Talk:DC Comics
Back to page
Visual references
Edit
The Mr. Miracle issue is credited to Len Wein (and I just added plotter J. M. DeMatteis as well). But since this is a purely visual reference, wouldn't it make sense to credit it to penciller Joe Philips? I get that we're including authors and for consistency it makes sense from that point-of-view, but it seems more likely to me that Philips is responsible for including Kermit. --Anthony 16:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- The same is true for the Impulse issue. Should that maybe be credited to penciller Humberto Ramos? --Anthony 16:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hellboy?Edit
Isn't Hellboy Weird Tales #8 probably a Dark Horse comic?--Anthony 03:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, it is. Good catch. It should be moved to Minor Comics Mentions. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
LogoEdit
Joe added the logo to this page, and Andrew asked if it was necessary. Personally, I like having it, so I put it back. Does anyone have a comment? -- Danny (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I like having logos on pages which serve as the primary page for a given brand or company. For one thing, the logos are familiar to people; so it's just one more form of identification. I don't see why DC Comics shouldn't have one. -- Wendy (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I guess it's because there's a whole gallery of comic scans, two of which very prominently feature the logo. To me, logos for the most part are there as placeholders, because we have no better way of depicting the subject, or else as an example of an early Muppet ad campaign. If the majority are in favor of it, then, that's fine, but for the most part, it seems like doubling. Mystery! has the same problem right now (I need to delete one, I'm just trying to verify which one would have been most contemporaneous to the Mysterious Theater sketches). When looking at the page now, I find my eyes drawn to the logo and almost completely ignoring the gallery, which is the Muppet relevant portion. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. Comparing, it does look a lot better the way Scott fixed it, without the border box, pushing everything else down and drawing attention to itself. I don't mind it as much this way, though as a whole, I'm not in favor of adding logos just for the sake of adding a logo, if there's already sufficient illustration of a page. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Wendy, the logo helps the occasional passerby identify what they're looking at. I'd say get rid of the logo if there was something worthy of the upper-right-hand corner (like on the Marvel Comics page), but there's not. Seems to me that every article should have a defining image in that corner. — Joe (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know, if we could beef up the intro text, I'd much rather have the cover of Impulse singing "Bein' Green" as a corner image. It both signifies the article's about DC, on the off chance that someone was under the impression that it was discussing Simon and Schuster, and stresses the Muppet relevance. A generic DC logo, especially considering how often they tinker with said logo, doesn't do that for me. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not the greatest thing on the wiki, but I think it's fine. The page looks better with it than without it. -- Danny (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't mind it as much now (though I've thought of replacing it with this, even if it is mighty red). But my bigger concern isn't this page. It's that, on the whole, I don't know if we should get into adding logos for pages which already have suitable illustrations, just for the sake of having it. For companies where there's no other way to illustrate, like the movie studios, or if they're directly from a Muppet spot for a product, they work. But I wouldn't see a point in adding the logo to Marvel Comics, just on the off chance someone isn't already aware what page they're on. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not about people not knowing what page they're on; images help readers to orient themselves on the page. The Marvel page is fine the way it is. I don't think that we should step on somebody's contribution, just for the sake of an undefined principle. -- Danny (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's what I'm saying. I'm fine with this page now, if everyone else is. But, and again maybe I'm getting paranoid, I think it's worth threshing out. Both Joe and Wendy seemed to be making an argument about readers "identifying what they're looking at." And I don't want that to suddenly spring out on other pages (like I said, I think Mystery! is also a bit excessive right now). Especially since there have been some logo nuts who have crept up from time to time. Again, it may not even matter, but I wanted to put it out there. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble articulating why I like the logos. It's not a question of the reader knowing what page they are on, but more of that jolt of recognition that a logo is actually intended to inspire. If the page is primarily about the company, then I think having the logo at the upper right is good. Since this page is a bunch of connections/references to the company, the company logo seems to fit, and I don't have to squint at a complicated cover or think about it too hard. Andrew's very red superad wouldn't work for me because I have no idea what company published Batman. But I have heard of DC Comics. I'd probably put one on Marvel too for that matter, although I'm willing to accept that it's not necessary. I don't think we need every logo a company has ever had - just the current one, or the one during the time they produced Muppet-related stuff. And I don't think they really belong on a page that's ultimately about a given product (or products) by some company. Thus I think most of the Category:Licensees probably should have them on the company pages, but not the merchandise pages. Perhaps I'm one of the logo nuts. -- Wendy (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think so, but I think it makes sense to be consistent, and thus have this conversation. I think the logo works here, but it wouldn't work on, for example, Sports Illustrated where we've already got something identifiable; and adding a separate logo would only push down what Muppet Wiki is trying to feature anyway. —Scott (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble articulating why I like the logos. It's not a question of the reader knowing what page they are on, but more of that jolt of recognition that a logo is actually intended to inspire. If the page is primarily about the company, then I think having the logo at the upper right is good. Since this page is a bunch of connections/references to the company, the company logo seems to fit, and I don't have to squint at a complicated cover or think about it too hard. Andrew's very red superad wouldn't work for me because I have no idea what company published Batman. But I have heard of DC Comics. I'd probably put one on Marvel too for that matter, although I'm willing to accept that it's not necessary. I don't think we need every logo a company has ever had - just the current one, or the one during the time they produced Muppet-related stuff. And I don't think they really belong on a page that's ultimately about a given product (or products) by some company. Thus I think most of the Category:Licensees probably should have them on the company pages, but not the merchandise pages. Perhaps I'm one of the logo nuts. -- Wendy (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's what I'm saying. I'm fine with this page now, if everyone else is. But, and again maybe I'm getting paranoid, I think it's worth threshing out. Both Joe and Wendy seemed to be making an argument about readers "identifying what they're looking at." And I don't want that to suddenly spring out on other pages (like I said, I think Mystery! is also a bit excessive right now). Especially since there have been some logo nuts who have crept up from time to time. Again, it may not even matter, but I wanted to put it out there. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not about people not knowing what page they're on; images help readers to orient themselves on the page. The Marvel page is fine the way it is. I don't think that we should step on somebody's contribution, just for the sake of an undefined principle. -- Danny (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't mind it as much now (though I've thought of replacing it with this, even if it is mighty red). But my bigger concern isn't this page. It's that, on the whole, I don't know if we should get into adding logos for pages which already have suitable illustrations, just for the sake of having it. For companies where there's no other way to illustrate, like the movie studios, or if they're directly from a Muppet spot for a product, they work. But I wouldn't see a point in adding the logo to Marvel Comics, just on the off chance someone isn't already aware what page they're on. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not the greatest thing on the wiki, but I think it's fine. The page looks better with it than without it. -- Danny (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know, if we could beef up the intro text, I'd much rather have the cover of Impulse singing "Bein' Green" as a corner image. It both signifies the article's about DC, on the off chance that someone was under the impression that it was discussing Simon and Schuster, and stresses the Muppet relevance. A generic DC logo, especially considering how often they tinker with said logo, doesn't do that for me. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Wendy, the logo helps the occasional passerby identify what they're looking at. I'd say get rid of the logo if there was something worthy of the upper-right-hand corner (like on the Marvel Comics page), but there's not. Seems to me that every article should have a defining image in that corner. — Joe (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. Comparing, it does look a lot better the way Scott fixed it, without the border box, pushing everything else down and drawing attention to itself. I don't mind it as much this way, though as a whole, I'm not in favor of adding logos just for the sake of adding a logo, if there's already sufficient illustration of a page. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I guess it's because there's a whole gallery of comic scans, two of which very prominently feature the logo. To me, logos for the most part are there as placeholders, because we have no better way of depicting the subject, or else as an example of an early Muppet ad campaign. If the majority are in favor of it, then, that's fine, but for the most part, it seems like doubling. Mystery! has the same problem right now (I need to delete one, I'm just trying to verify which one would have been most contemporaneous to the Mysterious Theater sketches). When looking at the page now, I find my eyes drawn to the logo and almost completely ignoring the gallery, which is the Muppet relevant portion. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
