after 1991. Everything I heard is that they bought all of Fawcett's 1940-1953 comics characters (except for the handful Fawcett sold Charlton in 1953) -- with the important caveat that some (most?) of the lesser-known characters may have actually fallen into the public domain by then, so DC couldn't buy them. But they certainly bought everything that could be sold.
As for the licensing years of 1972-1991, from what I understand is that sometimes DC only had the license to the Marvel Family characters, and sometimes they has the license to all the Fawcett characters, and sometimes they didn't have any license, because the previous license had ran out and negotiations with Fawcett for the renewal were going long.
Kyletheobald wrote:
Second, this is a similar note to adapted characters, which I'm not sure is even necessary here. Also, for most of the characters so far, it's the only piece of text on their entire page. I'm curious what others think but I'd hold off on them for now.
Here's what Ive been doing the last few days, so you know:
1. I am going thru the characters in the Fawcett Publications Characters category.
2. If a character is a real person, a mythological/legendary character or a public domain literary character, I am skipping them.
5. If the appearance list has both Fawcett and DC books listed (like Captain Nazi), I add this note (which I did NOT originally write. I found it on the Ibis page (or maybe it was Bulletman) and liked it, so I've been using it):
CHARACTER was created by CREATORS for Fawcett Publications. In 1953, National Periodical Publications (aka DC Comics) settled a long-running lawsuit against Fawcett citing that the character of Captain Marvel bore too much of a resemblance to their own character, Superman. After settling the case (by agreeing to no longer publish Captain Marvel), Fawcett discontinued publication of their entire comic book line and CHARACTER lapsed into obscurity. In 1972, DC Comics licensed many of the Fawcett characters, including CHARACTER, and established that they existed on the fictional parallel world known as Earth-S. The Fawcett characters made several appearances throughout various Silver Age DC titles including Shazam, World's Finest Comics and Justice League of America. In 1991, DC bought the Fawcett characters (including CHARACTER) outright.
6. If the appearance list has only Fawcett books listed (like the Hunchback), I add this note:
CHARACTER was created by CREATORS for Fawcett Publications. In 1991, DC bought the Fawcett comics characters (including CHARACTER) from Fawcett. DC has not yet used CHARACTER in any new stories.
Also, as part of step 6, I check and make sure the character hasn't been used post-Crisis. If I ever find a Fawcett character who DC never used during the Earth-S period but did use post-Crisis, they will need a different note. But it hasn't happened yet.
I have two issues with this right now based on your info. 1: Does DC actually own these characters or are they in the public domain? There is unlikely a definitive answer but I'd lean towards public domain on most of the one-off villains. 2: Is any note necessary? I could be persuaded but I dislike adding notes en masse. Especially when that is the only text readers get on an article.
I have two issues with this right now based on your info. 1: Does DC actually own these characters or are they in the public domain? There is unlikely a definitive answer but I'd lean towards public domain on most of the one-off villains.
I don't think that's too relevant. DC tends to act like they own all the Fawcett characters, even if they don't. And there's nothing wrong with that, the public domain characters are still open for DC to use, even if they don't own them.
Kyletheobald wrote:
2: Is any note necessary? I could be persuaded but I dislike adding notes en masse. Especially when that is the only text readers get on an article.
Now, this is just a difference of opinion. I think the notes are helpful (otherwise I wouldn't be adding them), and I see nothing wrong with repeating the same information in many different articles, as long as it is relevant and true in all the cases. Maybe it should be a template, so if there is a need to change all the notes it would be easier...
I also don't see a problem with having Notes with no History. Sure, it would be nice if all articles had some History, but if a Note is relevant, why not include it?
I disagree that DC owning the characters and them acting like they own them is the same thing. While it might not matter for publishing rights, it matters factually. We cover facts, not conjecture. So, I think it's better to not say anything concrete in this case.
To the second point, you're right, it may be a difference of opinion. I think it makes more sense to explain the complexities of Fawcett's relationship with DC on the Fawcett page. That way we don't, for lack of a better word, clutter up hundreds of pages with more or less the same note.
I disagree that DC owning the characters and them acting like they own them is the same thing. While it might not matter for publishing rights, it matters factually. We cover facts, not conjecture. So, I think it's better to not say anything concrete in this case.
I see what you are saying. My note says DC bought the character in 1991, and that may not be literally true.
Kyletheobald wrote:
To the second point, you're right, it may be a difference of opinion. I think it makes more sense to explain the complexities of Fawcett's relationship with DC on the Fawcett page. That way we don't, for lack of a better word, clutter up hundreds of pages with more or less the same note.
I do agree that the Fawcett page needs some work. Maybe I will focus my efforts there, and put this project aside for a bit.
UPDATE: Looks like there have been some new Fawcett developments. According to this Facebook post, Fawcett did renew copyrights on their comics, but didn't start until 1977 (when they came under new ownership). So that means that the comics Fawcett published between 1951 and 1953 (when they quit comics) were still under copyright in 1991, when Fawcett sold all their comics properties to DC (and the copyrights are still in force today).
So what does this mean? Here's some examples:
Does DC really own Bill Battle, a character who appeared in Fawcett Comics in 1952-1953? Yes, they do.
Does DC really own the Hunchback, a character who appeared in Fawcett Comics in 1941-42? No. Fawcett never renewed the copyright on those comics, so the Huncback fell into the public domain well before 1991.
Does DC really own Lance O'Casey, a character who appeared in Fawcett Comics in 1940-1953? Well, it depends. They definitely own those last three years worth of stories. But anyone can reprint the earlier stories, and could theoretically do new Lance O'Casey stories based on just the pre-1951 stories -- but that's hard to do and if they mess up and include material from the later stories DC can step in and sue them, so it's probably not worth doing new Lance O'Casey if you're not DC.
