Talk:DC Comics/Archive 1

Links

I think the website "Ultimate DCU" should be taken out of the External Links section. It's a link to a fan fiction group that writes stories about DC characters, but it doesn't have anything to do with DC's company or actual stories. --Lex 05:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Noteworthy Creators

Take Devin Grayson off the list of noteworthy creators. She's one of the most universally panned writers ever.

The fact that people dislike her so much proves that she fits the "noteworthy" part. --Lex 05:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Recommended reading

How is a "recommended reading" section consistent with NPOV? Tverbeek 23:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Ownership

According to The Nation, DC is owned by both Time Warner (87.5%) and AT&T (12.5%). [1] Is this outdated info? If not, I suggest adding it to the article. -- LGagnon 21:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, thats not outdated info, but incorrect info. My understanding is that DC is wholly owned by Time Warner. Why would AT&T part own a comicbook company?? --Emb021 19:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not?

the nation article you referenced is 5 years old and current as of 2001. if you look around the WWW you'll see that Time Warner bought out AT&Ts share of Time Warner Entertainment in 2002.

Logo History

There are many issues published during the eighties with the Whitman logo in the top left corner instead of the standard DC logo. Any idea why?

Answer: In the late seventies and early eighties, Whitman sold shrink-wrapped three-packs of comic books. This comic books were custom printed by DC, with alternate covers featuring the Whitman logo. I think that the inside pages were from the comic's regular print run, with alternate covers. These three-packs usually contained Superman and Legion of Superheroes comics, and were sold in drug stores and supermarkets. --Drvanthorp 14:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Would this anamoly be worth adding to the main text as the DC logo is not pictured on these printings?--RedKnight 18:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Overall Tone of Article

Does anyone else think that this article reads like it was pasted together from DC's press releases? It might be that all of DC's advertising and letter page blurbs have seeped into the brains of all the readers. You have to watch out for this stuff when you are writing what aspires to be a scholarly article.--Drvanthorp 14:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It is also unsourced - and avoids DC's war series...I've added a short blurb on the latter but didn't want to break up the continuity of the article by making a separate section on same.Michael Dorosh 06:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

List of creators

Not only does the list of creators ignore the war titles, but it seems overly long, and what does "chronological order" refer to? Date of birth? Date of first sale to DC? It could be anything, and since most artists/writers are tied to more than one title, seems like a meaningless way to divide them up. Alphabetical order would be much more sensible - though the list seems overly long and doesn't really indicate why most of them are notable.Michael Dorosh 06:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I know this is kind of pointless

Since it is in fact the company's name, but does anyone else find it odd that they're technically called "Detective Comics Comics"? Sort of like saying "ATM machine." Master Deusoma 04:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Also "SIN Number" in Canada (Social Insurance Number Number). Just one of them things, dude.Michael Dorosh 04:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry. It's actually not "Detective Comics Comics" but "DC Comics" in which the letters are now standalone initials. Like "Kentucky Friend Chicken" is now officially and legally KFC, the way a smaller company might be, say, ABC Locksmith. The ABC doesn't stand for words. -- Tenebrae 15:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Superman as the first superhero

This article refers to Superman as the first superhero despite The Phantom's 1936 debut making him two years older. The Phantom's page even calls him the "first costumed superhero." So I've edited the reference here to "DC's first superhero". Cerv 22:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Phantom entry is incorrect. He was comic strips' first costumed crimefighter, but not super-powered, and he was not the first costumed such — that was Zorro. Superman is the first superhero, and comic books' first superhero. --Tenebrae 15:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You may be arguing semantics at this point. Please see Superhero. Also, keep in mind that in normal usage, "superhero" includes characters such as Batman, Robin, Hawkeye, Swordsman, Wildcat (as originally created), Bucky, and the like. These are all normal, highly trained people relying on relatively normal equipment, if any at all.

Both the Phantom and Zorro fit that mold and pre-date Superman and the coining of the term.

Cerv's point has merit. — J Greb 22:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. My edit simply states the observable facts about the Phantom, without getting into claims.

On a second note, the term "superhero" didn't exist in common usage, if at all, until Superman, who established an archetype that did not exist previously. Popeye did not wear a costume, but he had super-strength (both in the comic strips, eventually, as well as in the cartoons). Would one call Popeye the first superhero? --Tenebrae 15:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if I made an unwarranted infrence. The comment you used seemed to imply that for a character to be a "superhero" they must have a superpower. Hence my first point.

You are correct that the term did not exist at the time of the creation of Zorro, the Phantom, the pulp characters, or even the Golden Age comic book characters. The best reference I can find [2] places the word as originating in the early 1960s. That doesn't mean, however, that it is invalid to use it to refer to the characters that existed prior to its coining.

Is Popeye a superhero? Maybe. And the same question can be asked of many heroes of legend and myth. Maybe a better quest is "Is 'X' viewed as a superhero." Either way the point starts to slide into a POV argument.

For this article, I'll buy Superman as a major impetus for the term "superhero". I'll also take him as being the first example of one published by DC, and by extension, in the comic book format. For him being the first one period? I'm not that sure. — J Greb 22:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

New imprint: Minx

DC have a new imprint called Minx. Now we could take over Minx as it is just a redirect and little actually points there. Better would be to turn that into a disambiguation page and go for "Minx (imprint)" (as I suspect there is probably something out there which would go in Minx (comics). Thoughts? (Emperor 03:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC))

It'd help if I provide sources [3] [4] there are already plenty of details to flesh it out and link back into it (and looks like more interviews and the like in the offing). (Emperor 03:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC))

OK Minx (comics) it is. (Emperor 00:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

Superherobox

CC of post to User talk:69.117.27.113

Please stop inserting an inaccurate edit. The documented date of Wheeler-Nicholson founding his company, per article text that cites the Gerard Jones book and other sources, is 1934. Continued reversion will be considered vandalism--Tenebrae 16:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

don't merger history of DC Comics Timelime with DC Comics # Origins

please keep and save history of DC Comics Timelime page. and I will add and edit history of DC Comics Timelime page again. thank you.Thethunderstrike04 00:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Showcase4.JPG

Image:Showcase4.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed DC Comics project

There is now a proposed project or project subgroup relating explicitly to DC Comics at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#DC Comics. Any editors interesting in working with this group should indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter 17:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed boasting

I removed the initial phrase boasting that DC is the largest comics book publisher in English language. The source was:

1. Unreliable (came from Warner, DC's owner, self-website)
2. Out of date.

This more recent source shows as Marvel has more frequently nearly 40% of US share market, DC reaching around 30%, best selling comics were nearly every month Marvel's, so one wonders how the latter can be "greater" than the former. --Attilios 15:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Attilios. A company calling itself the world's largest is not acceptable as a disinterested, unbiased source. If it were true, there would be outside documentation. --Tenebrae 16:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are you using the term "greater"? What was actually in the page was "larger", which suggests a larger volume of products published, not profits obtained from the sale of said products. I can't understand how you can consider the United States Diamond direct market charts to be the sole determining factor on the matter of which company is larger on a world scale. Not only is that chart limited to the purchases of the half million comics readers that the US has, it also only reflects what retailers order, not what actually gets picked up at retail level. Furthermore, despite Diamond being frequently referred to as the sole supplier of comic books for the direct market, a number of retailers also obtain product from Cold Cut, bookstore suppliers and other small miscellaneous sources. Here you can find a comment by Matt Hawkins (President and COO of Top Cow) regarding DC's international presence being greater than Marvel's. DC's continues to assert in their more recent press releases that they are the largest English language publisher of comics. If what they said was lie or at least a debatable point, then you'd likely hear someone challenging them. While I understand the need from outside documentation (which I will attempt to find), I think we can all appreciate that DC's owners would be more likely to consider the rival comics company having a 10% larger share of the direct market (about three millions dollars more) an acceptable defeat than Marvel's owners. --Ace ETP 19:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Here you go, an assertion that DC is the largest English language publisher of comic books that comes not from a press release but from an independent party (the author of the article). Message boards are in no way reliable sources, but I feel it's worth noting that discussions involving comics professionals and focusing on DC's assertion seem mostly composed of speculation about how exactly does DC define the "large-ness", not outright denial of the assertion through presentation of insufficient evidence, such as the Diamond chart. --Ace ETP 19:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for clarification. I know the problem was exactly what "largeness" meant... Anyway, I remain of my idea that "one of the largest" would be a more acceptable statement until a third party, reliable source will be founded. Don't you feel strange that such sources look missing? I seem that lately also Marvel movies, gadgets, adolescent series (Marvel ADventures etc.) look being more popular than DC's... so, just from personal "impression", and the fact that that source is not reliable (another case is between Italian newspapers Il Corriere della Sera and La Repubblica, both recently boasting they're the most selling one in Italy) we'd keep the dubitative form. Ciao and good work. --Attilios 21:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why User:Ace ETP continues to use clearly questionable sources (as I explained in my edit summary just now) or why there's any need to use inflated language. What do we know indisputably, from a multitude of sources? That DC is one of the largest English-language comic-book companies. As a professional journalist, it absolutely boggles my mind that an editor would state that just because nobody's disputing a PR claim that the claim must be true. I don't want to get all J-lecturey, but people don't bother to dispute most PR claims because of a Supreme Court ruling in a commercial-speech case allowing what the court calls "permissible puffery". But in addition, one of the most basic rules of journalism is "consider the source."

A press release can be useful. It can provide (most of the time) accurate spellings, name/address facts, and other such objective data. But any claim beyond concrete reality is not that of a disinterested party, and cannot be treated as journalistic fact, let alone encyclopedic fact.

Also, to whoever wrote it in the intro, comic books are not a "genre". They are a medium.--Tenebrae 05:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

new logo

i am not so sure about this "svg vs. fair use" logos debate, however i have uploaded and inserted into article the "new" DC Comics logo in svg (copied the FU racionale from the older one). --Have a nice day. Running 00:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a question... but when it down loaded from the image bank (the listed source), was it a .gif or a .svg?

That aside, I'm not thrilled by using an image of unclear source. Yes, it looks like the logo pulled from the DC web page, but there is a lack of contributed to the image bank meaning it may be an official version or a fan recreation. I'd rather stick with the .jpg from DC's site, format issues or no. - J Greb (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It was in AI, I converted it to SVG. It is not the only logo on wikipedia from BrandsOfTheWorld.com --Have a nice day. Running 11:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And you can see all of them (or some of them) here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Brands_of_the_World_SVG&limit=500&from=0 --Have a nice day. Running 11:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call updating the logo. I was reading through the article, it's very well done. Brianlandeche (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Excessive" Images

As per the slightly bizarre claim that this article contains too many copyrighted images, let me try and offer a rebuttal.

• Wikipedia:NFCC#3a states "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."

Since this article is about one of the "big two" American comics publishers, the oldest and longest-running American comics publisher, and publisher of key - if not debut - issues in the Golden, Silver, Bronze and Modern ages of comics, it seems fair to say that one item cannot convey all of that information.

• Wikipedia:NFCC#8 states "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic."

In any article, key points are best illustrated as well as explained in text. This goes at least double for comics, which is either "half" or "primarily" (depending on who you listen to) a Visual medium. Talk about, particularly, the 'Ages of Comics' is added to immeasurably by a picture of the issues in question. Particularly, Action #1, Showcase #4 and Green Lantern #76, which are not only key or initial issues in the Golden, Silver and Bronze Ages, and are therefore justified as fair use images to complement the text on those Ages, but in themselves visually demonstrate why the ages are different: the new-ness of the Superhero; the launch of the new wave of heroes "bursting out" of the comics; the onset of 'real world issues' and edgy scenarios. If "significance" is a deciding factor, this article could potentially be packed to the gills with images of important and significant issues - and not just for DC, but for America and Popular Culture: debuts of Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman; Patriotism during WWII; Mod Wonder Woman; Crisis; Death of Superman - these are resonant images within and without the comics industry.

• Wikipedia:NFC#Images lists many criteria that make images allowable under fair use:

1. Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).
2. Team and corporate logos: For identification. See Wikipedia:Logos.
3. Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject.
4. Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary.
5. Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.
6. Screenshots from software products: For critical commentary.
7. Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.
8. Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary.

Images used to illustrate an article on DC Comics can reasonably fall under sections (1), (2), (4), (5), (7) and (8).

That the images currently used only fall under (1), (2) and (8) (and maybe (4)) is a credit to the editors who have managed to try and abide by the spirit as well as the letter of fair usage of images: Cover art for identification and commentary is necessarily the backbone of an article on a comics company and the logo or two that are presently here could easily be sensibly supplemented by the other, iconic, iterations under fair use also.

Other images that could be very easily justified - and may even be crucial to a better understanding - could include (but aren't limited to): The controversial promotional advert for Superman that has caused such legal wrangling between DC and his creators (perhaps it could also - or instead - be used at Superman, but it's a DC issue); Screen shots from the Captain Marvel serial, which was made after a deal to make a Superman serial fell through, and led indirectly to feelings of antipathy towards Fawcett, culminating in the cease-and-desist notice placed on Captain M; Screen shots from the Batman and Superman serials, the latter of which led to the TV series; Screen shots FROM the George Reeves TV series, which cemented Superman in the public imagination; Screen shots from the 1966 Batman TV series, which shaped the company's output in the 1960s under the "Go Go" checks; Time-Warner logos; Screen shots from the 1970s Wonder Woman TV series, which helped re-kindle an interest in that character; Screen shots from Superman: The Movie, which launched the Superhero movie craze; Andy Warhol's "Myths: Superman" print which placed Superman alongside Mickey Mouse, Uncle Sam, Santa and the Wicked Witch of the East as an American icon; Promotional materials trailing Crisis under a different name... the list goes on almost indefinitely of fair use images which can very accurately and sensibly be used under the Wikipedia guidelines. Yet those in use are restricted almost entirely to the most crucial covers of actual comics.

Nowhere near excessive, however. ntnon (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Key People

What's the best way, without cluttering the Company Infobox, to add in key DC people...? It makes sense to have Levitz and Didio in the actual box, as they're the key current people, but surely (at least) Jenette Kahn should be linked somewhere prominently near the start..? ntnon (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done - it needs a lot more references: the whole of the origin section has nothing (and it seems to focus on the comics and not the people who made the decisions) and there is nothing to support the statements about clamping down on copyright infringements and more. If it helps I can go through and tag the most important that need referencing but really it needs tham throughout so if you can source something then go for it. (Emperor (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

The year DC Comics technically became DC Comics

What year did the company's name change from National Periodical Publications to DC Comics? Assuming of course there was not another name in between. The article does not state the answer, but probably should.--Rockfang (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

Why no mention of all the nasty stuff they've done, like ripping off the creators of the Watchmen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.12.184 (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fictional_history_of_the_DC_Universe

FYI. Ikip (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

DC Entertainment Inc.

http://dcu.blog.dccomics.com/2009/09/09/warner-bros-creates-dc-entertainment/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusk83 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Diane Nelson is the President of DC Entertainment but there is not yet a Wikipedia article for her. The link for "Diane Nelson" on this page links to "Diane Dezura" a Canadian Olympic athlete. Not the same person. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtminchi08 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Requesting name change....

I am requesting a name change for the attached article. Now that Warner Bros. has renamed DC Comics to DC Entertainment, Inc., the article should be renamed to DC Entertainment, Inc. as well. 67.173.117.222 (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they have - DC Comics is now a Business unit *of* DC Entertainment Inc. However it's not entirely clear at this stage so you could be right. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This page is about DC, not Marvel -- therefore...

In the opening paragraph, second line, the text says that DC "is one of the largest and most popular American comic book and related media companies, along with Marvel Comics (which now is a subsidiary company of The Walt Disney Company)". Considering that this is the presentation for someone who is not acquainted with DC -- is it at all important to mention Marvel as its main competitor here? Could this be left for further on along the text? Even more significant: in a text about DC, is it relevant to say that Marvel is now a subsidiary to Disney? I am willing to suppress the piece entirely, leaving the whole portion above as just "is one of the largest and most popular American comic book and related media companies". SrAtoz (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but I noticed that Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo don't mention each other in their leads. Also, Marvel Comics simply says "Marvel has since become the largest American comic book publisher over longtime competitor DC Comics." So, if we were to say something about Marvel in the lead, I'd suggest something similar to this (though changed appropriately to match the situation." Anakinjmt (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

A few minutes ago, I suppressed the mention to Marvel from the first paragraph entirely, adding a new paragraph to the same opening section which outlines the competititon a little. If someone will please perfect my reference to the DC-Marvel market share, I'd be grateful. As it is, I pulled the numbers from the "Brief History of DC and Marvel Comics Companies" (I would put the link here, but WP blocks my edit if I try. Just google it), but that was just so we had SOME number; I would not trust my life to it. SrAtoz (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

New Article

DC Entertainment should have it's own article since it's not just DC comics anymore. DC Comics is now a subsidiary of DC Entertainment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.4.32 (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

When did it officially change its name to DC Comics?

The Golden Age section indicates that the name "DC Comics" was used colloquially for years before the official adoption of it as its name, but when was it officially adopted? I think that would be an important detail to mention in the article, so if anyone knows of a reliable source that pins that date down, it should go in. Nightscream (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The name was legally changed in 1976. I'll try to find a source for it. Mtminchi08 (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was 1977 according to Bloomberg Businessweek as seen here. I've added this citation to the article.

Mtminchi08 (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Issue #1 renumbering

Does anyone know what all the 52 titles are that are getting changed to #1? Does it also include Detective and Action? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chartered Wombat (talk • contribs) 05:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

New logo

Are we going to mention the newest logo somewhere?

http://dcu.blog.dccomics.com/2012/01/19/new-brand-identity/

NP Chilla (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Today's edit

I see that Wrightston did begin in 1968 at DC and not later, as I had originally thought and had written in the edit summary. But I still can't confirm yet that he was recruited by Infantino. In fact, I think it's probably worth checking to see if Adams and Ditko were "recruited," since those aren't cited either. These artists may simply have gone to DC on their own and were not specifically sought out and brought in by Infantino. It may be simply that the word "recruited" is imprecise. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What is a printing-plant owner?

in the article we can read: "In 1937, in debt to printing-plant owner and magazine distributor Harry Donenfeld —..."

What is a printing-plant owner? 81.173.172.240 (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Simply put, it's a person who owns a printing plant. WaxTadpole (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Detective Comics Comics

Am I the only one who thinks DC Comics, considering the name's origin, is pretty redundant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.205.119 (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Picture

The logo which is used in the infobox is the previous logo. I think we should use the new logo to be up-to-date (The 2012-present one). -- Zinthos7 (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Got any fair use images of the current logo for that? If you have non-copyrighted images, I don't see any reason not to change the infobox.Weegeerunner (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the rationale for putting Batman ahead of Superman as an "icon" in the introduction?

Hello, I see DC's intro was changed from "iconic characters like Superman, Batman" to "iconic characters like Batman, Superman" for no particular reason, and I don't really believe it is truly appropriate, even as a Batman fan. Yes, today Batman is probably DC's best seller and most appealing character (just like Iron Man has been for Marvel since 2008), but Superman is the first modern representation of the "superhero" foundations, the "most iconic" and recognizable product DC ever manifactured, and it has been like that at the very least for way longer than Batman. Supes is arguably the face of the whole DC industry as a whole.

93.44.135.27 (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I placed the hidden note in hopes that the pointless edits would stop. It's ridiculous to argue about which character is mentioned first. It also clutters the revision history, which is discouraged. I believe there's at least a dozen edits where a user switches the order and that is silly. I don't give a crap who gets mentioned first but if you want to gain consensus for one way or the other, that's fine. The silly edits need to stop. —DangerousJXD (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the edit war, just a passerby here. I personally think that, all things considered, it makes more sense to put Superman first and Batman second, at least when put in the context of general "icons" talk. Yes, there are a lot of arguments all potentially valid to say that Batman is a more valuable asset as of today than Superman, even more popular (after all, we have a "Batman v. Superman" upcoming, not a "Superman v. Batman", we had a comic series called "Batman/Superman/Wonder Woman"; in general it's because Batman outsells Superman by a considerable margin). But when you try to look at the bigger picture of "iconicity of their characters", I support the notion that "Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman" should be generally more acceptable and more reflecting of the DC Comics and Universe as a whole. Superman is almost used in the everyday dictionary nowadays, and not necessarily in Nietzsche's overman declination, but in the sense of person with "superhuman powers". It clearly transceded to something more than a simple "fictional character". I'd like to hear more opinions about it too, anyway. It would be most beneficial to reach a consensus. 93.44.135.27 (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Unless it was written by a Batman's fan, I can't fathom this "Batman ahead of Superman" arbitrary shtick. Almost 100% sure that every single publication available for reading, i.e. IGN, puts Superman ahead of Batman in the "top comic book characters of whatever". Heck, it's even directly referenced on Batman's page! :/ 21:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)5.168.225.135 (talk)

Citation needed for the "1934 founding" claim

A while ago there was a discussion and an edit war between an IP editor and User:Tenebrae regarding the year of the establishment of the company. Tenebrae defended the "1934 founding" claim: "per article text, footnotes and citati[o]ns, it's 1934; please see references." I just intervened in the debate by switching the year to 1935 as per WP:BURDEN and WP:V. Tenebrae's claim is not satisfying for the following reasons: the article text of Wikipedia is not a reliable source, while the purported citation (Gerard Jones 2004) is not a real citation since no page number of/quotation from that book is given in the article to support the claim (the only citation that was ever provided by this article's editors is one to an unreliable and non-informative source (DC Comics Silver Age chronology). I do not actually doubt that Jones or Fifty Who Made DC Great may indeed give 1934; however, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who restores contentious material and verifiability involves a full citation to a reliable source (preferrably accompanied by a quotation). I myself provided the following source: Maggie Thompson, Michael Dean, Brent Frankenhoff, Joyce Greenholdt, John Jackson Miller (editors), Comics Buyer's Guide 1996 Annual, Krause Publications, 1995, p. 81: "Beginning as National Allied Publications in 1935 and becoming National Allied Newspaper Syndicate the next year, it changed to National Comic [sic] Publications in 1946 and National Periodical Publications in 1961..." --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It's good to have discussion and I'll look into a properly done 1934. The fact that New Fun #1 had a Feb. 1935 date suggests 1934 is correct, given the lead time to buy, write, draw comic-book content. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is plausible, Tenebrae.

Unfortunately, tertiary literature is not helpful: The Cambridge Companion to American Science Fiction, 2015, p. xix gives 1934 (but I wouldn't exclude the possibility that the editors copypasted the date from Wikipedia), The Oxford Companion to the Book, Vol.1, 2010, p. 627 contains factual mistakes ("Late in 1934, the New York-based National Allied Publications (later DC) launched ... a series consisting wholly of original comics, New Fun Comics..."), while the International Directory of Company Histories, Volume 25, 1999, p. 138 gives 1935; all of these sources do not cite their own sources and none of them is a source specialized in comics history. I suspect that the only helpful sources would be Jones 2004 and Fifty Who Made DC Great. The result of this discussion should also affect Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson#New Fun and National Comics Publications#History. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Fifty Who Made DC Great does give 1934. I'll check a couple more pre-Wikipedia things right now.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Ron Goulart in his 1986 Ron Goulart's Great History of Comic Books says, "Sometime in the middle of 1934 the major...got a notion. ... After renting office space of Fourth Avenue, Nicholson began recruiting artists and writers and seeking financing. What he made in mind was a line of comic books that would feature nothing but original material. The company the major founded would eventually, under the name DC, earn countless millions."

Benton in The Comic Book in America: An Illustrated History writes, "In the late fall of 1934, Major Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson ... was carefully charting the appearances and sales of Famous Funnies.... [He] reasons that a comic book featuring original material would sell even beter than one reprinted from the Sunday pages. In February 1935, [his] New Fun Comics appeared from his company, National Allied Publications." This seems to conflate cover date with on-sale date, but either way, it would have to have been 1934 in order to gather the material, art direct it, edit it, etc. Les Daniels similarly conflates in his authorized DC book, writing, "In February 1935, a writer known as Major Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson determined the destiny of the American comic book when he launched a publication called New Fun, subtitled "The Big Comic Magazine." An image of the cover on the next page shows the cover date as "February, 1935."

Good call on Jones' book — in his section on the Major starting the company and creating New Fun (p. 101-102), he gives no year at all.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for sorting this out! --Omnipaedista (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on DC Comics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100317010956/http://money.cnn.com:80/2008/10/10/news/companies/siklos_marvel.fortune/ to http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/10/news/companies/siklos_marvel.fortune/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830202046/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=81341 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=81341
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100221121229/http://dcu.blog.dccomics.com/2010/02/18/for-immediate-release-dc-entertainment-names-executive-team to http://dcu.blog.dccomics.com/2010/02/18/for-immediate-release-dc-entertainment-names-executive-team/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Article split

Why doesn't DC Entertainment have it's own page, like Marvel Entertainment? Or DC Films like Marvel Studios? DC's slate and portfolio is the same size as Marvel's so I don't see why everything is merged onto DC's comics page. I think it should be split to acknowledge DC's growing size and separate productions like Marvel, for organization's sake. The sections alone don't provide much detail and if more were added it'd be excessively detailed for a section. So splitting them off into their own pages makes sense. —Jman98 03:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd not be adverse to that, but bear in mind that there was a DC Entertainment and it was merged in here because it was very poor on various fronts [5]. So you'd want to ensure you've got enough material and reliable sources to ensure that the article isn't merged back in here. Perhaps you might want to sandbox a version so we can see what it'd look like? Emperor (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge

A proposal has been made to merge National Comics Publications into this article. I think the NCP article is fine (it could do with expanding out of a stub but there are plenty of sources) and this article is big enough in its own right. Emperor (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DC Comics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131230233304/http://comicsalliance.com/new-dc-logo-images-interactive/ to http://comicsalliance.com/new-dc-logo-images-interactive/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The name DC Comics is redundant

DC literally means Detective Comics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetechwizard21 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It's their name regardless. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on DC Comics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100222/FREE/100229983
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206045930/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33582 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33582

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on DC Comics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518104754/http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/2004_12_01.html to http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/2004_12_01.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110619101806/http://www.ifanboy.com/content/articles/The_Definitive_Guide_To_The_DC_Comics_Reboot to http://www.ifanboy.com/content/articles/The_Definitive_Guide_To_The_DC_Comics_Reboot

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

DC films Section

I was just reading through the page and I noticed that every film before 2005's Batman Begins was erased along with their critical reception. Could someone please revert these changes and restore every DC film from Superman and the Mole Men in 1951 all the way to 2005's Constantine back to where they belong in the tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystic Moore (talk • contribs) 08:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be there. I also edited your heading so people wouldn't think there needed to be a DC Films section.

Should National Comics Publications be on the DC Comics page?

National Comics Publications is too small of a page to warrant an article, I propose that it gets merged into the DC Comics article. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

New article about DC Entertainment, please?

    There is a Marvel Entertainment article, but there is no DC Entertainment article, so can someone create a DC Entertainment article =, please? Thank you. 2601:205:4100:CB5B:80DE:E032:6B2F:D69C (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Link for whoever wants to create the DC Entertainment draft

    I know I requested a page for DC Entertainment, but I will make a link for whoever wants to create a draft. Click here. 2601:205:4100:CB5B:80DE:E032:6B2F:D69C (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

DC Entertainment Page

Hello , DC Entertaiment is parent of DC Comics, so i think it deserves a separate page like Marvel Entertainment . http://www.dcentertainment.com/about-dc-entertainment it has its own website and stuff going on . so it needs to covered in a separate wiki page , so create one for it . OthaDAW (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I just requested the same thing, so I agree with you. 2601:205:4100:CB5B:80DE:E032:6B2F:D69C (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

See my link. Create the page. You just need to learn how to create a page. 2601:205:4100:CB5B:80DE:E032:6B2F:D69C (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Report and block Disney9000

Disney9000 going to crash,report and block Disney9000 Mohamadwolf (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Speech balloon.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)