FANDOM


Since we have pages on non-DC characters such as Scooby-Doo (Johnny DC), Frederick Krueger (A Nightmare on Elm Street), Jason Voorhees (Friday the 13th), and even have a couple of MK characters in other universes such as Kano (Arkhamverse) and Scorpion (Injustice: Gods Among Us), should we have pages on the Mortal Kombat characters, focusing on their roles in this crossover? SeanWheeler (talk) 18:50, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

I'm gonna say... no. The examples you list are not, at all, similar.
This is a joint project by two publishers. So like Marvel, Dark Horse and Image crossovers, we don't have pages on them.
Freddy and Jason are licensed properties. The pages on them are for reference only. We should do that for most licensed properties, though we're making an exception for Star Trek. Because it's no use being a second Memory Beta.
Kano and Scorpion are guest appearances. While Scorpion is presented as a native to another universe dragged into the game, to my knowledge Kano is not. --Tupka217 18:58, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

While we are on the topic, what about Looney Toons characters? Shouldn't the likes of Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck have their own pages considering the fact they have their own comic as well as crossover appearances with the main DCU? (Tec15 (talk) 19:06, July 20, 2013 (UTC))

They should. They're not licensed in the same way as the others, as Time Warner owns both WB and DC, so it's more of a loan or whatever the legal term for it is. Though like Scooby, I don't think (Johnny DC) is an actually good moniker. Probably (Looney Tunes) and (Scooby-Doo). --Tupka217 19:11, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

I think we should stay consistent about non-DC characters. This is going to be Talk:Scooby-Doo (Johnny DC) all over again. In Injustice, Scorpion was transported from Earth-Mortal Kombat into the DC Universe. I don't know about Kano in the Arkhamverse. I guess he could be like a Mad Hatter type of character being an Arkham inmate who thinks he's the MK cyborg, I don't know. In Scooby-Doo Meets Batman, it categorizes appearances of Mystery, Inc. (Johnny DC), Scooby-Doo (Johnny DC), Norville Rogers (Johnny DC), Fred Jones (Johnny DC), Velma Dinkley (Johnny DC), and Daphne Blake (Johnny DC). Granted, that the Batman characters are labeled "(Scooby-Doo Meets Batman)", but still, having the pages of the characters from the other side of the crossover would be mixing the signal. Scorpion's guest appearance in Injustice is like a crossover. Having articles on licensed properties' characters, but not having there appearances from crossovers is... weird. We can have a page about Scooby-Doo, have his background in the licensed comics DC published, but have no mention of Batman, even though meeting Batman would make Scooby more relevant to a DC fansite? I don't get that logic. Being published by the same company would make a page on this site, but not meeting a well-known hero of the DC Universe? Imagine if that "same publisher, but cannot meet any characters of this franchise" rule was applied to another wiki, like the Super Mario Wiki. Mario and Legend of Zelda were both published by Nintendo, right? So what if Link's page on Super Mario Wiki listed his biography in Ocarina of Time, Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword, and all the other Zelda games Nintendo has developed, but not Super Smash Bros. or Link's minor cameos in Mario games? That would be a lot of off topic information. But Link's page on Super Mario Wiki details Link's Super Smash Bros. appearances and movesets and cameos in Mario games, but not that much info about his own games. The Mortal Kombat Wiki doesn't have an article on Injustice: Gods Among Us, despite being made by Netherrealm, the makers of Mortal Kombat, and Scorpion (Injustice: Gods Among Us)'s DLC appearance with Sub-Zero, and Shao Kahn in his intro. And the DC characters on Mortal Kombat Wiki only detail their role and movesets in Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe (and a little backstory but not major DC events like Crisis or Flashpoint), but don't cover their appearance in Injustice. So the question is simple: Do we cover third party characters or not? SeanWheeler (talk) 20:34, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

I'm only going to justify the pages I have proper knowledge of: Kano (Arkhamverse) and Scorpion (Injustice: Gods Among Us). For Kano, I believe he is actually Kano. Although I cannot say I've ever played a Mortal Kombat game, Kano acts in the game as a normal villain. Neither Batman nor the game treats Kano any differently than a normal villain. Why should we? I see his page as being about an Arkhamverse villain who just-so-happens to be a Mortal Kombat character. Scorpion is sorta on the other end of spectrum, however. He is specifically from another universe but, in Injustice, he has his own new move set, his own new costume design, and his own "Single Player: Battle" Epilogue exclusive to Injustice. Not having an Injustice page for him would lose specific information about him. We don't have to focus on the specifics of their backstories as detailed in other games, as SeanWheeler said, but the characters do need pages. They are characters with information that is definitely valid. I suggest, at the bottom or top of each of these characters pages, we place a little blurb saying something like, "This is a character from another universe/game. For more specific information, visit "Example page" on the "Example Wiki." As for Scooby-Doo and the others, I like SeanWheeler's suggestion. However, I'm not going to get wrapped up in this, as I saw how the Sccoby-Doo talk page ended up. --- Harold "The Party" Rocks talk 21:10, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
First, seriously, paragraphs. A gigantic wall of text does not scream "read me". It screams "not this again".
Second. Again with the other wikis. We don't care about other wikis. Stop dragging them into discussions.
Also, don't drag other discussions into this one. This one's about whether the Mortal Kombat characters from this game should have their own page.
Third... it's unclear at this time whether we should classify Kano and Scorpion as crossover characters or "native" characters to a DC universe. However, citing the existence of their pages is not a valid argument for the creation of others; rather, it's an argument to look more closely into whether either one of those pages should be kept or deleted. --Tupka217 21:12, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
That's what I was going for. The Scorpion page, without a doubt, should be kept because the reasons I listed before. If he had the same exact combos and move set as a Mortal Kombat game and no epilogue, we probably wouldn't need his page. However, he is his own character in Injustice, so his page should be kept. Kano's page should be kept as well because he acts like a Batman villain, not a cross-over character. That is my defense for the Mortal Kombat pages to be kept. --- Harold "The Party" Rocks talk 21:45, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
I only agree with keeping Kano (Arkhamverse). We don't know if it is the real Mortal Kombat Kano, or just a Batman villian dressed as him. Apparently he's treated as such in the game or something. However, Scorpion in Injustice is a totally different story. He was transported into the DC Universe like in MK vs DC. His intro had him about to finish off Sub-Zero with Shao Kahn watching in the background, his winning outro and clash showed the Netherrealm. Scorpion in Injustice is clearly a Mortal Kombat character. His ending mentions the MK characters Shinnok and Quan Chi. His story in Injustice is similar to MK vs. DC. His costume being different? Haven't you noticed that all of the playable characters' costumes are different from their classic outfits? Netherrealm Studios could have Scorpion in his Injustice design in a future Mortal Kombat. His moveset being different? Movesets changes throughout games, so what? Scorpion has an arcade ending? Arcade is noncanon to the story mode. And the MK characters in MK vs DC had story roles, but we don't have articles on them. And Scorpion didn't appear anywhere in the Injustice story. He's just a DLC guest fighter. Just having an Injustice page about Scorpion, we'd might as well have pages on the MK side of MK VS DC. SeanWheeler (talk) 22:25, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

So is there going to be a final verdict? Are we going to keep third party characters? SeanWheeler (talk) 18:07, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

The current situation seems to have the majority of votes. --Tupka217 18:12, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
If we are going to keep third party characters, we should at least have the third party characters that met members of the Justice League. Such as the MK side of Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe. It is licensed by DC Comics, so why not? But we would also have a problem of copying the Marvel Database's Earth-7246 pages since that reality in the Marvel Multiverse was about crossovers with DC. I'd personally would want to read about the DC side of those Marvel/DC crossovers while on this site, but I can't because you rejected the Earth-Crossover idea. A character meeting a DC character would seem more relevant than DC publishing a third party series. And Scorpion in Injustice is clearly a crossover character. SeanWheeler (talk) 18:43, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

Well, since there is no reply in weeks, and I still don't understand that rule, I must continue the discussion. Licensed properties are pretty much a joint project too. The other company licenses the characters and DC publishes the comics. If the other company wasn't there to license the properties, DC would get lawsuits for copyright infringement. And we don't cover Star Trek because we don't want to be a second Memory Beta? We wouldn't be a second Memory Beta if we only covered the comics, because one: Memory Beta has different formatting than ours, and two: Memory Beta covers more than just Star Trek comics published by DC. It covers all official non-canon Star Trek media. And some Star Trek comics were published by Marvel. Also, look at Ares (God of War). The other Ares pages we have are about Wonder Woman's archenemy, while this Ares page is about Kratos' archenemy. See the confusion it can make when a licensed character has the same name as a DC character? And all those licensed characters that don't have pages? Yeah, I know it is because of people not creating them. I wouldn't create them because I don't find them relevant enough for DC. In my opinion, crossover characters would be more relevant because they actually interact with the DC characters, unlike the licensed characters who don't meet any DC characters. And Hatebunny said on the Scooby-Doo talk page that we don't need non-DC characters (and we also don't need to delete them either). And this is just in: Last year, Hatebunny updated the About page. It clearly states under the heading "What you won't find:" "Pages for third-party licensed characters who were published by DC as part of a partnership." Yep, third-party characters are illegal now. It's right there in the rules. Let's delete them. SeanWheeler (talk) 04:52, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Making this into a bullet list because you still don't know how to properly structure a slab of text...
  • No reply because sheesh, we all have a life and this one must have slipped my attention.
  • Licensed properties are a joint project, but they are different from crossovers.
  • Sure, Marvel's done Star Trek. Other publishers too. But DC's done over 200 issues of different ST series. Not having a page for them is mainly because of the size of what we would have to cover.
  • Ares and the other gods mainly exist because of the disambigs. How is it confusing? Is it any more confusing than Richard Grayson (Quality Universe)?
  • Not relevant enough for DC: so being published by DC isn't relevant enough for a DC database? We cover more than just the heroes.
  • Scooby-Doo: Scooby-Doo is a pain in the butt. We'd need to get all the admins together to figure out what to do with that.
  • "Illegal"? What, we're rounding them up and throwing them in prison?
  • There's no argument that our what-can-have-a-page policy which isn't written down but is an interpetation of incredibly random past edits needs work. I hate things like Earth-TCM, Earth-Supernatural and Earth-ANOES. All our policies need work; many haven't been updated since 2008 (that's why Hatebunny updated the about page). --Tupka217 06:50, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
Just imagine that this site used to be the Wild West. People were riding around making articles all the time. There were often few rules and the ones we did have weren't always consistent. Most of the editors and admins from that time have retired or disappeared.
Now imagine its the modern age. The current staff has to bring law and order to all that chaos and most of the time, we weren't the ones who implemented those strategies. So now, we're trying to clean everything up and make sense of various, old policies. Some have been more urgent than others. Which is more important, establishing Prime Earth information or fixing/removing Supernatural pages? Also, none of us get paid. So we all have other things to do sometimes than discuss things we thought had been mostly settled for now. Kyletheobald (talk) 12:57, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
I'll make this into a bulleted list too.
  • While this may have slipped your attention, you erased my message on Scorpion's talk page that was trying to continue the discussion saying "We've already discussed this."
  • They may be different from crossovers, but they have a whole lot less impact on the DC Universe than crossovers.
  • Yeah, we cover more than the heroes. We cover the villians, anti-heroes, civilians, teams, the multiverse, locations, comics, TV shows, movies, staff members, etc. But it doesn't mean we should cover third-party characters.
  • I did not know anything about Richard Grayson of Earth-X. He may not be Robin or Nightwing, but at least he was created by DC, unlike the God of War version of Ares which is owned by Sony.
  • "Being published by DC not being relevant enough for DC Database": While, we can still have the comics, but if we have the characters, we should show a bit more relevance, such as in the Scooby-Doo article, at least mention his meeting with Batman instead of just his involvement in his own universe. There already is a Scoobypedia. My suggestion about Scooby "being a pain-in-the-butt" is to delete his page and all the third-party character pages.
  • He-Man's article seems to be about his crossovers with Superman. Although his bio hasn't been written out, you can clearly see Superman in his profile pic. If we can have He-Man's article have something to do with his fight with Superman, why can't we have the Mortal Kombat character articles?
  • So we don't cover Star Trek because of the size we'd have to cover? We have an awful lot of Batman, Superman, and Justice League articles. Yeah, I know that those are the main staples of DC, but if we are going to cover third-party characters, we'd might as well cover Star Trek comic articles. Why make an exception? Oh, DC did multiple Star Trek series? There's only seven series in our disambig page. Couldn't they share a continuity?
  • "Rounding them up and throwing them in prison" HA! That's a good metaphor for deletion, and I would say yes because they violate the About policy - Section 3 - Line 3.
  • If you hate those third-party universes, you're an admin. Why not delete those pages?
  • Yeah, fixing Prime Earth pages is a bigger job than deleting third-party pages, but we are not always online. Many of us have a life too. And we do stuff other than Prime Earth pages, such as cleaning up vandalism and replying to talk pages. Might as well delete those pages. Don't admins enforce the rules? I'm going to go mark those articles because it is looking like I'm winning this argument. Checkmate! SeanWheeler (talk) 18:05, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
  • Not just heroes = series like Fables, Scalped (well, we should cover that one), Ghostdancing.
  • The problem with Scooby is he's both crossover and licensed - and licensed from a sister company. Though keeping it because of the Johnny DC series does open up the can of worms called Cartoon Network Action Pack and related titles.
  • Okay, this much is clear: the old He-Man stuff can go. Links to its own wiki like on the new series. And if we somehow decide to keep him, he's definitely not a native of Earth-One.
  • Technically, the About page is not a policy. It's a general description.
  • Just because I'm an admin doesn't mean I can just delete stuff I don't like.
  • More important than Prime Earth is probably making some clear policies. These are still Wild West-era. After that, we can focus on Earth-Prime and getting rid of Scooby.
  • I wouldn't say you're winning the argument (okay, maybe a little), but your constant pestering does highlight the issue that we really need to clean out the older, deeper crevices of the wiki.
  • I'm not sure on Scooby just yet, but the majority of those TV series tie-ins can just link to their respective wikis. We'd need shell pages for artist credits, but no character pages. Maybe a general page for the franchise where we discuss all the tie-ins made for it, with links to external wikis. --Tupka217 18:30, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to as an awkward question, awkward at least since it may have been asked before: Is the Database's scope just the DCU and the characters there in or is it what DC has owned and/or published?
I'm asking because there is a lot bouncing about in this thread that reads ambiguously.
Some of the things I'm picking up on though:
  • Licensed - Strictly speaking this would cover anything, story or character, published by DC that DC didn't own at the time. Some things, like the Earth-S characters, it's moot at this point since DC has since actually purchased that properties. But things like Scooby, Star Trek, large chunks of the Vertigo catalog, and so on are still very much "licensed" properties.
  • Cross-overs - As I understand it, these are essentially "stunt" publications with the continuities of the involved characters either basically being kept separate or set "outside" those continuities. This is broad stokes since each cross-over is unique in intent and how they are played out.
  • Something cross-overs doesn't account for AFAIC are things like First Wave or the aborted attempt to ingrain the Milestone and MJL characters into the DCU. Both of those were sold by DC's editorial as intended to be long term incorporation of licensed characters in the DCU. They fell apart, but they are still something that the Database should be working with.
  • I can see pointing articles like Star Trek Vol 1 1 to other wikis like Memory Beta. However, we really should have a separate comic template for it if we re not going to populate the characters, synopsis (I don't consider the link "populating" it), notes, and trivia sections. The current one tags the page as incomplete is at least two of those are left empty. That said, I've also got little problem with using links to the other wiki for the characters appearing or a short synopsis in addition to pointing to the other wiki. This makes the pages look a little more consistant with the rest of the comic pages here.
  • I'm also not a fan of dumping things like the Impact/MLJ articles wholesale. If there was a decent MLJ wiki to point to, I could see the pre-Impact material and that from between Impact and 2008's merge attempt going. Not so much the stuff DC specifically created.
- Byfield (talk) 19:42, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
And one other though given how this has ranged... maybe move this to the policies forum to get this hammered out in one place instead of having it cycle up again on other pages? - Byfield (talk) 19:45, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
  • Darn you Byfield and you're edit conflict! Well, here was my comment before I got interrupted.
  • These bullets are still confusing. I'll just have more indenting than you from now on.
  • Characters imprints like Vertigo, Wildstorm, and Milestone, would not be affected by the strict no-licensed character rule, because DC owns them. Otherwise the DC hero Static who originated in Milestone Media wouldn't get an article, which would confuse many Static fans.
  • Characters permanantly bought by DC such as Fawcett's Captain Marvel can still be covered in full detail.
  • All comics published by DC and it's imprints can have pages (even licensed comics).
  • Time Warner characters owned by a different division other than DC are considered "licensed." That includes Scooby-Doo. We are the DC Database, not the Warner Bros database. However, the Justice League in other media can still be covered, as they are still owned by DC.
  • Crossover characters will not be covered. Only the characters on the DC side will be covered.
  • Public Domain characters used by DC can be covered. But versions of those public domain characters owned by other modern companies such as Sony's Ares or Disney's Mad Hatter would not be covered. The Ares we cover is a Wonder Woman villain and our Mad Hatter is Jervis Tetch, a Batman villain who only thinks he's Lewis Carroll's Mad Hatter. Good thing Carroll died over a 100 years ago, otherwise we wouldn't get this villain. Real people in the DC universe, living or dead are also in public domain, so we can still have Barack Obama (New Earth) and Adolf Hitler.
  • Guest characters such as Scorpion in Injustice will not be covered here. The majority of the game will be covered here because it is a fighting game about the Justice League, but Scorpion's link on the page will link to his page on Mortal Kombat Wiki and his page on this database will be deleted. As for Kano in the Arkhamverse... maybe he should be deleted.
  • Earth-MLJ and Earth-S, despite being owned by Archie and Fawcett will be covered due to characters from those universes bought by DC.
  • Any questions? SeanWheeler (talk) 20:23, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll sketch out something on a separate page for these. But one thing: Earth-MLJ is not bought by DC. It's still, and has always, been owned by MLJ and its successor, Archie. --Tupka217 20:35, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
  • So we'll only cover the Impact characters on Earth-MLJ, then. Other characters like Archibald Andrews would just link back to the Archie Wiki. SeanWheeler (talk) 21:00, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. Just like on the Terra Obscura part of Earth-ABC (which is a mess), we shouldn't cover the Nedor Comics years. --Tupka217 21:07, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict)
Ideally the "Earth-MLJ" characters would be limited for back ground since none of them have appeared in comics published by DC. The salient points being:
  • Archie Comic Publications, Inc, MLJ's modern successor, liscenced its superhero characters to DC at two different time: from 1991 to 1993 and 2008.
  • The first was the Impact imprint. It was self contained and not a part of the MLJ of DCU continuities.
  • The second was the attempt to put the MLJ characters into the DCU (New Earth) as brand new characters.
  • In both cases DC revamped the characters, keeping, at best, some names and basic looks.
  • At no point did DC "own" the core characters. IIUC they've got the copyright on the stories but they can't reprint them without ACP's agreement.
The MLJ articles here give context to the characters dabbed (Impact) and (New Earth), but that's all they should give. And last I checked, there wasn't a wiki covering those characters we can point to - the last Archi wikia I looked at was minimal at best and focusing almost exclusively on Riverdale.
- Byfield (talk) 21:24, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that either the Scorpion or Kano pages should be deleted. (I may be biased regarding Kano, as I created that page, but even so). There is no good reason for either to be deleted IMO. We don't have to cover their entire history, just how they appeared in those particular games. That's fine and non-obtrusive. BTW Sony's Ares should actually have a page, since he was part of the licensed God of War comics published by Wildstorm. Versions of Ares owned by other companies and not published by DC or any of it's imprints are the only ones that should be off limits. Tec15 (talk) 21:38, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

According to the Terra Obscura Trivia, it was in public domain, so it would be like covering Mad Hatter and Ares. We don't cover Alice in Wonderland do we? And we only covered the Greek myths established in the DC Universe (ie the existance of Wonder Woman) instead of the original stories written by the Greeks. We don't have to cover the Nedor years. SeanWheeler (talk) 21:39, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
Also, Tec15 Scorpion came to the DC Universe in Injustice similarly to MK vs. DC. In MKVSDC, he switched places with Flash during his fight with Liu Kang, and in Injustice, he was warped when he was about to finish Sub-Zero. So if you want MK articles, go ahead and create the MK VS DC articles. We have good profile pics for them in the gallery. But I'd suggest you wait til the discussion has concluded, otherwise your new MK articles could get deleted. And the problem with the God of War version of Ares is that, it is the Sony Ares, not the DC Ares. Just because his comics were published by Wildstorm, doesn't make him a DC character. He is still owned by Sony. It's like those MK characters I just suggested to you. SeanWheeler (talk) 21:52, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
Okay, now it's here. --Tupka217 21:56, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
Here is what I have been doing with the current He-Man series. I created a template that would allow me to link and pipelink to Wiki Grayskull so that I wouldn't have to type out the inter-wiki links. I "populate" the appearances with those links. No categories. Just links. I wouldn't MIND if we decided to start adding appearances (probably by inserting the auto-categorization into the template I was just talking about, for proper naming conventions) - but we would NOT make pages for the characters. If anything, we might make an inter-wiki redirect to the off-wiki page (i.e. a soft redirect, which doesn't actually leave the wiki, it just takes you to a link). However, in the meantime, I'm totally cool with not categorizing those character's appearances, and NOT having pages for them.
I would apply the same rule to pretty much everything else that's licensed from another company.
I DO also write a synopsis for the He-Man comic pages. I don't see why we shouldn't. The only off-wiki linking we should be doing is for characters, items, locations etc. We should NEVER EVER be writing "see this other website for a summary." We cover DC's comics. We don't cover the characters about whom those comics are written if those characters belong to someone else. Historically, though, Charlton or Fox characters now belong to DC, so we cover them.
It's not our problem if another wiki is so shitty that they don't have pages (or good pages) for licensed characters. We'll accommodate them as best we can, but it's not our business. We cover more than the DCU proper, but we don't cover more than DC Comics itself - by which I mean DC Entertainment, the corporation which owns Vertigo, the "beyond" non-DCU books, the movies, the TV series. If an outside licensed character happens to show up within, that's worth a note at best, not a page.
All that said, there is a planned crossover between Masters of the Universe and the DCU. I am not planning to treat that any differently than I already am. - Hatebunny (talk) 22:00, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
Nice rules. Now can we start deleting pages? SeanWheeler (talk) 22:23, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
I think that calls for more discussion, and I think that discussion should be held without your involvement, because you annoy everybody. - Hatebunny (talk) 22:25, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
Got to say, I disagree on the line about licensed characters not deserving a page. Maybe there is no need to have a page for every licensed character ever, but the ones that appeared in comics published by DC should have one. At the very least, existing licensed characters shouldn't have their pages deleted. Tec15 (talk) 22:28, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Discuss it here. The randomness must end.--Tupka217 22:29, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Bring Your DC Movies Together