Talk:Falcon (comics)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus on conciseness versus precision, which is the issue here. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 05:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Falcon (comics) → Falcon (Marvel Comics) – Fails WP:NCC. DarkKnight2149 23:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Newslinger talk 19:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose - I don't see a good reason why this should be moved, there is no ambiguity about "(comics)", it is a disambiguator that meets the criteria fine and is concise and recognizable. I'm concerned Darkknight2149 that you seem to be moving a lot of articles right now without discussion, please could you dial it back and start a WP:RM discussion for them as from Category:Comics characters introduced in 2006 the convention currently is to use "(comics)", even if that's not what's written down explicitly at WP:NCC. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Amakuru: It has nothing to do with what is written down, and no such consensus exists. After major discussions in 2017, WP:NCC was changed so that (comics) only refers to publications. Just because nobody has moved the other articles since then doesn't mean anything. I'm already in the process of doing that. DarkKnight2149 23:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Darkknight2149: just stop please. You need to put these through WP:RM discussions, as they are controversial.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Amakuru: They are not controversial, and we go by the naming conventions. If you have a problem with the conventions (which were thoroughly discussed before being updated in 2017), the onus is on you to open a larger discussion. I'm sorry you weren't aware beforehand. A number of articles hadn't been moved yet since then, hence the lack of awareness for some. DarkKnight2149 23:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Using the (comics) DAB for fictional character articles is what the conventions were before then. DarkKnight2149 23:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Darkknight2149: The discussion at Talk:Taskmaster_(TV_series)#Requested_move_13_September_2017 explicitly proposed moving the Taskmaster article to Taskmaster (character), and four separate users mentioned instead that it should be moved to Taskmaster (comics). That means the matter is clearly controversial. I have no idea what led to the page you mention being updated, but generally our articles follow the policies set out at WP:AT, which are tested by going through RM discussions. If you put a few of the examples through RMs (as you've done here), and find there is consnensus, then great. But otherwise your NCC page is simply a local guideline which doesn't follow the actual usage in real articles. But the bottom line, per rules explicitly stated at WP:RM, moves which are challenged should go through that process. I don't think that's unreasonable.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Amakuru: I'm going to try and explain this as best I can.

1. The naming conventions used to call for (comics) as the default DAB for comic book characters.

2. After multiple disputes and lengthy discussions in 2017, the WP:NCC was changed per consensus. (comics) is only used for publications. These discussions didn't just include WP:COMICS members either.

3. A lot of articles were never moved since then, because people hadn't gotten around to it yet.

4. The RM you keep citing took place in September 2017 and at another WikiProject. The people there were probably clueless that the naming conventions were updated. DarkKnight2149 00:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Darkknight2149: Could you link to any of the major discussions from 2017 that established the consensus to change WP:NCC in a way that supports this move? From a quick look at the history, it looks like the guideline was boldly changed in May 2019 to remove the advice that "(character)" should only be used as a last resort if "(comics)" is ambiguous and and "codename/real name" disambiguation can't be used. Colin M (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

The only thing bold is you assuming it was WP:BOLDly changed just because you weren't aware or involved in the discussions. The biggest one from WT:COMICS is already linked at User talk:Amakuru#Naming conventions. It was an entire ordeal involving the WikiProject and users from outside the project that encompassed filibustering at the Joker (character) FACs, WP:Articles for deletion/Joker (character), a couple of discussions at Talk:Joker (character), which all spilt over into a mega discussion at WT:COMICS (linked on Amakuru's talk page). Educate yourself and ask around any of the many people involved in those discussions (including Argento Surfer below) instead of making baseless assumptions. DarkKnight2149 23:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

The edit summary on the May 2019 edit I linked above was "update". I checked the talk page for related discussions around that time and found none. So yeah, "from a quick look at the history, it looks like the guideline was boldly changed". If an edit is being made to reflect consensus of some discussion, the edit summary should probably mention that. "Educating myself" is exactly what I'm doing by asking for links. Chill. Colin M (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Off the top of my head (besides myself), SMcCandlish, Darkwarriorblake, *Treker, BOZ, adamstom.97, Nightscream, Favre1fan93, TriiipleThreat, Killer Moff, Emperor, SNUGGUMS, DrRNC, Mr rnddude, and DangerousJXD are examples of the many users that participated in that drawn out discussion. The WikiProject has also been notified of the confusion going on here from Amakuru. DarkKnight2149 00:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

These moves aren't controversial until someone opposes them. I support continuing bold moves to get in line with the revised NCC guidelines. If you (Amakuru) have an issue with them in bulk, you need to start a discussion somewhere more general than on a relatively obscure talk page. WT:COMICS would be an ideal spot. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose My observation is that companies are only specified in the article title dab when more than once company has published a character with the same name, as with Daredevil, Scarecrow, etc. The "Between characters of different publishers" section of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics) seems to corroborate this. Is there a rationale for specifying the company when there are not multiple companies with same-named characters? I read this entire thread, and I didn't see one. If I have misunderstood, please clarify. Nightscream (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Nightscream: NCC dictates that you use (character) for most characters, and you use the publisher's name when there are other characters of the same name and the character isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. So the proper designation would either be Falcon (character) or Falcon (Marvel Comics). (comics) is used for publications. DarkKnight2149 00:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Support (comics) is vague and this subject has already been discussed to death on the Wikipedia Comics Project where it was decided that (comics) is not a good character disambiguation. It seems a lot of people here are unaware of the decision there.★Trekker (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose move to Falcon (Marvel Comics): “(comics)” as in relating to comics, is precise enough. Per WP:NATURALDIS: “use only as much additional detail as necessary.“ Specifying the exact publisher in this case would be overly detailed.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

No. This has already been decided over a year ago. The comics project decided that (comics) was not a good disambiguator. I have no idea why people keep arguing for (comics) when there was a huge discussion about it already.★Trekker (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Because there is never a one size fits all answer to everything. How is “(Marvel Comics)” preferable over to “(comics)” in this particular case? (Marvel Comics) does not indicate that this article is about a character, any better than (comics). Unless there is another Falcon by a different publisher, it is better to use a more general descriptor to help unfamiliar readers.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is determined by consensus, and by heavily discussed conventions and policies. Through multiple lengthy community-wide discussions, it was determined that "(comics)" is not a perfectly fine disambiguator and the naming conventions were changed. If you have a problem with the current conventions, I would suggest opening a larger discussion elsewhere. The fact that so many of you are still arguing for (comics) after WP:NCC has been repeatedly pointed out is beginning to border on WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. DarkKnight2149 17:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose - "(comics)" is a perfectly fine disambiguator. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
• Comment Just a note that the (character) disambiguation is not a good option in this particular case. Don't limit the scope of disambiguation discussion to comic publishers. There are several other kinds of character options out there as seen on the overall disambiguation page: Falcon (disambiguation)#Fictional characters
  That said, the NCC could probably use some revisiting. Two separate merge proposals to the MoS to adress a WP:POLICYFORK were tepidly supported but never actually carried out: 2014 and 2018. Also, NCC doesnt do a good job of adressing articles on charcters that also starred in publications using the same name, though drawing distinctions between ongoing and limited series would undoubtedly come into play. -2pou (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
• Support. "Comics" is a very poor disambiguator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
• Support per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
• Support for consistency with other characters, which have generally already been moved to these target titles. bd2412 T 00:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
• Seeing as how there are still a lot of character articles with "(comics)" disambiguation, this will be tedious to bring to RM. If this is the accepted disambiguation per consensus for comic characters then all the rest should be able to be moved at RM/TR as arguments for one article are the same for all others (edge cases aside). To the matter at hand, using the publisher name as disambiguation is the same as the style used for television characters, which use the television show, so Chef (South Park) and not Chef (television). I personally would have liked for this convention to be "(<publisher> character)" so Chef (South Park character) and Falcon (Marvel Comics character), but that's just my opinion. Anyways, support current guidelines which say to use "(Marvel Comics)" as the disambiguation. --Gonnym (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
• Prefer Falcon (Marvel character) or maybe Falcon (Marvel Comics character).Last I remember, we did decide to reserve "(comics)" and "(Brandname comics}})" for publications, but Falcon (disambiguation)#Fictional characters has too many entries for us to use "(character)". "(Marvel Comics character)" seems to fail WP:CONCISE if "(Marvel character)" will do, and the shorter one may be more appropriate anyway these days, given that Marvel is more and more doing movies and TV series these days, so fewer of their notable characters are remaining comics-specific. 01:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. While there clearly is no concordant consensus here and I understand the supporters’ point of view – in particular their call for consistency and disambiguation – the reasoning of the opposers is more guideline-backed and has the upper hand here.

As correctly addressed by opposers, when it comes to disambiguation the guidelines stipulate that "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that" (WP:PRECISION) and "if a character name has been used by more than one publisher, use the publisher name to disambiguate" (WP:NCCOMICS). The only other fictional character named Falcon, is Falcon (G.I. Joe); however, as mentioned by the RM discourse he is not only a comic book character but also an animated series character and action figure. Furthermore, the Falcon (G.I. Joe) WP article has 25,925 overall views as opposed to this article's 5,938,663 overall views, thus significantly lowering the former’s general notability. If required, a mere hatnote on this article will suffice to avoid ambiguity.

As mentioned by a commentator, of the Marvel Comics male superheroes, 24 are using '(comics)' and 26 '(Marvel Comics)' as disambiguation in their article title. Therefore this RM alone will not considerably add anything when it comes to the consistency of comic characters’ article titles. Also keeping in mind that these were just the article titles of male Marvel characters.

Some have mentioned that the guidelines have failed here. I object. Policies and guidelines cannot cover everything and circumvent every potential issue. This RM discussion has raised well founded points to which there are no definite answers. I hope this outcome is acceptable and comprehensible for all sides. (non-admin closure) Colonestarrice (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Falcon (comics) → Falcon (Marvel Comics) – This is the correct title per WP:NCCDAB. It is WP:CONCISE and does not conflict with any other title. It is also consistent with other titles such as Thor (Marvel Comics) and Black Widow (Marvel Comics). I do not see a good reason for ignoring the guidelines here. IronManCap (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC) IronManCap (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)—Relisting. Colonestarrice (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Support as necessary for complete disambiguation. I note that there are both fictional falcons appearing in comics, and other fictional characters such as Falcon (G.I. Joe), who also appears in comics. BD2412 T 00:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose as unnecessary disambiguation and per WP:NCCOMICS, because there is no other comic-book character named Falcon with a Wikipedia article. See the previous RM above. -- Calidum 02:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Using (comics) indicates the article is about a comic series, for instance Civil War (comics). That is equivalent to Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe) being titled Tony Stark (film), which would be incorrect as it would indicate it is about a film titled Tony Stark. IronManCap (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

  How does having "Marvel Comics" in parantheses rather than "comics" change this so-called problem? -- Calidum 19:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Support per nom. Per WP:NCCOMICS, "XXXX (comics)" should most often only be for comics publications. Since "Falcon (character)" is ambiguous, this is our next best title. It's not "unnecessary disambiguation", it's following the title guidelines. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Support per nom and Paintspot. -- Netoholic @ 07:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Support per the nominator's rationale. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose per Calidum. "(Marvel Comics)" does not indicate that article is about a character any better than "(comics)". I also find this dogmatic reverence of guidelines a bit disturbing especially when its being applied in situations that do not fit the criteria. Per WP:NCCOMICS, "(Publisher)" is used to differentiate between between articles with the same name by differentiate publishers. This disambiguation adds an unneeded level of specificity. Per WP:PRECISE, article titles should not be anymore precise than is needed. To BD2412's point, Falcon (G.I. Joe) is predominantly a television character. However even if you were using this to disambiguate between the comic book characters, "(Marvel Comics)" would still be incorrect as they are both published by Marvel Comics.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

  G.I. Joe is a Hasbro franchise, not a marvel one. If the comic guideline is failing here, and to be honest, I agree with you that it is, then that should be brought up and changed in the guideline page. But the current title is indeed bad as the Marvel character isn't the only character with that name and since there already isn't a primary topic, the current qualifier is incomplete. Gonnym (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Support. There are several characters named "Falcon" and none of them are the primary of the term Falcon, as such there is no primary for a qualifier and this page should be renamed. Since the NCCOMICS guideline is pretty clear that we need to use "Marvel Comics" then that is what should be used. On a personal note, I do think that "Flacon (Marvel Comics)" in general is bad as a casual reader might think that this article is about the comic series and not the character. A longer "Marvel Comics character" might be better, however that is also longer, and I know editors here hate long titles... but that doesn't belong in this discussion. Gonnym (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Since the NCCOMICS guideline is pretty clear that we need to use "Marvel Comics" then that is what should be used. NCCOMICS is not clear that "Marvel Comics" should be used. Per the guideline, the publisher should only be used "If a character name has been used by more than one publisher, use the publisher name to disambiguate." That is not the case here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • It is the case here though, per the other entries at Falcon (disambiguation)#Fictional characters. IronManCap (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
      • There are no other notable comic book characters by different publishers. Again the guideline states this designation is reserved for disambiguation between publishers.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose per previous RM, TriiipleThreat, and Calidum. The ideal title here would be Falcon, but that’s clearly ambiguous so we must disambiguate. The current disambiguator, comics, is sufficient because there is no other use of “Falcon” listed on the Falcon dab page to which “comics” could reasonably apply. So any additional disambiguation, including “Marvel”, is unnecessary disambiguation. Any guideline that indicates otherwise contradicts WP:AT (WP:PRECISION: "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that.") and needs to be fixed. —В²C ☎ 17:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Also, to address points made by the nom, Thor (Marvel Comics) is because Thor in comics (to which Thor (comics) appropriately redirects). Black Widow (comics) on the other hand redirects to Black Widow (Marvel Comics), and that article should be moved to Black Widow (comics). --В²C ☎ 21:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Those were two of many examples. There are also Loki (Marvel Comics), Odin (Marvel Comics), Zeus (Marvel Comics), Vision (Marvel Comics), Captain Marvel (Marvel Comics), Quicksilver (Marvel Comics), Mephisto (Marvel Comics), Echo (Marvel Comics), etc. This is a clearly established naming practice and provides a better disambiguator than simply comics, as having a franchise attached indicates the article is about a character rather than a comic series. IronManCap (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

All the examples you listed above are of character names that have been used by more than one publisher. They are disambiguted (Marvel Comics) to differentiate the characters between the publishers, not to indicate the article is about a character rather than a comic. Again, Falcon is the only notable character in comics so further disambigution is unnecessary.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Note to closer: what TriiipleThreat reveals here is a fundamental misunderstanding and/or misapplication of policy/guidelines by nom and presumably much of the Support here. Their !votes weights should be discounted accordingly. —В²C ☎ 16:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Support. The disambiguation as it currently stands is confusing and does not follow comic disambiguation guidelines. Sean Stephens (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Comment. There are over 100 Marvel Comics male superheroes, many requiring disambiguation. WIth 24 using (comics) and 26 using (Marvel Comics) it's hard to discern that any disambiguation convention is being followed in practice. The naming convention edit which restricted "(comics)" to publications didn't specify a specific discussion but I assume it was this discussion although that discussion lacks a formal close. However a suggestion opening the discussion was to Grandfather old articles currently using (comics) as a DAB until an issue arises. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply