Talk:Vertigo (DC 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Start rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as high-importance on the assessment scale

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vertigo (DC Comics) article.
Article policies

Contents


[edit] Notable?

The list of "Notable Series" seems to have turned into a nearly complete list. Can someone tell me why Tomahawk, Nevada, Congo Bill and Thessaly: Witch For Hire are notable on the level of, say, Sandman or Preacher or Hellblazer?

Since Wikipedia already has an article for a list of all Vertigo titles, I suggest that this section be removed or pared down to a handful of the most prominent titles.

Done. HalJor 20:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


Hey folks, I'm currently working on the flinch comics article, lil help with images please, I'm still kinda a greenhorn, if somebody would go get the covers off mile high or something like that and add them, I'd be greatful.

[edit] CC of post at User:T-borg

Hi, and may I compliment you on your diligent editing for WikiProject Comics. I need to ask you to hold off for a moment on changing "Vertigo" to "Vertigo Comics". The name of the imprint is simply "Vertigo", as noted at the DC Comics' official "About" page, and in such disparate sources as the trade paperback The Invisibles: Blood Hell in America and Hellblazer #130, to pick a random Vertigo comic and book.

What happened, apparently, is that someone created the Vertigo article in 2002 with the misnomer "Vertigo Comics". Editors have used Vertigo (comics) as the link, but no one bothered to change the misnamed article. I never would have noticed were it not for your diligent attempts to make the links match the name of the article.

I'll hold off on renaming the original article for a couple of days in case, just to be very conservative and on the safe side, there's evidence otherwise about the Vertigo imprint's trademark as registered with the U.S Patent and Trademark Office. Unless it's registered there as Vertigo Comics, the imprint really is just named Vertigo, just as Simon & Schuster isn't "Simon & Schuster Publishing" or "Simon & Schuster Books". Thanks. -- Tenebrae 16:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to move this to "Vertigo (imprint)" or "Vertigo (DC Comics)" - I prefer the first one. (Emperor 16:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Move

The imprint's name is just "Vertigo" so, after some discussion, it is suggested we move this to "Vertigo (imprint)".

Reasoning is based on the vast number of incoming links and trying to avoid any future moves/naming clashes:

  • We could move it back to "Vertigo (comics)" and hatnote Vertigo (Marvel Comics), but if any other turned up we'd have to move it and we'd be right back here again. So are future proofing things on this front.
  • We could move it to "Vertigo (DC Comics)" but imprints have moved in the past (OK it is unlikely to happen here but sales haven't been stratospheric recently so who knows... you couldn't rule out it being cut free in the future) and it also leaves the door open for some DC character called Vertigo if one were to ever appear (it is surprising there isn't one). So basically we have both angles future proofed here.

So "Vertigo (imprint)" seems the best idea. Not that controversial but I'll leave it open for a few days and solicit further input just to make sure we have everything covered. (Emperor 18:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

Agree. --Tenebrae 19:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense, I would also do the same for Icon Comics, MAX (comics), and Tsunami (Marvel Comics) to establish a naming convention -- 69.182.73.240 05:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at "imprint", and I don't think that this is a good idea. (Though I'm open to discussion about it, obviously.)

HarperCollins and it's "imprints" come to mind. Following that example, isn't DC Comics an "imprint" of Warner Bros., or for that matter of Time Warner?

As big fish eat other fish, this will become more and more confusing, I think.

See also: DC Comics#Imprints. - jc37 18:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, an even better example is Random House. - jc37 18:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
"DC Comics" is the only DC Comics, so the qualifier "(imprint)" isn't needed. But there are many entities named "Vertigo". --Tenebrae 03:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
As imprint says - an imprint is a line within a publishing company. Warner Brothers bought DC but it is an entertainment conglomerate which owns publishing companies and these companies may have imprints of their own, so DC itself isn't an imprint. (Emperor 04:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC))
That, too! --Tenebrae 04:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Not when I look over Random House.
Ballantine Books is listed as an imprint of Random House, but it's also a publisher per its own page. There are quite a few other examples. I'm just concerned about the ambiguity of it. - jc37 08:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that's because Ballantine Books was a preexisting company that was bought up by Random House, and has long publishing history as an independent entity. Vertigo was created within DC Comics. Again, I think the only reason to say "imprint" or some other qualifier is that, unlike Ballantine Books, there are several entities called Vertigo. (Had the formal, trademarked title been Vertigo Comics, that would have made things so much easier! But noooooo...!) --Tenebrae 12:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see any ambiguity. Ballantine Books was a publisher that became an imprint when it was bought by Random House. It itself has imprints (at least one of which itself has an imprint). I don't really see a problem. Companies can become imprints, imprints can move publishers (like Wildstorm did) and have their own imprints (Homage, for example) but I don't see the ambiguity. Vertigo is an imprint of DC Comics, it is the only imprint called Vertigo and it is in need of the most accurate ambiguation which seems to be (imprint). I still can't see what the problem is. (Emperor 13:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC))
Either works for me, "(comics)" or "(imprint)" -- anything so long as not "Vertigo Comics".--Tenebrae 03:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been ongoing for a over a week-and-a-half. When it gets to a fortnight this Sunday, I'd like to move the page as per discussion to "Vertigo (imprint)" for now and "Vertigo (comics)" if / when Vertigo (Marvel Comics) disappears. Thoughts? Comments?--Tenebrae 17:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said I'd rather not keep moving this entry around so would want to make sure it ends up in the right place. (imprint) seems the most non-ambiguous but we could just move it to (comics) and be done with it (hatnote (Marvel Comics) for now). I have to say I am not really that bothered either way although (imprint) seems to be the most future-proof. (Emperor 19:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC))
I'd lean toward (imprint) myself, but I know Hiding has got longer experience than me on these kinds of Wikipedia policy/guideline things, so he's probably got good reason to go with (comics). I don't know. Maybe I can ask you, since the Arbitration case with Asgardian got accepted and it's actually kind of dispiriting and enervating, if you might take point on this one. My petrol tank is practically running on fumes over that thing. You're a mate ... and thanks either way. --Tenebrae 21:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Jc seems to be against imprint. I'd like to hear from him again, but I'm pretty much in agreement that either is fine. I'll drop a note at Jc's page, and maybe we can get him to do the legwork! Hiding Talk 10:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Ahhh, there's a method to Hiding's madness : )
Anyway, he found an interesting link that suggests that at least the "legal" name may be "Vertigo Books". Any thoughts? - jc37 14:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Well paint my bottom and call me a baboon!! I feel a bit silly for not checking the original paper source!! Now I have had a quick skim through the fronts of the various trades I have and the copyrights are to DC (which makes sense I suppose). I'll have a proper dig tonight but wonder if somewhere they have had to register Vertigo with the trademark/copyright folks. I had a look around the sites for them but didn't find much but that might be not mean anything. (Emperor 15:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC))
From the look of that copyright notice, and the ISBN numbers for "hardcover" and "paperback" editions, that appears to mean there's a Vertigo book-publishing division that's distinct than the comic-book division. Why is nothing uncomplicated?  :- )  On the bright side, you've uncovered an encyclopedic distinction.--Tenebrae 16:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Final thought: There exists Vertigo (Marvel Comics). For parallel structure, do we want this to be "Vertigo (DC Comics)"? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
A week after the final comments (above), I moved page to "Vertigo (DC Comics)" in order to maintain consistency and parallel structure with "Vertigo (Marvel Comics)". --Tenebrae (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Seems good enough for now. :) Hiding T 10:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More categories

I was looking at Prez (DC Comics) and his being included in Category: Vertigo titles is pushing it rather but there is no "Category: Vertigo characters" so I'd suggest making one, in which we could include John Constantine, Dream (comics), etc. which would imply we'd need a main Vertigo category to bring things together. The name might be slightly clunk but we'd have to go with "Category: Vertigo (DC Comics)" as there is already Category: Vertigo.

This this make sense? Do we need any others like "Vertigo teams" or "Vertigo organisations" or "Vertigo locations"? (Emperor (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

I don't think it's unuseably clunky at all. But I don't think the Vertigo roster is quite huge enough to start diversifying into team cats or anything.
My only question is "how Vertigo" does a character have to be to warrant inclusion in the cat? Do they have to appear primarily in Vertigo titles? Any appearance is absurd, as it would lead to characters like Martian Manhunter being included in the cat. Ford MF (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I must admit I was mainly thinking about characters from Fables and Sandman, i.e. ones that had almost exclusively appeared in vertigo titles. We should mainly stick to the general principles of the other categories - we'd not include anyone from the Avengers in DC Comics characters purely because they have appeared in titles like JLA/Avengers. I know this requires everyone to use their commonsense but it should be obvious in most cases and if people have queries about specific ones than they can drop a note in here or at the Comics Project (if it can't be resolved on the articles talk page, of course). I suppose the problem is that it was rather open ended at the start with some titles moving over to Vertigo which could cause some confusion, but basically characters that have popped up in cameos tend not to count. Prez might count as the appearances were non-trivial but that is open to debate. (Emperor (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC))
Yeah, I figured. I was just spitballing, trying to think of someone who would be a controversial inclusion...Animal Man? Ford MF (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Since "Vertigo" isn't a shared universe, categories of this sort (beyond "Vertigo titles", which is about their publications' status in the real world) aren't really meaningful. - JasonAQuest (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a shared Universe - Prez, Timothy Hunter, Swamp Thing, Constantine, Dream, Death and (maybe) Animal Man are all in the shared "Vertigo corner of the DC Universe", after all. But you're half-right that - if there was such a category - creator-owned and discrete characters (like the Fables) would need to be separated from, say, the Sandman titles' characters.
Accordingly, the "Vertigo (DC Comics)" title is certainly not clunky - it's vital! These characters are ostensibly residing in the DCU, even if they barely intereact with it. Indeed, it might be a BAD idea to put Vertigo-published characters who are non-Vertigo-(DC)-Universe (e.g. Tulip and Jesse, the Fables, Yorick, Spider Jerusalem, etc.) in this category. If there enough characters in a creator-owned title to warrant a category, then it should be a "Preacher" category or a "Fables" category, I'd say. And that would also probably then not need a separate "Fables Characters" category - they could all go in "Fables" with Fables and Bill Willingham, etc.
(N.B. Is there a reason The Sandman (Vertigo) doesn't include the "Vertigo Titles" Category...?) ntnon (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The "Vertigo shared universe" is little more than an invention of mid-1990s fanon. Swamp Thing, Sandman, Constantine, etc are all DCU characters, even if some of them haven't appeared in non-Vertigo titles lately for editorial reasons. The vast majority of characters appearing in Vertigo publications have nothing to do with each other (and are rarely independently notable enough to have their own articles in addition to the article for the work in which they appear), so a category for them makes about as much sense as a "Paramount Pictures characters" or "Random House characters" category. - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
"Vertigo (DC Comics) characters" makes no judgment about any shared universe (neither does any of the other Category: Comics characters by company), merely that they are published by that company. (Emperor (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC))
OK, so instead of being incorrect, this category would simply be pointless. Most of the characters do not relate to each other in any way, they are not owned by the same people, they just happened to have been published at some point with a "Vertigo" logo on the cover. Please stop trying to shoehorn them into this kind of superhero fanboy filing system; it makes no sense here. - JasonAQuest (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
"Fanboy filing system"? How is this any more or any less "pointless" than say Category:Dark Horse Comics characters? A fanboy filing system would be if I were trying to define a Vertiverse and then attempting to shoehorn the relevant articles into that category. (Emperor (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC))
(You mean by creating categories for "Vertigo locations" etc?) But that's a good point about Dark Horse: that category doesn't make sense either. Creating categories based solely on publisher is something that isn't done for characters in any other medium, and it only makes a degree of sense within the superhero genre because that's how those characters are often published: in shared universes owned by a single publisher. It's a system of filing invented by collectors of those comics ("superhero fanboys" for short) to keep their Official Handbook of Who's Who organized, and stops making sense as soon as you leave that genre and its publishing model behind. It isn't done with characters in prose. It isn't done in movies. It isn't done in television. It isn't done in any storytelling medium I know of. And it doesn't make sense in comics when the characters not only don't share a universe, but aren't even owned by the publisher, as it generally the case with Vertigo. Yorick is not a Vertigo character; he's a Brian Vaughn/Pia Guerra characters. Jesse Custer is a Garth Ennis/Steve Dillon character. And so on. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Almost every characters by publisher category can be criticised in that manner. Attempts to define them by shared universes would rapidly get into WP:OR territory (except in the case of smaller well-defined ones, like the Hellboy characters). This could extend to creator-owned titles.
Characters by publisher doesn't impose anything on the characters other than what we can prove and that is that they have been published by a specific company. The "Vertigo (DC Comics) characters" category seems to be in line with a straightforward precedences for just about every other publisher. You are perfectly welcome to try remove the whole characters by publisher structure but the only alternative I can see is to get rid of the lot as trying to split them up into DC/Marvel (etc.) Universe characters (an approach which comes with a lot more problems) or define the characters by title (i.e. "Justice League characters" which would be in line with the way it is done for TV series for example), which solidly removed a while back. The latter happened because of the plasticity of comic characters because within a company characters which weren't originally within a fictional universe can be retconned in, characters can crossover between titles with ease, etc., etc. making the only workable way to categorise the characters. (Emperor (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC))