Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (comics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Comics
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.
NA This article has been rated as NA-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
NA This article has been rated as NA-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Move

Ironic that the stated convention is (comics) while the page on the naming convention itself is located at (comic books). Should this be moved to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics)? -Sean Curtin 02:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree. Hiding talk 10:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point. leigh (φθόγγος) 21:14, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Let me point out that the reason I originally created at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comic books) was because I didn't want to imply that the convention should apply to comics (comic strips, manga, etc.) in general; the reason the disambiguation phrase was "(comics)" instead of "(comic books)" is that the former is shorter, easier to remember, and easier to type in. —Lowellian (reply) 11:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. I can see why not to apply it to manga, but how would we differentiate strips? And why? In the wake of Understanding Comics I'd think it would be reasonable to expand this convention to strips. I'd also argue superceding the (cartoonist) tag with regards to those working in strips, since we can't really agree what a cartoonist is, beyond single panel cartoons, which consensus agrees are drawn by a cartoonist. Hiding talk 12:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not making any claim as to whether they should or should not apply to other things; at the time, I just wanted to be careful to not force conventions onto things (such as non-"comic book" comics) which I hadn't yet thought over in detail. —Lowellian (reply) 20:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Move. And listed on WP:RM - SoM 19:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Move. – AxSkov (☏) 08:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Dragons flight 22:47, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Formative Discussion

The discussion below is from Talk:List of Marvel Comics characters and is how the current convention formed. Hiding talk 15:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

List of possible disambiguation phrases:

The "(superhero)" or "(supervillain)" disambiguation phrase has several problems:

  • It is often not quite clear whether a character is a hero or a villain. Though usually considered a hero, the Punisher could be considered a villain (Bloodaxe follows the same methods, and is usually considered a villain). Similar cases of ambiguity of moral affiliation could be made for Deadpool, Elektra, Thanos, and many other characters. There are also characters without any moral affiliation at all (example: Living Tribunal).
  • It seems to limit characters to just the superhero genre, which is not the only genre of characters. Should we consider certain characters who have no special powers (e.g. supporting characters like Uncle Ben) to be heroes? What about characters with no superpowers, but just military training, like Nick Fury?
  • Another problem with the "(superhero)" or "(supervillain)" designation is that it is not necessarily gender-neutral. For example, for Storm, should she be Storm (superhero) or Storm (superheroine)? And for Lilith, should she be Lilith (supervillain) or Lilith (supervillainess)?
  • In an effort to standardize the disambiguation name, some Wikipedia users were using the phrase "(superhero)" even for characters that were clearly supervillains. This made the entries confusing.

The advantage of a disambiguation phrase including the word "Marvel" is that it makes it clear what character is being referred to in those cases where multiple comic book characters from different publishers share the same codename (example: Captain Marvel is used by both Marvel Comics and DC Comics). However, any disambiguation phrase including the word "Marvel" also has several problems:

  • Just using "(Marvel)" by itself as a disambiguation phrase is not acceptable, as it is too vague and could mean too many things. Thus, it is necessary that it be used in combination with others words, like "(Marvel Comics)", "(Marvel character)", etc. This makes the disambiguation phrase long and hard-to-remember.
  • Many non-comics fans won't know what Marvel is.
  • Marvel is currently popular in the mainstream; will it continue to be so years in the future?
  • What if Marvel Comics were bought by another company, as Wildstorm was bought by DC Comics?

The disambiguation phrase "(comics)" does not have the drawbacks mentioned above, and furthermore has several advantages:

  • It immediately makes the genre clear.
  • It is only a single word, and very simple, in comparison to a complicated, difficult-to-remember disambiguation phrase like "(Marvel Comics character)".
  • This is a disambiguation phrase that could be applied to teams like Generation X (comics) and alien races like Asgardians (comics) as well.

[edit] Somewhat related: Naming conventions

(This section thought relevant and so archived here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics.) Hiding talk 19:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This is going to keep being a problem for us, but we can cut down on the problem significantly by making our article naming policy very obvious. I copy/pasted a version of it from the Talk archives and merged it with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comic books), and if everyone likes that policy I suggest we put it someplace where people will see it, and try to enforce it. A couple articles that need renaming/moving, if that policy holds:

-leigh (φθόγγος) 04:09, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I have a few problems with this and with the vagueness of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comic books) in one important respect. The whole (comics) or (comic) thing isn't very clear. I would have thought that when the article is about a specific series, like say Blue Monday cited above, the (comic) tag would be more appropriate, but when the subject is more general like a character or an industry convention or somesuch then (comics) would be better. I understand the desire for simplicity but the issue comes up in examples like the Superman (comic) suggestion I have above - Superman (comics) seems too broad a name for what I had in mind. Hueysheridan 14:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
(comic) should be a more specific disambig tag, the way you only use (DC Comics) if (comics) is already taken. Superman (comics). - SoM 15:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I think I see what you mean, but I dont agree. I can see a point when big articles like the Superman entry get too cumbersome and most the detailled listing of the characters various comic book series needs to be shifted into their own article which should then be called Superman (comics). In fact I already see a case for doing that, especially in the Spider-Man article. As the proposed Superman (comic) (and Batman (comic), X-Men (comic) etc.) would concern a single title wouldnt (comic) be more appropriate?
Being guilty of a couple of these names, the Blue Monday one and there's a few graphic novel ones out there, I'd be up for maintaining a clear policy on this. One major problem is that some people are going to argue that the naming convention for comic books doesn't apply to graphic novels, and so is something we should thrash out. If we perhaps confer with the webcomics project and come up with some sort of naming conventions for comics, that would be an idea, and we could then put up an rfc and mention it at the village pump. Hiding talk 21:14, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expanded

I added a few examples to clarify the position held at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. Hiding talk 10:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Character vs Title

I feel like this has been discussed already, but I cannot seem to find it. What is the naming convention for differentiating between a character or team, and the title they appear in? The X-men article seems to combine both into one article - the team and the title both. But for titles like Negation, which is not solely about the Negation itself, what should we do? Any ideas? Thanks. LordAmeth 21:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Current practice is to detail the publication history of the character in the entry, and have the entry address the character rather than the series. If the series needs it's own seperate entry, which I would only suggest if the character page was overly long, and I don't think Negation (comics) is, I would suggest using (comics series). Hiding talk 22:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Numerals

I think we need to come to a consensus on the usage of Roman numerals for mantles which have been held by more than one character. If we use them, it would be easier to distinguish between heroes and title Superhero Boxes, but there arises the problem of certain characters like Firestorm. Is he a different character every time he merges with someone else? The usual convention is that Firestorm I is Ronnie Raymond and Martin Stein, that II is Ronnie alone, and that Jason Rusch is III. Jason has "permanently" merged with Martin Stein, though, so does that make him Firestorm IV? And he's now "permanently" merged with Firehawk, so are they Firestorm V?

What happens when we get into the Robins? Conventionally, Dick Grayson is Robin I, Jason Todd is Robin II, and Tim Drake is Robin III. Is Stephanie Brown Robin IV? Does she count at all? Where does Carrie Kelly fall into the numeral system, if at all?

What do we do about characters like Nightwing? Superman was the first Nightwing, but that's not even in continuity any more. It seems wrong to say Dick Grayson is Nightwing II, because he didn't inherit the title from anyone. Similarly, is Kimiyo Hoshi Dr. Light II? Not only did she not "inherit" the mantle from Arthur Light, but she's on the other side of the moral spectrum. Again, we also run into the problem that there was a "Dr. Light" who appeared only three times in the Golden Age before never being used again. Does he deserve to be Dr. Light I, pushing Arthur Light to II and Kimiyo Hoshi to III?

When you get into the Green Lanterns, it gets even worse. They don't really take over for each other, plus there are around 7200 right now. Are only the human ones on Earth the ones who get numerals?

Are we better off without Roman numerals altogether? Previous discussion of the topic in Wikiproject Comics seemed to come to the decision that Roman numerals should be avoided. If so, however, what system do we use? --Rocketgoat 01:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's my take on what we should have on titling in infoboxes: when it concerns heroes/villains with direct lineage, where the same basic identity is getting assumed by a different person (Robin, Batgirl, Blue Beetle), we need to differentiate on disambig pages. Individual pages, it doesn't matter. There are certain characters (Rose and Thorn) where more than one person has held a name, but aren't really related in anyway. Cybertooth85 02:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
When referring to the character, refer to the character by their name, not using a roman numeral. Then we sidestep the issue and maintain accuracy. I don't really see how this is an issue with all the info boxes, simply use Robin (publication) to show you mean the publication rather than the character. Hiding talk 08:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a a fair point, but how do we explain the relation of a character with the same name as another character, especially when they're related in costume and role (Robin, Batgirl, BB)? People need to understand how chronoglically, Cassandra Cain came after Barbara Gordon. Cybertooth85 19:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Explain it where? In infoboxes? In what infobox would this be an issue? Hiding talk 19:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
If we have the characters' civilian names in their superheroboxes, we need to be consistent with it. Alan Scott and Hal Jordan both have Green Lantern as their title, as do both Jaime Reyes and Ted Kord for Blue Beetle (the same thing for the three Flashes). If we're going to show that more than one hero has had the same name (in the boxes) we need to explain differences in versions: Green Lantern (I) for Alan Scott, Green Lantern (II) for Hal Jordan, etc. based on when characters premiered in this identity. If we aren't going to do that, we need to put the civilian names in the titles of their superboxes, instead of just the mantle they wear. Cybertooth85 05:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Can the title be made a wiki-link? I can't see it being a huge issue since the article should discuss the issue. I don't really see how this is an issue, and I can't see how a reader is really going to be confused in any way at all. Hiding talk 19:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I've read comics for a long time and even I am confused as to why Firestorm I and II both Ronnie Raymond. Listing characters with Roman numerals also implies a chronological succession, but Hal Jordan didn't necessarily oust Alan Scott. Neither did Guy Gardner to Hal or John Stewart to Guy. --Rocketgoat 21:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Plus, Abin Sur would technically be GL II based on chronological debuts. And if we're going by "in-continuity", hoooboy... Jordan's around GL MMMMMMMCXI or something. Plus you've got obscure one-offs and retcons messing up even "straight" orders - do Will Payton and Prince Gavyn count as the same Starman for numbering systems or what? We've got the uber-obscure Angel's evil uncle Dazzler who appeared in three backups - in otherwise reprint-only comics to boot! - who debuted before Alison Blaire. And what about when both Marvel & DC have used a character name - is Mar-Vell Captain Marvel IV because of Billy, Mary and Freddy?
Too many worms in the can - no Roman numerals at all, and disambiguate by real names/alternate codenames/etc. - SoM 22:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character page names

This is something that I think is a real issue. All over Wikipedia we have pages like Alan Scott, Tim Drake, John Henry Irons, and so on. That is, character pages named after the secret identity of a character rather than their better-known heroic identity. This occurs largely because characters share superhero identities (ie. The Flash and Robin). The thing is, certainly comics fans can navigate through the entries based on this naming practice, but I feel it's detrimental for everyone else who doesn't know so much about comics. In a way it's an insular naming practice (The modern Superboy article used to be named Kon-El, a name even most comics readers aren't familiar with regarding the character). The Starman articles are named with the character name first followed by modifierrs in parenthesis (Golden Age, Silver Age, etc.). I think this should be the general course of action. WesleyDodds 07:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the spirit of the naming conventions is keep it simple, so if no disambiguation is needed, don't use it. The lead of an article should clarify what the article is about and clear up any confusion. Hiding Talk 13:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
This is also being discussed here. CovenantD 15:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It would appear to have been archived : ) - Jc37 13:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Navboxes

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates/navboxes. We're discussing the need, use, and style of navbox templates with the goal of creating a WP:CMC guideline. --Chris Griswold 05:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Topics for naming conventions

There are several issues which I think desperately need to be discussed/clarified. I started writing it here, but I decided to make it it's own sub-page, for discussion:

- Jc37 13:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As per the discussion, updating the conventions. - jc37 00:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, maybe next time the discussions could take place other than your user space (like this page)? CovenantD 03:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely wanted discussion, as I think was/is obvious from the discussion extant. Please note the date of when I posted that : ) I cross posted it in several places. and even "moved it down" at least once on a talk page. - jc37 05:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

(It's now moved to a sub-page of this.) - jc37 17:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Macchio

FYI, Ralph Macchio (comics), which is used as an example on this page, was moved to Ralph Macchio (editor) in February 2007. [1] I'm not sure if we should change the example or move the page back. --GentlemanGhost 15:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the article back to Ralph Macchio (comics) and left a note on its talk page referring to this naming convention page. I feel that if someone wants to change the convention, it should be discussed here first. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reprint collections

What is the proper nomenclature for reprint collections? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) seems to indicate that series titles get italicized. Would this apply to reprint collections? The reason I ask is that there are two different styles employed between the articles Essential Marvel Comics and Showcase Presents. One bolds the overall series, the other neither uses bold text nor italics. --GentlemanGhost 15:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Limited series and collections with names that need disambiguation

I have recently come across Strange Bedfellows (Angel comic), and I was wondering if it should stay there, or be moved to just Strange Bedfellows (Angel). If it were a TV episode, the TV naming conventions would suggest the title with minimum disambiguation - unless there was something else with the same in the same series, for instance a movie, which would force disambiguation to Strange Bedfellows (Angel episode) and Strange Bedfellows (Angel movie). You may think this is a fairly unique case, but given the increasing number of TV-comic adaptations, and the ever-growing number of articles on limited series and collections( TV-ralated and otherwise), I suggest a guideline should be developed, and furthermore I suggest it be modelled on the TV convention to keep consistency throughout the encyclopedia. --WikidSmaht (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Names in category lists

Apologies if this has been asked before but I'm a little unclear on something. On category lists, where should articles that are named for both a superhero's codename and real name fall?

The categories are really inconsistent on this. The same list might have Atom (Ray Palmer) under P (for his last name) and Mister Terrific (Michael Holt) under M (for his codename). It's very confusing. Is there a standard for these kinds of articles? Rajah1 05:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think there's a de facto standard for this as yet. My preference would be to sort depending on what the category is for. If it is a category of superheroes, then use the superhero name, but if it is a category of alter egos, use the person's name. Where a character has had numerous identities, use the most common. For example, Hank Pym should in my opinion be sorted to Pym. But it is a knotty one. I think it's a suck it and see hodge podge, to be honest. Nothing will suit every situation. Hiding Talk 07:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm. I think a standard should be agreed upon. The lists are a bit of a mess the way they are now. Sorting by codename for the two part name articles (like Atom (Ray Palmer)) and by last name for the civilian name articles (like Henry Pym) makes the most sense to me. What do others think? Rajah1 05:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Currently, the examples chosen by Rajah1, Atom (Ray Palmer) and Mister Terrific (Michael Holt), are alphabetized by codename, not the person's name. However, in glancing at Category:DC Comics superheroes, I see that there are other instances where this is not true. I agree with your solution, Rajah1. I think we should sort based on the main part of the name, not the parenthetical text, e.g., alphabetize by Atom, not by Palmer. In cases, such as Henry Pym, where there is no parenthetical information, my opinion is that we should by "last name, first name". --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Disambiguation between volumes

I'm not convinced that distinguishing multiple like-named series from the same publisher by volume number is the correct approach.

  • For one thing, DC seems to have stopped identifying volume numbers in its indicia some time ago; applying volume numbers to series that don't technically have them makes me uneasy on several levels.
    • It seems like original research; even if there is some citable consensus within fandom about what volume number belongs with what series, one must be careful, when incorportating such information into Wikipedia, to do so in a way that does not create a false impression that these are publisher-originated, official volume numbers.
    • In many cases, I believe debates over how to assign volume numbers can be difficult to resolve. (ex: is it worth assigning a volume number to a one-shot like the Challengers of the Unknown issue from DC's "Silver Age" event? I suspect a reasonable case could be made for both points of view.)
  • Another issue is failures by the publisher to maintain consistency in this area. For example, Marvel has published two different issues as Giant Size Hulk vol.1, #1. I remember reading on Newsarama or some such (citation needed, don't have info handy) that it was a simple mistake; they had planned to make the more recent (2006ish, IIRC) issue Giant Size Incredible (emphasis mine) Hulk vol. 1, #1, but got mixed up about it somewhere. Similarly, both the 1963 X-Men #1 (series that became Uncanny X-Men) and the 1991 X-Men #1 are described as vol. 1, #1.

I believe it may be a better idea (at least in those cases where there are potential problems with using volume numbers) to disambiguate using launch year instead of volume number. What's everybody else think?

Your friend, Augustus Chip (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul thoughts for discussion, revision, inclusion

  1. Initial naming conventions: An example might clarify the slightly clumsy phraseology of when something needs disambiguation (i.e. There is already an article of that name referring to something/someone non-comics-related).
    1. NOTE: However, if the comics-related article is more known/relevant/extensive, it surely supercedes the "(comics)" suffix, and one should be appended to the non-comics article. e.g. Alan Moore.
    2. If it's uncertain which is more known; if there are more than a couple of similar pages, then the "main" page should be a full disambiguation page, and list all necessary option.
  • Standardise the example format: "(e.g. XXX..."
  • Link to the articles cited, rather than just emboldening them.
  1. Lois Lane as Superwoman is a bad example. Not least because she's barely known by that title at all, and because the "better"-known Superwoman is surely the Crime Syndicate's Wonder Woman analogue. Far better to use the example of "Marvel Girl"/Jean Grey.
  2. Donna Troy would be a fair additional example to multi-codenamed individuals, and help address the fairly likely overly-male example list.
  1. Codename disambiguation: First and foremost, codenames that are already in use in a non-comics forum should be automatically (as per the initial convention) suffixed with "(comics)". (e.g. CABLE, AZRAEL)
  2. Several characters with the same codename:
    1. Cross-company - See below for Company disambiguation conventions
    2. Tenuously or unlinked (e.g. Sandman) may require "Codename (Character name)", but may be better suited just being listed by character name.
  3. Green Lantern example is redundant, as the GLs are all just listed by character name (hence addition above). Use: Robin (Tim Drake)
  1. Character name disambiguation (clunky title): The "Codename (Character name)" example is the wrong way round.
    1. It needs clarifying, re-exampling or deleting that the current Hal Jordan example is not actually working as described - there are no sub-pages named after individual characters. Yet.
  1. Suffixes may need brief explanations - particularly the non-obvious ones.
  2. The Amazing Spider-man/AS-m (comic book) are the same page, hence the need to also include AS-m (disambiguation) and mention that the redirect is because the core AS-m page will most commonly refer to the comic, as per earlier notes.
  1. Multiple examples (which could then be cross-referenced earlier) would be ideal. My preference:
    1. Amazing Spider-man (disambiguation, [main], comic book, comic strip, TV series, video game, Game Boy)
    2. Batman ([main-character], comic book, comic strip, TV series, video game, 1966 film, 1989 film)
    3. Sandman - (comics)=disambiguation, because Sandman (disambiguation) is non-comics-related. (DC Comics, Wesley Dodds, Vertigo, Marvel Comics) NOTE: While "Sandman, volume 1" and "volume 2" could be used to separate Simon&Kirby from Gaiman, the publisher differentiation is simpler and more concise/clear.
    4. Scarecrow (comics, Marvel comics) NOTE: The DC comics character is far better known, hence there's no need to disambiguate with "DC".
    5. Captain Marvel (DC, Marvel) NOTE: Here the characters are arguably as visible as each other. N.B. The Marvel Captain's are not "Captain Marvel (Mar Vel)", as per earlier suggested guidelines... So either the earlier guidelines need revision or these pages do. I argue the former - the pages are fine.
    6. The Flash - "The Flash" and "Flash (comics)" are synonymous. The Flash (TV series); Flash (G.I. Joe) is a different character - disambiguated by main character/series; Flash Comics and (soon) The Flash (comic book) are discret pages about different periodicals - there's no need to add "(comic book)" to "Flash Comics". Flash (Jay Garrick) and Flash (Barry Allen) follow convetions; Flash (Wally West) redirects to Wally West, since he's AKA Kid Flash. Likewise for Bart Allen and Kid Flash (Wally West). An excellent, if maybe over-wordy hands-on example of how these conventions are used impeccably. Likewise: Kid Flash (Iris West), who is not known as anything other than Kid Flash; is not best known by her name, but can't be "Kid Flash" because of Wally and Bart.

That's - quickly! - my main points/thoughts on what ought to be revised, changed or clarified, and rough reasons for the "why". ntnon (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to response in some semblance of order:
  • Your first point comes from the fact that Wikipedia:Disambiguation isn't quite an orderly place. I think we should hold off on those, for a broader discussion about disambiguation pages.
  • For the most part (I believe), the examples roughly follow the same format. (Note also that actual publications should be italicised.) Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you?
  • As for linking, originally I decided to not link to specific articles as examples, but to just "bold" them instead, due to the fact that tomorrow, that specific article may be deleted. That, and it (hopefully) helps the blue links to policy/guidelines pages to stand out more. That said, I recently decided to link the dab phrase examples, following the example of the list of publishers. Since they aren't surrounded by supporting text, the blue links shouldn't distract.
  • Feel free to change Superwoman/Lois Lane. It was honestly just a placeholder example until something better came along.
  • Specific examples: I used Green Lantern because it works both ways. Hal has several identities, and there have been several characters with the name Green Lantern. I would agree that there are not such articles "yet" (and this comes back to another reason for bolded article names instead of blue links), but it was the best multiple name example I could think of at the time.
  • As for your suggested substitutes:
  • Donna Troy is too complex. For one thing, she has the multiple-earth mess of confusion. (Green Lantern/Hal Jordan's examples are much more straight-forward.)
  • Dick Grayson/Robin might work, except he's only been Robin and Nightwing. And adds the complexity of Jason Todd (who now has a similar problem to Donna Troy).
  • Sandman, Starman, Captain Marvel, and Flash (and many others) are all such multiple-company examples. We should pick one or two and move on. That said, I had intended to add Flash as the second example in the section with Sandman (per the recent discussion, once the discussion was resolved).
  • (Note also that "Vertigo" isn't on the publisher's list. There've been several lengthy discussions about Vertigo. See: talk:Vertigo (DC Comics), for example.)
  • suffixes?
  • "Well-known" (who gets the dab and who doesn't) is not something we should go into detail with here. A link to WP:COMMONNAMES should suffice for now.
I hope this helps clarify. Further thoughts/discussion are most welcome. - jc37 17:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)