In the Prime Earth Characters page there are two Damian Wayne links. One to the New Earth other one to the Prime is that how it's so post to be?Or
is that just a mistake.Naruto 45 (talk) 03:50, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
I'd love to hear what you think of that relic of olden days, the Glossary, and more importantly, what to do with it. Personally, I think much of it can have separate pages, other things can be merged or deleted.
Done. Gizmos, anyone? Real People is also a relic, we've given many of them pages. Probably still a couple "Character/Supporting Cast" pages out there as well from the days of the Minor Character template.
I was doing a bit of research on the H'san N'tall Titans and came across a character in the picture, since I never read the series myself i wanted to know if you can help me figure out who the character is
I'm talking about the purple character next to sweet sixteen in the picture
This concerns the somewhat nebulous staff page template.
1) Real name vs. pseudonym: As I already mentioned elsewhere there is no real distinction between a working name and a pseudonym. Perhaps the "Real Name" field should be renamedto "Full Name" while the working name (for example "Joe Kubert" instead of "Joseph Kubert") should be the page name. Please see also the discussion on Vicatan which still leaves me somewhat baffled.
2) Titles: There appears to be a great deal of confusion what that means. Many contributors insert the book titles the respective staffer has worked on (which I think is nonsense given that the books are listed in the work sections), others such as myself insert the fields of work/functions/positions the person has worked in (editor, penciler, inker, etc.). This should be clarified by General Announcement so that clean-up work (either way) can commence.
3) Employers: I take it this means the companies the staffer has worked for. In several cases, where people have worked all over the place, that field is too small. I had too leave out nine (!) employers of the admittedly ubiquitous Matt Wagner.
THis is quite a heap, but as I am interested in the creators and have tons of data to contribute, the questions had to be asked.
Re your 1) A bot could do it, no?
Re your 2) Yippie. Great.
Re your 3) I do not think so. Your personal opinion is understandable but that approach will not serve to give a thorough working history of the person in question. Also, for this distinction a certain expert knowledge about the companies DC has purchased or licensed from or did crossovers with or whatever is required, and that is probably outside the interest of most contributors.
I'm sure you guys tire of the comparisons of the Marvel and DC sides as much as we do, but I have a suggestion for the third point Lucien61 raised.
The template on the Marvel side is not set up to categorize the Employers field, and instead renders in plain text. This allows us to do two things:
For staff that work with the imprint publishers, like Epic and Icon, and historic ones, like Timely and Atlas, we can simply link to the appropriate page on the site for information on said publisher.
For those staff that have done work for other select companies (DC, Image, Dark Horse, and a small handful of other publishers covered by Robert Alvarez's wikis), it allows us to link to their respective staff page on another Project. (A good example of both is Joe Maneely)
I'm not sure what works for you guys, but it's a decent option for us.
1) there are plenty of staff who have more than one pseudonym that aren't necessarily the most common name. While I think it makes the most sense to have the most common working name used as the page-name in ALL cases instead of these weird full name pages, where nobody even knows the person's full name.
So, what I'm saying is that I agree with using the working name, but I don't want to have to have a bunch of arguments about which working name deserves to be used, etc. And, I don't think changing that field's name is necessary. It's the same thing.
3) We have pages for a few publishers, because they're relevant to the wiki because of crossovers etc. It's a relatively recent thing where we have people adding flippin' HUNDREDS of past employment like they were standing over the guy's shoulder for all sixty years that he was inking comics. Ideally, if we don't have a page for the publisher, we don't CARE that they worked anywhere else.
On the other hand, you could just list those hundreds of past employers, and be okay with the red links, because - as you can see, our staff pages get next to no traffic, and contain almost no useful information (like history sections).
1) A working name is the one that pops up most often. I am fine with that. What irks me is that constant incorrect use of the pseudonym field.
2) Thanks for the clarification. And I could not _find_ the Usage page - apparently I was not the only one. However, instincts served me well.
3) You said: "On the other hand, you could just list those hundreds of past employers, and be okay with the red links, because - as you can see, our staff pages get next to no traffic, and contain almost no useful information (like history sections)."
In the 90s, I did a loose leaf comic book encyclopedia which did just that - looking over the guy´s shoulder while s/he was inking away lo those sixty years. It _is_ useful information. Relatively recent - that could have been me, I guess ...
What I was saying was: I could not even get all the companies _listed_ I had found for Matt Wagner because the field did not allow it past a certain point. I would like more space for that.
For your reference, the little question mark icon in the infoboxes on our pages should take you to the template page's usage section.
Regarding more space:
I think I'd like to hear the case for why it is useful to have more than 10 employers listed, and I would like the answer to be something other than "so that people can see where he worked."
The coding effort required to make that particular field longer is... significant.
Re employers: If you cannot put a complete list in the employer field, why have one at all? Call it the German "Gründlichkeit", but that field is useful as a set-up for the working history (yeah, I know - nobody looks them up - so what?) and, indeed, as an overview. However, a field designed to be incomplete is, frankly, useless.
That limitation came as a surprise since, for example, I had credited Gardner Fox with several dozen pseudonyms without any space difficulty whatsoever.
A I understand coding (insufficiently, to be sure), it is something that needs to be done just once if done right.;-) This database is one of the three good ones about DC, but it can be improved.
The pseudonym field has limitless space, because it requires no coding at all. You could type a master's thesis in there, because no part of the template depends on that field to do something else.
The Employer field is different. Each new employer that you add requires a line of code that relates back to the first one, and the one before it, which means that adding just ONE more potential employer requires re-writing the whole thing, because it's... like an Ouroboros. It eats itself. That's on top of the fact that the employer field creates categories for each one.
So, when you add an employer for whom we don't have a page, it creates a red-link and a Wanted Category for that employer - and the more there are, and the more obscure, the less likely that category is going to have more than one person populating it, which means that there is no reason to have that category, which means that there's no reason to have that employer listed.
The field is designed to show which employers the person has worked for under the umbrella of DC comics and those publishers who have worked with DC during crossovers etc. We are a wiki for content relevant to DC Comics. The entire working history of its employees is not relevant to DC Comics.
However, if you would like to make exhaustive lists of past employers beyond the downright generous ten that are there, that would be something to add to the near-unilaterally blank "professional history" field.
Which, I'll note, is what people who visit staff pages are EXPECTING to see filled out - and are eternally disappointed that they are not.
For which we are grateful but it rather proves my point. In a way.
OK, now I see the problem. Which means we have to select/define which companies are relevant and which shall be "relegated" to the working history.
So we will need
All-American (acquired in 1944)
America´s Best Comics (via Wildstorm)
Charlton (acquired in 1984);
Dark Horse (crossovers)
Fawcett (lincensed in 1972, MF acquired in 1991);
Fox (in 1950?);
Image (via Wildstorm);
Quality (acquired in 1957);
Tower (Acquired in 2006)
Wildstorm (acquired in 1999).
You just left a message on my wall, perhaps automatically, but since you asked, I haven't been able to edit on any wiki for about 6 months, the edit page never finished loading. Because of that I won't be able to fill in the blanks on the photo I just uploaded and will be deleted. It is a photo I took myself of the heroclix miniature "Accomplished Perfect Physician."
I left an explanation when I undid it but here it is again. One, its not really trivia. It has a whole section under "Tower of Babel". Second, you didn't put a source for that. Everything you add should be sourced.