What is included?
Which Charlton comics should be in the database?
1. Just the ones containing the Action Heroes bought by DC
2. All of them, since all of them presumably happened on Earth-4 but only the Action Heroes survived the Crisis
Shadzane (talk) 21:31, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
- I'm going to say "all of them", though not all of them may need character pages. --Tupka217 21:35, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
- Percentage-wise, how many comics are AC, out of all of Charlton?
- And, did DC acquire Charlton lock stock and barrel, or only partially? --Tupka217 22:05, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
- The Action Heroes were a very small percent of Charlton's output. 5% would be high. More like 2%, I'd guess.
- And the Action Heroes were the only things DC bought from Charlton. Shadzane (talk) 22:18, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
Disagree. Ommitting the other characters just means ommitting information that has little likelihood of appearing anywhere else. That, to me, defeats the object of having a Database. Slavish devotion to rigid rules can sometimes be unnecessarily limiting. Tony ingram (talk) 23:31, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
- We had taken that argument into consideration on the licensed material discussion as well, and then, the conclusion was "it's not DC; the fact that there's no other wiki for this stuff doesn't mean we should have it". We're the DC wiki, not the "any stuff other wikis don't have" wiki.
- Charlton is, partially, in the PD so maybe PDSH can cover this. --Tupka217 23:36, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
So information is irrelevant if it doesn't fit the narrowest parameters? I cannot agree with that, it seems to me an extremely petty attitude, particularly with a medium as vast as comics which has grown organically over the decades, different creations influencing others regardless of publisher. By this logic a charlton character who appeared multiple times in their books is less worthy off inclusion than a DC analogue of a Charlton character who appeared in a one panel cameo in a DC book. That makes no sense to me. And anyway, the argument that DC only bought the Action Heroes ignores the fairly obvious fact that other characters who were not a part of that line have indeed appeared in or been mentioned in DC books, while others who have not appeared nonetheless interacted, sometimes extensively, with those who have. Tony ingram (talk) 07:29, January 3, 2014 (UTC)
- Partially, it looks like you are deliberately missing the point Tony. This is the "DC Comics Database" not the "DC Comics Database with Extras" or the "Not Marvel Database". That comes with a limit of what is going to be covered. At this point that limit has been defined as:
- Material created for, owned by, and published through DC;
- Material - mostly video games, films, and shows - produced using DC properties by others under license;
- Material purchased by DC, whether published by DC or not; and
- Material published by DC under license using properties owned by others.
- 1 and 2 are easy. 3 and 4 have gotten a fair bit of discussion. The up shot has been, at least with regard to the material created for and originally published by Charlton, what DC owns out of that purchase is what is included. That stretches to include the comics Charlton published containing those characters, not what others companies reprinted. Nor what other companies have printed based on those characters. The odd one out is Peter Cannon, which Charlton did not own out right but, IIUC, still had a license for which DC purchased.
- That all said, a case by case argument might be made for some of the Charlton characters that crossed into the "Action Heroes" line but weren't purchased by DC. But an actual example would be needed rather than vague hypothetical.
- - Byfield (talk) 12:08, January 3, 2014 (UTC)
OK, an example: The Sentinels. This was a team which debuted in the Action heroes line as a back-up feature in Thunderbolt Vol 1 54, a series which is very definitely a part of that line. During their brief run in Thunderbolt, which was the only place they ever appeared, they interacted with Sarge Steel, who was likewise a character with a back-up feature in one of the books in the line. When DC bought the Action Heroes, Sarge Steel quickly reappeared in the DC Universe. The Sentinels, however, did not, and never have, though that in itself does not necessarily mean that DC does not own them (or, for that matter, the Prankster, who replaced the Sentinels in Thunderbolt Vol 1 60). Having done a fair amount of work on those characters, I personally would not be happy to see them removed from the DB. But they've never been published by DC, even though they appeared in books which are indisputably a part of the line DC bought. DC did, however, use Son of Vulcan, a Charlton character whose book was technically not a part of the Action Heroes line. And what about Quality characters like The Clock, who has never been published by DC and is regarded as in the public domain, but who was referenced by The Shade as being an old friend in James Robinson's Starman series? Who ultimately decides which characters fit and which don't? This place never used to be so rigid in its outlook. Tony ingram (talk) 12:58, January 3, 2014 (UTC)
- I'd wonder if "Action Heroes" is being applied tightly or not. Personally, I would think DC would have purchased the portion of Charlton it could relatively easily exploit. At the time, that would have been the "costumed" characters, part of the AH or not.
- In that vein, it would make sense that Son of Vulcan would have been among the things DC snapped up.
- As for the Sentinels and Prankster, again, I can see an argument being made to keep them here. But it would be more the presumption DC bought them but just never found a use for then rather than no other wiki having the info. Keep in mind point 3 I brought up above - "Material purchased by DC, whether published by DC or not" (emphasis added this time). That can be the story archives or the characters.
- The Clock, and a lot of the Quality characters are a pain since, IIUC, DC did buy out Quality, lock, stock, and spandex, but then only extended copyright on a few of the properties. That allowed others to use them. Again, IIUC, the scope here would be what Quality published, since DC apparently bought that, and what DC has since published, but not the other stuff.
- - Byfield (talk) 00:56, January 4, 2014 (UTC)