Talk:DC Comics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	comics Portal This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
More information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (publisher): DC Comics work group

	Business and economics Portal This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
B	rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Low	rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale

Contents 1 Links 2 Noteworthy Creators 3 Recommended reading 4 Ownership 5 Logo History 6 Overall Tone of Article 7 List of creators 8 I know this is kind of pointless 9 Superman as the first superhero 10 New imprint: Minx 11 Superherobox 11.1 CC of post to User talk:69.117.27.113 12 don't merger history of DC Comics Timelime with DC Comics # Origins 13 Fair use rationale for Image:Showcase4.JPG 14 Proposed DC Comics project 15 Removed boasting 16 new logo 17 "Excessive" Images 18 Key People

[edit] Links

I think the website "Ultimate DCU" should be taken out of the External Links section. It's a link to a fan fiction group that writes stories about DC characters, but it doesn't have anything to do with DC's company or actual stories. --Lex 05:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noteworthy Creators

Take Devin Grayson off the list of noteworthy creators. She's one of the most universally panned writers ever.

The fact that people dislike her so much proves that she fits the "noteworthy" part. --Lex 05:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recommended reading

How is a "recommended reading" section consistent with NPOV? Tverbeek 23:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership

According to The Nation, DC is owned by both Time Warner (87.5%) and AT&T (12.5%). [1] Is this outdated info? If not, I suggest adding it to the article. -- LGagnon 21:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, thats not outdated info, but incorrect info. My understanding is that DC is wholly owned by Time Warner. Why would AT&T part own a comicbook company?? --Emb021 19:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not?

the nation article you referenced is 5 years old and current as of 2001. if you look around the WWW you'll see that Time Warner bought out AT&Ts share of Time Warner Entertainment in 2002.

[edit] Logo History

There are many issues published during the eighties with the Whitman logo in the top left corner instead of the standard DC logo. Any idea why?

Answer: In the late seventies and early eighties, Whitman sold shrink-wrapped three-packs of comic books. This comic books were custom printed by DC, with alternate covers featuring the Whitman logo. I think that the inside pages were from the comic's regular print run, with alternate covers. These three-packs usually contained Superman and Legion of Superheroes comics, and were sold in drug stores and supermarkets. --Drvanthorp 14:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Would this anamoly be worth adding to the main text as the DC logo is not pictured on these printings?--RedKnight 18:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overall Tone of Article

Does anyone else think that this article reads like it was pasted together from DC's press releases? It might be that all of DC's advertising and letter page blurbs have seeped into the brains of all the readers. You have to watch out for this stuff when you are writing what aspires to be a scholarly article.--Drvanthorp 14:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It is also unsourced - and avoids DC's war series...I've added a short blurb on the latter but didn't want to break up the continuity of the article by making a separate section on same.Michael Dorosh 06:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of creators

Not only does the list of creators ignore the war titles, but it seems overly long, and what does "chronological order" refer to? Date of birth? Date of first sale to DC? It could be anything, and since most artists/writers are tied to more than one title, seems like a meaningless way to divide them up. Alphabetical order would be much more sensible - though the list seems overly long and doesn't really indicate why most of them are notable.Michael Dorosh 06:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I know this is kind of pointless

Since it is in fact the company's name, but does anyone else find it odd that they're technically called "Detective Comics Comics"? Sort of like saying "ATM machine." Master Deusoma 04:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Also "SIN Number" in Canada (Social Insurance Number Number). Just one of them things, dude.Michael Dorosh 04:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry. It's actually not "Detective Comics Comics" but "DC Comics" in which the letters are now standalone initials. Like "Kentucky Friend Chicken" is now officially and legally KFC, the way a smaller company might be, say, ABC Locksmith. The ABC doesn't stand for words. -- Tenebrae 15:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superman as the first superhero

This article refers to Superman as the first superhero despite The Phantom's 1936 debut making him two years older. The Phantom's page even calls him the "first costumed superhero." So I've edited the reference here to "DC's first superhero". Cerv 22:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Phantom entry is incorrect. He was comic strips' first costumed crimefighter, but not super-powered, and he was not the first costumed such — that was Zorro. Superman is the first superhero, and comic books' first superhero. --Tenebrae 15:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You may be arguing semantics at this point. Please see Superhero. Also, keep in mind that in normal usage, "superhero" includes characters such as Batman, Robin, Hawkeye, Swordsman, Wildcat (as originally created), Bucky, and the like. These are all normal, highly trained people relying on relatively normal equipment, if any at all.

Both the Phantom and Zorro fit that mold and pre-date Superman and the coining of the term.

Cerv's point has merit. — J Greb 22:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. My edit simply states the observable facts about the Phantom, without getting into claims.

On a second note, the term "superhero" didn't exist in common usage, if at all, until Superman, who established an archetype that did not exist previously. Popeye did not wear a costume, but he had super-strength (both in the comic strips, eventually, as well as in the cartoons). Would one call Popeye the first superhero? --Tenebrae 15:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if I made an unwarranted infrence. The comment you used seemed to imply that for a character to be a "superhero" they must have a superpower. Hence my first point.

You are correct that the term did not exist at the time of the creation of Zorro, the Phantom, the pulp characters, or even the Golden Age comic book characters. The best reference I can find [2] places the word as originating in the early 1960s. That doesn't mean, however, that it is invalid to use it to refer to the characters that existed prior to its coining.

Is Popeye a superhero? Maybe. And the same question can be asked of many heroes of legend and myth. Maybe a better quest is "Is 'X' viewed as a superhero." Either way the point starts to slide into a POV argument.

For this article, I'll buy Superman as a major impetus for the term "superhero". I'll also take him as being the first example of one published by DC, and by extension, in the comic book format. For him being the first one period? I'm not that sure. — J Greb 22:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New imprint: Minx

DC have a new imprint called Minx. Now we could take over Minx as it is just a redirect and little actually points there. Better would be to turn that into a disambiguation page and go for "Minx (imprint)" (as I suspect there is probably something out there which would go in Minx (comics). Thoughts? (Emperor 03:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC))

It'd help if I provide sources [3] [4] there are already plenty of details to flesh it out and link back into it (and looks like more interviews and the like in the offing). (Emperor 03:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC))

OK Minx (comics) it is. (Emperor 00:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Superherobox

[edit] CC of post to User talk:69.117.27.113

Please stop inserting an inaccurate edit. The documented date of Wheeler-Nicholson founding his company, per article text that cites the Gerard Jones book and other sources, is 1934. Continued reversion will be considered vandalism--Tenebrae 16:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] don't merger history of DC Comics Timelime with DC Comics # Origins

please keep and save history of DC Comics Timelime page. and I will add and edit history of DC Comics Timelime page again. thank you.Thethunderstrike04 00:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Showcase4.JPG

Image:Showcase4.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed DC Comics project

There is now a proposed project or project subgroup relating explicitly to DC Comics at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#DC Comics. Any editors interesting in working with this group should indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter 17:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed boasting

I removed the initial phrase boasting that DC is the largest comics book publisher in English language. The source was:

1. Unreliable (came from Warner, DC's owner, self-website)
2. Out of date.

This more recent source shows as Marvel has more frequently nearly 40% of US share market, DC reaching around 30%, best selling comics were nearly every month Marvel's, so one wonders how the latter can be "greater" than the former. --Attilios 15:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Attilios. A company calling itself the world's largest is not acceptable as a disinterested, unbiased source. If it were true, there would be outside documentation. --Tenebrae 16:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are you using the term "greater"? What was actually in the page was "larger", which suggests a larger volume of products published, not profits obtained from the sale of said products. I can't understand how you can consider the United States Diamond direct market charts to be the sole determining factor on the matter of which company is larger on a world scale. Not only is that chart limited to the purchases of the half million comics readers that the US has, it also only reflects what retailers order, not what actually gets picked up at retail level. Furthermore, despite Diamond being frequently referred to as the sole supplier of comic books for the direct market, a number of retailers also obtain product from Cold Cut, bookstore suppliers and other small miscellaneous sources. Here you can find a comment by Matt Hawkins (President and COO of Top Cow) regarding DC's international presence being greater than Marvel's. DC's continues to assert in their more recent press releases that they are the largest English language publisher of comics. If what they said was lie or at least a debatable point, then you'd likely hear someone challenging them. While I understand the need from outside documentation (which I will attempt to find), I think we can all appreciate that DC's owners would be more likely to consider the rival comics company having a 10% larger share of the direct market (about three millions dollars more) an acceptable defeat than Marvel's owners. --Ace ETP 19:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Here you go, an assertion that DC is the largest English language publisher of comic books that comes not from a press release but from an independent party (the author of the article). Message boards are in no way reliable sources, but I feel it's worth noting that discussions involving comics professionals and focusing on DC's assertion seem mostly composed of speculation about how exactly does DC define the "large-ness", not outright denial of the assertion through presentation of insufficient evidence, such as the Diamond chart. --Ace ETP 19:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for clarification. I know the problem was exactly what "largeness" meant... Anyway, I remain of my idea that "one of the largest" would be a more acceptable statement until a third party, reliable source will be founded. Don't you feel strange that such sources look missing? I seem that lately also Marvel movies, gadgets, adolescent series (Marvel ADventures etc.) look being more popular than DC's... so, just from personal "impression", and the fact that that source is not reliable (another case is between Italian newspapers Il Corriere della Sera and La Repubblica, both recently boasting they're the most selling one in Italy) we'd keep the dubitative form. Ciao and good work. --Attilios 21:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why User:Ace ETP continues to use clearly questionable sources (as I explained in my edit summary just now) or why there's any need to use inflated language. What do we know indisputably, from a multitude of sources? That DC is one of the largest English-language comic-book companies. As a professional journalist, it absolutely boggles my mind that an editor would state that just because nobody's disputing a PR claim that the claim must be true. I don't want to get all J-lecturey, but people don't bother to dispute most PR claims because of a Supreme Court ruling in a commercial-speech case allowing what the court calls "permissible puffery". But in addition, one of the most basic rules of journalism is "consider the source."

A press release can be useful. It can provide (most of the time) accurate spellings, name/address facts, and other such objective data. But any claim beyond concrete reality is not that of a disinterested party, and cannot be treated as journalistic fact, let alone encyclopedic fact.

Also, to whoever wrote it in the intro, comic books are not a "genre". They are a medium.--Tenebrae 05:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new logo

i am not so sure about this "svg vs. fair use" logos debate, however i have uploaded and inserted into article the "new" DC Comics logo in svg (copied the FU racionale from the older one). --Have a nice day. Running 00:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a question... but when it down loaded from the image bank (the listed source), was it a .gif or a .svg?

That aside, I'm not thrilled by using an image of unclear source. Yes, it looks like the logo pulled from the DC web page, but there is a lack of contributed to the image bank meaning it may be an official version or a fan recreation. I'd rather stick with the .jpg from DC's site, format issues or no. - J Greb (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It was in AI, I converted it to SVG. It is not the only logo on wikipedia from BrandsOfTheWorld.com --Have a nice day. Running 11:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And you can see all of them (or some of them) here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Brands_of_the_World_SVG&limit=500&from=0 --Have a nice day. Running 11:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call updating the logo. I was reading through the article, it's very well done. Brianlandeche (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Excessive" Images

As per the slightly bizarre claim that this article contains too many copyrighted images, let me try and offer a rebuttal.

• Wikipedia:NFCC#3a states "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."

Since this article is about one of the "big two" American comics publishers, the oldest and longest-running American comics publisher, and publisher of key - if not debut - issues in the Golden, Silver, Bronze and Modern ages of comics, it seems fair to say that one item cannot convey all of that information.

• Wikipedia:NFCC#8 states "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic."

In any article, key points are best illustrated as well as explained in text. This goes at least double for comics, which is either "half" or "primarily" (depending on who you listen to) a Visual medium. Talk about, particularly, the 'Ages of Comics' is added to immeasurably by a picture of the issues in question. Particularly, Action #1, Showcase #4 and Green Lantern #76, which are not only key or initial issues in the Golden, Silver and Bronze Ages, and are therefore justified as fair use images to complement the text on those Ages, but in themselves visually demonstrate why the ages are different: the new-ness of the Superhero; the launch of the new wave of heroes "bursting out" of the comics; the onset of 'real world issues' and edgy scenarios. If "significance" is a deciding factor, this article could potentially be packed to the gills with images of important and significant issues - and not just for DC, but for America and Popular Culture: debuts of Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman; Patriotism during WWII; Mod Wonder Woman; Crisis; Death of Superman - these are resonant images within and without the comics industry.

• Wikipedia:NFC#Images lists many criteria that make images allowable under fair use:

1. Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).
2. Team and corporate logos: For identification. See Wikipedia:Logos.
3. Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject.
4. Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary.
5. Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.
6. Screenshots from software products: For critical commentary.
7. Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.
8. Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary.

Images used to illustrate an article on DC Comics can reasonably fall under sections (1), (2), (4), (5), (7) and (8).

That the images currently used only fall under (1), (2) and (8) (and maybe (4)) is a credit to the editors who have managed to try and abide by the spirit as well as the letter of fair usage of images: Cover art for identification and commentary is necessarily the backbone of an article on a comics company and the logo or two that are presently here could easily be sensibly supplemented by the other, iconic, iterations under fair use also.

Other images that could be very easily justified - and may even be crucial to a better understanding - could include (but aren't limited to): The controversial promotional advert for Superman that has caused such legal wrangling between DC and his creators (perhaps it could also - or instead - be used at Superman, but it's a DC issue); Screen shots from the Captain Marvel serial, which was made after a deal to make a Superman serial fell through, and led indirectly to feelings of antipathy towards Fawcett, culminating in the cease-and-desist notice placed on Captain M; Screen shots from the Batman and Superman serials, the latter of which led to the TV series; Screen shots FROM the George Reeves TV series, which cemented Superman in the public imagination; Screen shots from the 1966 Batman TV series, which shaped the company's output in the 1960s under the "Go Go" checks; Time-Warner logos; Screen shots from the 1970s Wonder Woman TV series, which helped re-kindle an interest in that character; Screen shots from Superman: The Movie, which launched the Superhero movie craze; Andy Warhol's "Myths: Superman" print which placed Superman alongside Mickey Mouse, Uncle Sam, Santa and the Wicked Witch of the East as an American icon; Promotional materials trailing Crisis under a different name... the list goes on almost indefinitely of fair use images which can very accurately and sensibly be used under the Wikipedia guidelines. Yet those in use are restricted almost entirely to the most crucial covers of actual comics.

Nowhere near excessive, however. ntnon (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Key People

What's the best way, without cluttering the Company Infobox, to add in key DC people...? It makes sense to have Levitz and Didio in the actual box, as they're the key current people, but surely (at least) Jenette Kahn should be linked somewhere prominently near the start..? ntnon (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)