Talk:DC Comics

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

DC abbreviation

[edit]

I can't find what exactly DC stands for 41.114.133.90 (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It stands for this. Jhenderson 777 14:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Detective Comics Comics? That's just stupid. 158.116.225.11 (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DC Entertainment split as its own article?

[edit]

It seems to have enough sections and sources of its own for a standalone article; I say go ahead and give it its own article. --XSMan2016 (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "1934 founding" claim

[edit]

Re Talk:DC Comics/Archive 1#Citation needed for the "1934 founding" claim again. A banned user, Tenebrae, seems to have re-inserted 1934 as the year of the founding of DC (I have reverted them). Tenebrae falsely claimed in a previous discussion that Fifty Who Made DC Great gives 1934; that is false; p. 5 of that publication actually gives 1935 (nineteen thirty-five), the year that all sources currently used in this article give. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated claims in introduction

[edit]

Illustrating the cultural significance of DC properties in the introduction requires reliable sources. Instead of merely listing all of the original Justice League members and their respective archnemeses, and including ludicrous claims about characters like Cheetah being "culturally iconic," sources have now been provided that indicate which superheroes, villains, and teams are actually the most significant. Swordofneutrality (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This editor makes no sense. Why do they get to choose who is considered culturally iconic? Why does this need to be changed? What sources are they even citing, official academic research that tells objectively who is culturally iconic? This should warrent a discussion at least and these edits rolled back until it is discussed with other editors. Like for example catwoman is listed, is catwoman a villain now when her own wiki states she's no longer a villain. And cheetah isn't notable, a member of the legion of doom? Also, please note this editor's talk page, they have a history of moving articles unnecessarily and removing article content without reason which require correction from other editors. I believe any edits from this editor need to be at least checked over. 74.96.89.98 (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"a member of the legion of doom?" I have no particular idea which characters should be mentioned in the introduction. But are all members of the Legion of Doom particularly well-known to the average reader? In my nearly 30 years of using the Internet, I have encountered several written pages and tribute videos for characters like Black Manta, Brainiac, the Riddler, and Sinestro. I don't recall anyone being particularly enthusiastic about Toyman, who is also a member of that Legion. Dimadick (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph isn't about comics readers or the subculture, it's about culture, beyond comics and their adaptations. Sources indicate that some story elements have had more of that impact than others. Status within the fictional world is nothing. Swordofneutrality (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So black manta isn't considered culturally iconic? He's appeared in multiple shows and movies. See? We can do this all day. What's your criteria for culturally iconic? Why can't we add a few more villains and heroes. What's the harm? 74.96.89.98 (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So check them? I'm only going by what the sources are saying. Posting comments about your imaginings when the sources are already there for review only wastes everyone's time. Before, there were no sources; now there are reliable sources. Swordofneutrality (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you mean subjective sources which are people's random opinions. Like yours? I'm just not understanding what was wrong with the original list which matches marvel comics article. Why change it? The original list was comprehensive. And in what world is the suicide squad considered more culturally iconic than the justice society, the oldest superhero team in comic book history. You're just changing things randomly like your history on other articles shows. 74.96.89.98 (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is supposed to be based on sources, see WP:NOR, WP:V. Between a sourced version and an uncited list Wikipedia will pick the sourced version every time. 'Comprehensive' is not the goal here, a concise and clear lead paragraph is. MrOllie (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you can cite a random blog as a source? You do know now you'll have to change the marvel comics article. This is a terrible lead paragraph. If I cite more sources can I add a couple more names? 74.96.89.98 (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. You must secure consensus agreement from others on this talk page to proceed. No one has change the marvel comics article. MrOllie (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information about distribution.

[edit]

Should the information about DC's distribution be added some where in the article either in the body or it's own section? DC Comics is first and foremost a publisher so shouldn't the additional information about who distributes their comics (Lunar and Penguin Random House Publisher Services) be included? I'm not sure what the wikipedia policy is, I'm new to editing. 74.96.89.98 (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]