Category talk:Comic Book

Purpose?

What is the purpose of this category? Is it only for issues of the SLG comic book, or is it also for in-universe information revealed in those issues?

If the former, I suggest that it be renamed (e.g. to "Category:SLG issues" or "Category:SLG Gargoyles issues" to differentiate from the up-coming Bad Guys series), that its explanatory paragraph be edited, and that it be made a subcat of "Category:Episodes".

If the latter, then it should be a subcat of "Category:Canon" and should also include articles like Tri Chung. Also, if it is the latter, then the mere existence of this category suggests that we are separating canonical information depending on the medium by which it was introduced, and I haven't seen evidence of that anywhere else on the wiki.

My personal opinion, considering the subpages currently contained, is that it should be the former, but before I start taking action I thought I should elicit some other opinions. -- Supermorff 07:41, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

I don't follow entirely, but I think the category is fine the way it is. I don't want to start separating canon characters and places by medium. Since the issues are already listed Gargoyles #1, Gargoyles #2, etc, we can easily include Bad Guys in this page as well, and just list them Bad Guys #1, etc. Vaevictis Asmadi 10:58, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

I'll try and rephrase the question. The introductory paragraph for this category states that it is for "issues or events" from the SLG comic book. What does the word "events" refer to? If, as I suspect, the category is really only for "issues" and not "events", then we need to edit the paragraph to make that clear. And I suggest that the category be renamed to more accurately represent its true purpose, e.g. by calling it "Category:SLG issues", or simply "Category:Comic book issues".

Is that clearer? (The Bad Guys comment in my first post was meant to be a throw-away remark, so sorry if that threw you off.) -- Supermorff 14:04, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

So.. it sounds like the "and events" is left over from an original intention to build this category exactly like the Marvel Comics category. In which case, I think that phrase should go. Calling it "SLG Comic Book" might be good. I think that it could simply be distinguished as The comic book, since it is canon and the Marvel comics are not.Vaevictis Asmadi 21:31, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, that's what I guessed too. I've removed "and events" from the paragraph. In summary, the purpose of this category is to house issues of the SLG comic book. Good. Next... -- Supermorff 09:38, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Suggested rename

Since, as above, the purpose of this category is only for issues of the SLG comic book, and in particular since it is not a general category in the style of Category:Marvel Comics, I suggest the category be renamed to include the word "issues" in its title. That is, it should be renamed from "Category:Comic book" to "Category:Comic book issues". I believe that a category's name should encapsulate its purpose, and I believe that this category's current name fails to do that.

To be more specific, we might also consider "Category:SLG issues" or "SLG comic book issues", but since this is the only canon comic (as Vaevictis Asmadi pointed out above) I don't think that's as necessary.

Is anyone opposed to this idea? Does anyone have a preference for a name change, or another suggestion I've overlooked? -- Supermorff 09:38, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

About the entries by Todd for each issue

I've noticed that every entry for the comics so far are written entirely by Todd Jensen, but even more than that they all have his name on them. It seems like no one else has brought this issue up, so I guess they're okay with it, but it makes it a bit difficult to add or edit anything without feeling like I may be infringing on someone's territory. Does anyone else feel this way?

Given this is the case, I thought it might be a good idea to have the commentary on a page separate from the main article (the way we have for A Bronx Tail and A Bronx Tail (review)), or better yet, just have a link to his commentary at http://www.gargoyles-fans.org/ where they can all be found verbatim (except the latest for some reason). Now, don't get me wrong, I think Todd's entries are great and fun to read, and I do agree with a lot of his commentary. But besides the fact that the entry being under his name makes it hard for anyone to contribute, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a review site. That's why we have sites like The Gargoyles Fan Website in the first place. Also, the entries on this site are supposed to be a group effort, where we can all feel free to make changes and improvements as we see fit. Having entries under a name nullifies any such effort. So I'd suggest at least moving the summary parts by Todd somewhere else, or just leave a link. What do you think? --Moeen 01:03, 7 August 2007 (CDT)