Jump to content

Talk:Vertigo Comics/Archives/2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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.

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))

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)

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))

Quoting from a distributor's catalog

Cap City's Advance Comics is not by any means a disinterested third-party, journalistic source — it's a solicitation catalog who text is solely designed to promote and sell its comics products. While an interview in it, such as Karen Berger's, may provide some factual information, we cannot use any opinions taken from there. If Berger is quoted as say, "John Doe may be the greatest new writer of his generation," or "Jane Doe is the most lauded horror writer today," such material is unusable — it's not being vetted for objectivity, and appears in a source that does not operate under journalistic or academic-research standards, but is a promotional catalog designed to move merchandise. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly - in parts a fair point. However, specifically: It would be perfectly reasonable to say "Karen Berger said/thinks..." (with the caveat that it's "in her opinion" - particularly if she were retrospecitvely shown to be accurate in her thinking) were she voicing such an opinion, but that's not what was here. What was quoted was the preamble to a Neil Gaiman interview in which he was described by CCD as "perhaps one of the most popular writers in comics today" whose "work is also among the most sought after... because it is synonymous with quality and high sales."
Now, that first part is sightly subjective opinion; the second part half subjective (quality) and half clearly fact (high sales), since the distributors would be in the perfect position to be able to make such judgement calls entirely accurately. The purpose in quoting this was not to inflate Mr Gaiman's ego, but to note that at the launch of Vertigo, commonly held to be the first important thing Gaiman did (who remembers that Sandman debuted as a DC title, and moreover ran under the DC logo for nearly 2/3 of its run...?) he was ALREADY described as a popular, sought-after writer.
Fair enough, Capital City wanted to encourage orders, so they'll want to promote individuals within their catalog - but they're doing that with some semblance of on-the-spot/at-the-time accuracy, rather that just making stuff up, surely.. Saying that an author is popular and sought after may be unwarranted and unvetted hype designed to inflate sales, OR it may be accurate reporting designed to let shops know that certain titles and authors ought(!) to be ordered more highly than others, since they are more likely to sell (out). That's potentially noteworthy. If, perhaps, somewhat difficult to adjudge. It's very interesting to see who was recognised early on as worth interviewing and already described as popular/known.
In any case, whilere-editing that part, I've left that section out but disagree - amicably - with some of your reasoning both hypothetically and specifically. :o) ntnon (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your discussing it here. I think we may be operating at different ideas of research standards, which is fine — most of those here aren't professional journalists, authors, or academic researchers. That kind of thing is a skill set like any other, and the quality of WPC research keeps improving. Yay!
Here's the thing: Karen Berger opinion that Neil Gaiman, one of her stable of writers, is "perhaps one of the most popular writers in comics today" is just simply not objective. She's not a disinterested party.
Likewise Cap City's opinions -- without giving a crash course in journalism, I just need to say that any statement from a distributor regarding anything but specific sales figures would never hold up as an objective source in a newspaper or newsweekly.
Honestly, it would not be difficult to find an authoritative journalistic source; everything from The New York Times to Entertainment Weekly has written about Gaiman.
As for other edits: This section, and much of this article, is written as a slightly fawning fansite essay. Again, we're all on a learning curve together, and everybody on the project just seems to be getting better and better. Let's work on specific points; this article deserves our best efforts. What do you say? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I was a little bemused by your caution not to "blindly revert" as you blindly reverted what I corrected - thereby leaving in the interpolation of Garth Ennis having written the Invisibles..! Particularly as I quite deliberately didn't revert it, but tried to synthesise between what was there and what you had "corrected" it to..
  • Research standards: I don't think we're at odds on research standards at all, largely because the vast majority of this text is arguing a hypothetical non-argument (Karen Berger quoted on Gaiman - albeit that was my fault! I think I mis-footnoted it originally. That was not a quote from Ms Berger, but from CC themselves as preamble to a Death interview with NG.)..! However, IF Ms Berger had described Gaimain, in 1993 at the launch of Vertigo as one of the most popular writers in comics, that IS notable. Anyone with any sense (or, indeed, anyone who can read) will know that that`s not impartial, and it can (as I say above) be couched in terms of "Karen Berger described..". Half the biographical data in three-quarters of the articles here isn't from "disinterested parties" - it can't be, since you need sources who are knowledgable and willing to talk about individuals. Even journalists get their information from a person somewhere along the line...
Capital City's opinions are similarly not entirely objective - hence the "perhaps" included in the quote. This is important and necessary information however. You've tried to argue for the removal of the description that Neil Gaiman is "better known" than Peter Milligan - which is not personal preference or opinion, but factual statement - I don't see that that needs to be footnoted, but if you think it necessary, since I think the phrase necessary, I'll do that. :o)
It is, however, then VERY notable to point out that, while Gaiman is NOW the better-known, (and a NYT-best-seller as well), he was also THEN, as noted by an at-the-time interview introductory comment ALSO known and popular. This combats the 'received knowledge' that Gaiman only turned up on the comics scene when Vertigo debuted; on the contrary, Sandman was 2/3 DC; "Midsummer Night's Dream" was behind him, Black Orchid and Books of Magic were also DC, etc. This adds texture, facts and interest to the simple dry point that Gaiman and Milligan wrote half the Vertigo launch titles.
OTHER POINTS
  • Grant Morrison/Invisibles: "However, his biggest Vertigo work was an ongoing series, "The Invisibles," which perhaps is Morrison's biggest/most important work." Why is that an issue, to describe Invisibles as "arguably his best-known work for Vertigo"? Indeed, "arguably" is arguably overstating it...
  • Sandman was the backbone of launch-Vertigo, but it's also VERY critically important to note that it's the backbone of continuing Vertigo, too. Lucifer and The Dreaming are Sandman-mythos; Mystery Theatre was launched thanks to the Sandman's popularity - likewise the several relaunches of the Houses of Mystery and Secrets. Books of Faerie is Sandman; one-shots and OGNs... Sandman permeates Vertigo's output as Superman, Batman, Spider-Man and Wolverine permeate the wider comics industry. This is notable, so I thought it worth a throwaway aside.
  • Peter Milligan came to notice through Vertigo. That's not controversial, surely? And if it is, then it's worthy of a "fact" tag, not deletion. And Enigma deserves mention as the first all-new Vertigo series.
(I notice the interpolated - and clearly superfluous - description of John Constantine was felt worthy of addition, however..!)
Anyway. That's the broad reasoning behind those edits - neither unthinking nor unsubstantiated. :o) [Incidentally, on the aesthetically-unpleasing em-dashes: There's no consensus on their usage, as far as I can see...]
"This section, and much of this article, is written as a slightly fawning fansite essay."
Please explain that remark. "Fawning," "fansite" and "essay" in particular. And especially why you see "fawning" rather than "descriptive W:BLP remarks," imply "fansite" as perjorative and instead of "encyclopedic" and use "essay" instead of "entry." You seem to be (again) implying a considerable element of impartiality...
Obviously this - and other - articles deserve - and require - considerable attention. I do hope that this is seen as being better/more informative/more factual/more readable than it was a month ago. ntnon (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't even know where to begin. Aside from the convoluted phrasing in some parts of the above post, which makes some points hard to follow, many of your arguments show a baseline misunderstanding of journalistic standards — and encyclopedic standards are even more stringent.
You say "Half the biographical data in three-quarters of the articles here isn't from 'disinterested parties'" — first, I doubt you've counted all the words and all the articles "here," wherever here is, so I'll take your comment as hyperbole. Being hyperbole, it doesn't hold any factual weight. Even if it did, pointing to other articles that are done badly is not an argument to do this article badly; it's an argument to improve the others.
I'm a journalist, an author, and a comics writer. I chose my words precisely, if not always perfectly. "Fawning fansite essay" is the clearest, simplest way to express how much of this article reads to me. You strike me as a major fan of Vertigo, which is great; I've read Vertigo Comics since Grant Morrison was writing Animal Man. But I'm not sure you're seeing this article objectively.
Are we at an impasse? I know at least one other longtime editor who feels as I do about the article as it now reads. I propose that you and I jointly call for an WP:RfC, and get the whole Project to take a look and weigh in. This is an important article about a major comics imprint, and it probably deserves more than just us two trying to polish it. What do you say? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I apologise for convolution and clarity issues. Attempting to streamline comments usually makes points LESS clear, or seem overly rude - which is certainly not my intention - so I make every attempt to explain as fully as possible. Of course, that can make points harder to follow...!
Citing a general "baseline misunderstanding of journalistic" and "encyclopedic standards" are surely criticisms that need justifying or explaining. Are you suggesting that reporting peoples opinions AS opinions is somehow not a journalistic practice, or is there something more subtle..? That the opinion of a primary source in unworthy of even parenthetical mention? (And, moreover, if that's really the MAJOR sticking point, I'm reasonably happy to keep it out. :o) I explain above why I felt it worthy of inclusion, which you don't comment on, but it's a side-issue.)
"Here" could be Wikipedia or indeed the world, although the former was my intended target. And it wasn't intended to justify bad practices by pointing to others (improving all standards is of course the logical outcome to that), merely to attempt to better understand - and set in context - your comment about "disinterested parties," since I think that's a comment bordering on a logical fallacy.
Find me a biography (or any piece of journalism) that relies on utterly impartial facts from utterly impartial parties. They don't - can't - exist. The basic facts must derive from interested/involved/knowledgeable parties, even if many can be (allegedly) stripped of that inherent bias and/or verified by other parties, papers or witnesses. The question a journalist must ask is surely simply: "does the interested party have a valid point over and above their interest, or do they have an axe to grind/particular slant to impart." You see the latter; I see the former - you even acknowledge that this (ultimately entirely superfluous) point [that Neil Gaiman was known and popular pre-Vertigo] is likely verifiable outside of Capital City's catalogue.
You might be right; I imagine I'm not seeing this article - or your often-vague comments - in too impartial a light, since after all I put an enormous amount of work into putting it together. I still don't understand your specific - clearly deliberately chosen - word choice, though: "fawning" and "essay." That strikes me as a choice of terms designed first and foremost to incite an argument. I enjoy some Vertigo comics; I was able to access materials which I thought might help make a very brief article - Vertigo is a mature imprint; some Vertigo titles weren't initially Vertigo titles; largely creator-owned; barely DCU; several films have been made and there's talk of a Preacher TV series - more representative of the imprint, it's origins and the major highlights of its existence. I don't quite understand where you get "fawning".
I suppose the essay comment points to the use of primary sources, which in most academic essays would then be highlighted as such and given a degree of doubt or bias. You'll then be implying (I assume) that an Encylopedia entry/article should pre-sift the sources and rely instead largely on secondary sources, eschewing the primary ones in case of bias...?
By all means we can call for outside comments. I would be interested first and foremost, however to hear from this other longtime editor who dislikes the page "as is" prior to more general comments. If we're reaching an impasse - and I'm more than happy to read comments and criticism that isn't overly-generalised or vaguelly insulting - then perhaps you could comment more specifically on the particular points you find problematic and/or on the reasoning I've attempted to set out. ntnon (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
"Find me a biography (or any piece of journalism) that relies on utterly impartial facts from utterly impartial parties. They don't - can't - exist." I've got to say, that strikes me as a semantical argument, based on absolutes. I agree with you that no human being, from convict to Supreme Court justice, is without some bias. In ordinary circumstances, however, we can do much to eliminate overt bias. All journalists struggle for objectivity. Does perfect objectivity exist? No — But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it, or should allow bias into these encyclopedia articles. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is WP:NPOV.
To give an example: The biographer of a deceased writer may ask a former editor of that writer his or her opinion about said writer. But that same editor's opinion, when the book he and the writer worked on is on sale in stores, would be considered biased. And that editor's opinion, appearing in a catalog selling that book he and writer worked on, would be considered extremely biased. Whether the editor is sincere or not has no bearing — because we can't peer inside the editor's mind to tell. But I'd be very surprised if, say, the editor of James Frey's "memoirs" were to have said, "My opinion of James Frey? Why, he's a sleazy charlatan and his book is actually fictional."
"You see the latter; I see the former" — I can't argue with you there. I once had the very good fortune to spend an hour one-on-one with Fred Friendly, one of the architects of modern journalism. He told me something I'm sure he's said a million times, but you really remember it when he's telling it to you, personally: "Whenever you interview someone, always remember to keep asking yourself, 'Why he is lying to me?'" Hey, if it was good enough for Ed Murrow...!   :-)
"I imagine I'm not seeing this article ... in too impartial a light, since after all I put an enormous amount of work into putting it together." And I can understand how you might feel frustrated by other editors' changes to your labor of love. But that gets into WP:OWN. I'm sorry, in all honesty, if my baldly stated phrase "fawning fansite essay" was hurtful to you personally; that wasn't my intention. Regardless, that is how the article may appear to a disinterested party, who didn't write it.
I've got to get to some bring-home-from-the-office editing I wasn't able to catch up to this week — yeah, I'm an editor myself as well as a writer; it's a living — but I'll be glad to write up something for an RfC and post it on the WPC Notice Board. If you get a chance to do it before me, please do; I might be a couple of hours.
This is a little time-consuming, but I'm enjoying our discussion. These are interesting points that we editors should be discussing. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Postscript: Work took longer than I thought. It's after midnight here. Let's post the RfC request tomorrow. *Yawn* 'Night. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Random break

Well, it's a part-semantic, part-pessimistic, part-realistic view, I feel..! And the "Neutral Point of View" tenet is more about adjudging relative worth and accuracy when opinions conflict than anything else, surely? Not undue praise; not undue criticism - not "NO" praise of criticism, only fair commentary. Journalists struggle for objectivity... well, most do, and all should, but yes. Of course. However, if you're writing about people, you must either deal in personal subjective commentary or judgements OR the opinions of others. Preferrably the opinions of others who know something, usually the person or thing that an article is about - and they will be biased, and unless the journalist is deeply versed in the subject and has considerable grounding and training in dealing with all manner of sources (and they should of course have some familiarity with the latter; and may sometimes be able to tick the former box, too), then there'll be natural bias in everything - which isn't automatically a problem. And, I didn't think, was in this particular instance, either.

A couple of points on you example: One - Such a comment is, as you say, almost-certainly going to be biased. But it will be seen to be biased by a reader. And is no less worthy of being read for all that. It's certainly not the case that editors have never been known to speak their mind, even if it's rarely overtly critical. But a reader will KNOW that there is bias (and can be signposted to it, if need be). It's still useful - particularly if, say, it's an editor of an anthology highlighting their personal favorite author: that's biased, subjective but noteworthy. Two - In this case it's a catalogue noting that Gaiman is a popular and known commodity. I've explained why I feel that that is worth noting - briefly, it decries the sometime-held view that Vertigo "made" him - and clearly Capital City preferred to talk to him than, for example, Peter Milligan. Also slightly interesting. Three - yes, the sincerity of the source is largely irrelevant, as it's "un-verifiable." However, it is the duty of the journalist/writer to make a judgement call on the "sincerity" (accuracy) of all sources, otherwise nothing can be written. Might an interview be slanted towards questions designed to allow the interviewer or interviewee to put across a particular point? Absolutely. Might a biographical portrait be largely composed of 'facts' that the subject alone has okayed for inclusion? Certainly. Does that make either a lesser source..? Sometimes. Rarely. (And of course, in the specific case of Mr Frey, the editor in question has not said that. But then his relative silence implies strongly that he might desire to do so..!

An interesting "Friendly" quote there - helpful on the one hand, but unnecessarily harsh on the other. Over-cynicism is destroying everything at the moment... although that's a whole different debate for a completely different time! ;o)

I don't believe I'm trying to be possessive out of a misguided belief that this should be "my" article - I merely feel that I'm trying to stay true to the spirit of the project, and preferably the letter of the law, too. Of course changes by other people are acceptable, etc., but if I can't grasp the purpose - or if Garth Ennis is inserted where he shouldn't be! - then... The purpose of Wikipedia, surely, is to provide as-in-depth-as-possible accurate (factual) articles that will be of benefit to people browsing. Ultimately, the purpose of the pages is to provide information, ideally previously-unknown information - better yet "THE" information that is required to answer whatever query or thought someone might have on whichever subject. The better the articles can cover that, the better they are, surely? Imparting information is the purpose - and the WP:NPOV guidelines you point to say this:

That clearly highlights that the "Point of View" problem comes about when there are conflicting opinions, and when one perspective (of many) is given "undue weight". Neutrality "is a point of view," merely the "right" or most commonly held one.

  • Morrison's signature series being The Invisibles is the most widely held view. So I assume I can reinstate that, and footnote it as such..?
  • A "longer miniseries" is a maxiseries.
  • Gaiman is more widely-known than Milligan. Not sure why that's seen as a controversial point of view - it's neutrally phrased: not "Gaiman is BETTER" not "Gaiman is DESERVEDLY better known," simply "Of the two main Vertigo launch writers, a given person will recognise that one is much the more famous of the two." This is, I think, quite pertinent - particularly since Gaiman has written very, very, little for Vertigo-proper, while Milligan HAS. Indeed, if you ask people to name Vertigo authors, most would say Moore, Gaiman and Morrison - None, little, lots. It should better be Morrison, Milligan and Ennis; Delano & Reiber; Carey & Willingham. That point - while perhaps not vital - isn't as written any more controversial that saying the Beatles are better known than the Clash. It's true..! ;o)
  • It's surely not POV to say that the continuing as well as launch backbone of the Vertigo Universe is the Sandman - Hellblazer continues, and the finite creator-owned non-universe titles may eclipse Morpheus and Daniel, but the spin-offs and repackagings continue to be put out.
  • Peter Milligan becoming known in the US on the strength of his Vertigo work rather than his brief stints at Eclipse/Pacific surely isn't controversial either, is it? Is it?
  • I'm confused as to why you unlinked Crisis from True Faith/
  • It's worth noting that, while Doom Patrol finished with #87, it came back under the DC banner.
  • It's also worth noting that both Pollack and Collins focused their attentions elsewhere - hence the dearth of comics material by them both.

I do appreciate your attempts at disinterested, unbiased, third-party comments and can see where you're coming from for most of them. :o) I even agree on several points..! ;o)

P.P.S. I agree that these are issues to be talked about, and appreciate your taking the time to do so. Sorry to have contributed to keeping you up last night! ntnon (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all! Sometimes we Wiki-addicts are our own worst enemies! :-)
The unlinking thing I don't specially recall; I might well have unlinked something inadvertently. If so ... oops! Sorry.
I'm afraid I still cannot see the necessity of using quotes from a distributor's catalog, which is sales-oriented in nature and as far from objective as can be — not when there are countless other sources we can use. I'm not sure the reasoning behind insisting on the Cap Cities catalog when many reputable, much more objective journalistic sources, from Entertainment Weekly to The New York Times, are widely and readily available.
But the much bigger issue, I think, has to do with the underlying assumptions of what is "common knowledge." Wiki cautions against "common wisdom" or "what everybody knows," and also specifies that article be written for general-audience readers unfamiliar with the topic. What may be general knowledge to fans is not general knowledge to the 99% of the rest of the world, so we need to cite subjective, unquantifiable claims such as "better known" or "more popular." (Besides which, sometimes what we believe is "common knowledge" actually proves to be incorrect.)
Minor thing: "Maxiseries" isn't in Merriam-Webster, for one; it's a marketing term, a neologism used to present an image of more value for the money. Anybody can make up words, but unless they're recognized by lexicographers — not necessarily just dictionaries, though that's obviously more authoritative — we should take great care in using descriptors that derive from marketing people. Let's keep in mind that no one calls the 20-hour Steven Spielberg miniseries Taken a "maxiseries," even though it's far longer than most miniseries.
I admire both of us for discussing this and not making edits to the article in the meantime. Let me go ahead now, as we've discussed, and post an RfC notice. I'd like us both to continue refraining from edits on the article until other editors weigh in. Sound OK? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not sure how the link got dropped... might have been me, actually. The necessity (as I see it, and I've said I'm not that bothered!) of quoting the Capital City source on this matter is that it is a primary source. The very purpose of my including that point (Gaiman was popular, high-selling, respected, etc. PRE-Vertigo) is to combat, as I've said, the very real myth that it was Sandman ("a Vertigo comic") that brought him popularity, fame and fortune. That's of course partly correct - it's still (and likely to remain) his signature series. But it was a DC series for twice as long as it was a Vertigo series. Quoting any number of credible and academic sources from post-1993 that say he was popular do not serve the same purpose. Quoting any credible and journalistic source from post-1993 that say he was popular BEFORE 1993 are getting closer to making the right point, but do not have the weight and gravitas of being written before (January/March) 1993. Does that explain my point any better..?! It's working from the "History" angle (primary sources) rather than the "Journalistic" angle (secondary, 'good' sources).
(Morrison's signature series being Invisibles is footnotable from - at least - the footnote at Grant Morrison, so that's hardly a controversial or unsubstantiated opinion.) Now, mentioning in passing that Gaiman is the better known (and are you even slightly implying that that might not be the case..?!) to me is a lot more in keeping with accuray and the careful-treading associated with Living Biographical details, than sticking in a footnote hammering home just how much better known he is. It's precisely BECAUSE this needs to be readable by the unknowing masses that these points are worthy of inclusion (to my eyes) - it must be mentioned that Gaiman and Milligan wrote HALF the initial line-up of Vertigo titles, and between them ALL (two) of the 'new' titles. That speaks well for their clout. Moreover, it is then important to mention that, while Gaiman rapidly became NYT-best-seller and mentioned favorably as one of the "most important post-modern writers" in the Dictionary of Literary Biography, it is Milligan who wrote more for Vertigo. The context of that section adds far more than the words themselves do, in my opinion. (And I'm well aware that "common knowledge" is often wide of the mark - but I'm not trying to argue that everyone's heard of NG, just that more have than of PM - even within comics, but certainly in the wider world. "Fact." ;o))
So "maxiseries" isn't in Merriam-Webster (yet)..? Neither is "miniseries" of course - as it pertains to comics. "Splash panel" isn't there as a phrase, neither is the conflation "retcon," among many other comics-related terms and words. That's not relevant. What is is the term used for COMICS series of a certain length. Which is Maxiseries. It's widely used by fans, academics and non-marketing writers, to the point that it's not entirely important who originated it or for what purpose. I'm sure we could point to other words that originated in unhelpful/biased/marketing circumstances but which are used widely as descriptions. It seems like bloody-mindedness to try and argue that "maxiseries" is the wrong word in this context. Misleading, even, since it has connotations of length that would not be accurate in this context. (Oh, and Taken is a bad example to try and prove that point..! Sorry. :o))
Do we still need an external investigation, or have we argued out a consensus on these points...? I'll leave out the Capital City comment if you still have an issue after my (several) lengthy reasonings of it being a primary source to deflate a popular myth; externally source that Gaiman is better known; externally source that Invisibles is Morrison's better-known/signature/most important/break-out/other un-weaselly phrase series; bring back mention of Sandman spin-offs; link Crisis; mention the DC-returns of Doom Patrol and highlight that Collins and Pollack write more novels and books than comics, although Pollack (I think, and can check) wrote the text for the Vertigo Tarot deck - and interesting and relevant aside in this context. How's that now? ntnon (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be best if we both took a week off and let other editors comment here or edit the site. I'm finding it very hard to follow your posts. Please don't be offended, but I'm finding them not only lengthy, but also convoluted and sometimes very unclear. I'm also, I'm afraid to say, finding it difficult to collaborate when someone takes exception to even single words of his being edited by another. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that Sci Fi Channel itself calls Taken a minisers [1], as does DVD Talk webzine [2] and probably most officially, the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences [3], which gave it an Emmy for "miniseries," not "maxiseries." --71.167.226.59 (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the counter-argument. :o) The first two certainly lean towards being potentially more accurate sources on this semi-offshoot of a barely-important side-issue, but the third (Emmy) is largely irrelevant - it's the category the program slots into rather than a specific description: it's not "miniseries vs. maxiseries"; it's "miniseries vs. series".
In any case, the issue is whether or not COMICS series of a certain length are called mini- or maxi-series'. The front cover to Camelot 3000, any discussion of Watchmen, and, of course, The Filth, which was the issue. Whereas "longer miniseries" is not just inaccurate, it's an oxymoron - although I realise it follows on quite nicely from the previous mentions of his miniseries'. The Sci-Fi channel may call Taken a mini, and Vertigo call The Filth a "maxiseries"...
I take no exception to words being edited - so long as there's good reason. And (more importantly) an inaccurate description isn't pasted on top of a (more) correct one. (Oh, and that's not meant to sound rude or argumentative - it's been a long few days...) ntnon (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow! How defensive! I've only skimmed this huge conversation, but ntnon doesn't seem to want a single word of his prose being edited. This seems a little obsessive. It's definitely a case of WP:OWN. --Skippu (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"You might very well think that... I couldn't possibly comment..." in any more depth, at least. :o) This was initially a discussion about appropriate sources, which was very illuminating and interesting (if only ever about a minor side-issue). It only drifted into comments and criticisms about wider editing after a couple of inaccurate and/or ostensibly-strange edits. I don't quite grasp why citing The Filth as a maxiseries is so controversial, or wondering about that change constitues being obsessive - surely the page being as right as possible is the thing...?
If there are blatantly obvious reasons for changes - great. If not, but there is nonetheless a sound rationale underlying them - also great. Otherwise, it seems reasonable to query them. On which note..!
  • Does the US/UK spelling kick in on this occasion, which after all was talking about first publication..? Wouldn't "serialised in Warrior" be more accurate, since V for V was initially in a UK publication;only later maxiseries-ed/serialized by Vertigo..? Or is spelling simply supposed to be standard over the whole page..? ntnon (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
ntnon, I know in my gut your intentions are good and your heart is in the right place. I would like at this juncture, and in equal good faith, to call for a mediator.
One of the first things they tell us in dispute cases is that when an impasse seems to be reached, for both parties to stay away for a week or so, and let other editors comment. I did this. But with the couple of other editors who took the time to offer their thoughts, you jumped right back in to take over and control the discussion with long, long blocks of argument and defense of your position even over — literally — someone changing a single word of your text.
Again, I know you're well-intentioned, but you've taken ownership of this article — I'm not the only editor here who believes this — and to say, in essence, that it's OK to make edits in this article just so long as they are (in step with my own view of what is the only) accurate (interpretation) is really not the way we work together here at Wikipedia.
There are major parts of this article written in a manner that reads in a very fannish way, with focus and concerns on things that I believe most general-audience readers, for whom we are writing, would consider insider minutiae.
I know we disagree. Now, after we've failed to reach some middle ground or consensus, and with your writings on this page being, as another editor suggested, perhaps a bit obsessive, I think it would be a good idea to get some outside views. Wikipedia has a Mediation process, and I think we should advantage of it. It can't hurt, and in the end, it can only help what we both agree is an important article about a major and influential comics-publishing imprint.
I'll get the process started. I've no doubt you're amenable; as I've said, you've been operating completely in good faith to try to improve this article. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. :o) I thought your comment about not editing was in respect to the article, not the talk page, so I didn't see any potential issue with commenting here... particularly since someone had gone to some trouble to try and comment on the mini/maxiseries non-issue. Really - it's not an issue over "a[ny] single word of text," at the moment it's considerable bemusement over your changing "maxiseries" to "longer miniseries". The Filth is a maxiseries... You seem to be trying to make more out of this than there is! I'm more than grateful for improvements and edits, but don't think that such an inaccurate edit improves anything - and while "inaccurate" is sometimes subjective, its also sometimes objective:
I'm not saying "it's OK to make edits in this article just so long as they are (in step with my own view of what is the only) accurate (interpretation)," I'm trying to support "Accuracy of information provided within articles". Correct names for things aren't an interpretation. Correct authors aren't an interpretation. (Correct sources are, which is where this began, of course - and that was an interesting discussion for a while.)
I'll still hold off editing the article itself for the time being, and it could be interesting to see someone else's opinion - preferably someone who knows something about comics - on all this.
Which particular areas do you feel might be seen as "insider minutiae," incidentally..? ntnon (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, here's where the issue lies: You believe your edits are objectively accurate. But I don't believe they necessarily are. I understand you don't meant to sound this way, and it's not unusual for any of us to be inadvertently hubristic. What you might consider the most accurate way of expressing something — what you might genuinely, firmly believe is the single most objective view — may not be. That's often why disagreements happens — two sides each believe he or she and only he or she is objectively correct.
The "maxiseries" piont is minor in terms of wordage, but it's illustrative. You genuinely believe it's the one accurate word to use. I just as genuinely believe that it's marketing jargon, not in dictionaries, and designed to make something appear more value-added than it may be. OK — we agree to disagree ... and I may have a compromise solution:
What do you say to limited series? That's an accepted synonym for a series that's not designed to be ongoing, whether mini or maxi. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

ItsJustSomeRandomBreak

Quite - it's a literal difference of opinion! But unless we can disagree on - and talk about - specifics, so that we can then discuss a particular issue, it will just be a perpetual (theoretical) disagreement, rather than a constructive one. My whole purpose on this page has been (or, tried to be, when not buried by text...) to try and figure out WHAT you saw as problematic; explain my disagreement/reasoning and hopefully either convince, be convinced or reach a synthesis. Particularly in the absence of other comments/commentators.
Yes, "maxiseries" is a very minor point. Which is why it seemed odd to me (and I stress that word: "seemed") that the change was made in the first place. Particualarly since "maxiseries" is the right word - Camelot 3000: described as a maxiseries on the cover; Watchmen is a maxiseries (see footnote #47 on that page); The Filth is described as a "maxiseries" by its publisher. I don't understand how this can be subjectivity on my part! Bloody-mindedness on both our parts, maybe, but not subjective reasoning. It is the correct term, not in my personal opinion, but objectively: in description by the publisher and discussion by the reviewer. (And I do not think it fair to extrapolate from this particular issue that I don't want ANY word changed - the bone of contention is simply over the specific example of mini/maxi. I may have a subjective opinion over what "reads well" or other issues, but I fail to understand the real problem that seems to have sprung up over the use of this term.)
Limited series is a reasonable description, you're right. But note that that page talks about the "maxiseries," too. Both minis and maxis are limited series, that's true. But one is longer than the other - hence the differentiation in terms. To take your earlier example, E.R and Taken are both television programs. But there's a definite difference in scope.
Basically, "limited" is better than "longer mini," but is ultimately just a banner term incorporating the mini and maxi. What's the problem with the term..?! I genuinely don't understand why this has blown up into such a major issue. ntnon (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it's Wikipedia policy not to point to other Wikipedia articles in support of some point or other, since many articles are not done to format, contain incorrect information, lack proper citations, etc.
Second, the people calling these things "maxiseries" are the companies themselves. Of course they want to make something seem "maxi" for the money. But the term makes no logical sense — anything not envisioned as an ongoing series is by definition a limited series. The most accurate thing one can say is "12-issue limited series." It gives the actual number, it specifies it's not an ongoing series, and it doesn't include made-up marketing jargon that does not appear in dictionaries.
And thirdly, Wikipedia works by consensus and compromise. I'm running into a wall here where a term you yourself call "reasonable" is still unacceptable to you. The conclusion I'm beginning to draw is uncomfortable, and leads me to believe you are uncompromising.
As for other specifics, I think you've demonstrated that when anyone disagrees with you that your response is to produce a long, unclear, convoluted essay that muddies the water, shows no attempt at meeting the other person halfway, and actually seems an attempt to wear the other person out.
All other editors on Wikipedia do not need to justify their edits in detail to you personally. You cannot see the shortcomings in your own writing, cannot accept that you've written a fan-essay and not an encyclopedia article, and you refuse to let other editors make edits. I've asked for mediation. I don't know what else to do. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

THIS DISCUSSION IS CONTINUED ON ANOTHER PAGE

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Requests for comment/Articles/Vertigo (DC Comics). --Skippu (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As I noted there. my apologies for not linking to there from here. All editors are, of course, welcome to join in the discussion. Be aware that it could get lengthy at times : ) - jc37 22:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Date

The article says that Vertigo was founded in 1993. However Watchmen and V were published during the 80s. How is this possible? 91.132.141.80 (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Any answers? 91.132.141.80 (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It says right on the V for Vendetta page that the original two "books" of the series were published in a British anthology comic called Warrior. Then DC got Moore and Lloyd back to finish the series. The title was later reprinted as the graphic novel by Vertigo. Watchmen is the same story pretty much as the series was published by DC and DC has released all the versions and trades of the book. Leviathanlover (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vertigo_Comics/Archives/2012&oldid=860178169"