Talk:List of television programs based on comics

Quick thoughts

Previous discussion [1] whihc also includes discussion on TV movies.

Also there are some comic strips in here. I removed part of the list from List of films based on Comics characters and they were there. We can deal with them by either splitting them off or making a separate section for now. I'll leave that open for discussion. (Emperor 02:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

OK there is already an entry: List of television series based on comic strips so they can be moved over there. (Emperor 02:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Comics vs. comic books

Should this article use the term "comics" or "comic books". The term "comics" is universal in nature, and this article specifically excludes comic strips. Torc2 23:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Note - This discussion also pertains to the articles List of comics based on films, List of films based on comics, List of comics based on television programs, and List of comics based on fiction, etc., at least when a separate list is maintained for comic strips (such as List of television series based on comic strips

Comment - There is some discussion of the already on User_talk:Emperor. My argument that since "comics" is a universal term, that it's illogical to create lists for "comic strips" and "comics", rather than "comic strips" and "comic books". It isn't clear how the latter two categories are incorrect or what they're omitting (aside from online comics). Emperor's argument seems to be some people use "comic book" in specific reference to American comic books (i.e. superhero comics). I don't think that invalidated the more common usage that comic books are simply comics in a printed, bound format. I would also like to point out how the terms are already used on Wikipedia:

• List of years in comics - includes both comic strips and comic books.
• List of comics - goes to a disambiguation page for List of comic books, List of comic strips, and List of online comics.
• The article on comic book begins: "A comic book -- or comic for short -- is a magazine or book containing sequential art in the form of a narrative." - it does not make the same distinction between "comic book" and "comics" Emperor wants to maintain.

-- Torc2 23:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comics is the word to use here. Most of the TV shows based on comics are based on comic books. But not all of them. Take Garfield and Friends for example. That's based on a comic strip, not book. Therefore, "comics" takes care of both. Anakinjmt 03:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly my point: Garfield and Friends isn't on this list. It's on a different list, which is why we shouldn't use a term that covers both. If we wanted to merge the lists so we could continue using the umbrella term, that's possible. Torc2 03:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That is what I would do then. It should all be under comics. Anakinjmt 03:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Garfield and Friends is on List of television series based on comic strips because its based on a comic strip. (Emperor 04:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

Comic strips are not comics? Torc2 20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning can be found in the discussion on my talk page. Basically comic book can refer to a specific format (especially the American comic book) while "comic" is more general, as explained in the last paragraph of the lead to comic book. As I say what I have to say has been largely said on my talk page.

We are tidying up the naming (cleaning out Category: Comic books for example) but there is still a mix of naming but it is a long process and some are being addressed at the moment [2] [3]. (Emperor 03:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

Not to be too quick, but since this list isn't exhaustive, can't the article be named as it is, and then sections make the distinctions "Television programs based on comic books" and "Television programs based on comic strips"..? Were the lists longer they'd warrant their own articles, but that's not the case. Blanketing under "comics" without making a distinction wouldnt be thorough. MURGH ^disc. 03:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Some observations...
  • The caveat in the lead aside, the list as is currently has 3 items that are based on comic strips not books. That does say a great deal about the potential extent of the list.
  • And looking at the lead... it really needs to be fleshed out. Right now ir reads as a category descriptor in stead of a lead for an article.
  • There seems to be a level of redundancy built in since the contents of the sub lists is included in the main list.
  • Using Comic book as a source for an exclusive definition of "comics" is shaky at best. "Common usage" for "comics" includes collections and individual strips as well as books. Cases in point - newspapers have "comics sections" as well as "the Sunday comics", not "comic strip sections" or "the Sunday comic strips.
  • If this list is kept at this title, the sib and sub lists need to be merged into one. Looking at them as a whole, there really doesn't seem to be enough material to justify four separate lists.
  • Along those lines, it would be useful if the items in the lists had a little more expanded information. Not necessarily compressed leads, but source companies, animated or not, first run network, and the like.

- J Greb 03:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a separate List of television series based on comic strips (Sorry to use bold, but people seem to be overlooking this.) That's the problem. It seems to be the topic is divided into two lists: "comic strips" and everything else - the problem is the term we're using for everything else includes comic strips (even though the list itself doesn't). Torc2 04:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, re-read the post immediately above yours. I'll repeat the salient points:

1. Three of the listed properties are not based on American comic books or British comics. Dennis the Menace is, at it's root, a one-panel comic "strip", and the Phantom and Flash Gordon, to fit here in any way, shape or form, are from strips. These seem to be long standing entries, so the list itself has not been consistently maintained.
2. All four lists (DC, Marvel, "strip", and "book") are thin to the point that there is no real reason for them not to be merged in to one list with section heads for American "books", "strips", and, as Hiding points out, the more prevalent "comics".

- J Greb 12:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK. This seems to support the idea that there needs to be either one list which includes everything, or the comics list needs to be renamed to avoid redundancy, correct? Torc2 20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what it supports is that the set of four lists are broken, period. Changing the name of this list isn't going to fix that, an would most likely exacerbate the problem by forcing a fifth list to be created for shows based on non-US, non-manga (a whole nother can-o'-worms we don't need to jump into...), non-strip comics.

The best starting point, IMO, would be to:

1. Fold the DC, Marvel, and strip lists back into here so we've got a solid idea of how much information we're dealing with.
2. Re-lay the article so that it has:
   1. A proper lead that fully describes the contents of the list and the background of why this is notable;
   2. Proper sections, also with their own leads for narrowed focus and better detail. These could include, but not be limited to: General; DC Comics; Marvel Comics; Comic strips; Dark Horse Comics; etc; and
   3. References and nutshell information about the items listed. ie the year the show was made, who made it, who aired first aired it, what format was it in.
3. Once that is done, if the result is overly long, split off the longer sections using {{main}} and leaving the section lead in this list. The new sub-lists would get a slightly beefed up lead of their own, and the list sections that would be removed from here.

- J Greb 22:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I would support this, although I doubt we'd need to split list the lists off. Torc2 00:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• User seems to be overlooking the fact that the list contains entries from the UK, which doesn't publish comic books but comics. I suggest we avoid systemic bias and use a term that encompasses the majority of countries terminology rather than one exclusive to a small subset of countries. If you want to create a List of television programs based on American comic books, I suggest that may be a POV fork and also at the very least needs to wait until this page gets too large that such a split is needed. Take the point that a separate comic strip list exists, but renaming this list will not solve that problem. If that is the problem, then a merge is the better solution. Hiding Talk 09:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• And if we're using Wikipedia as a reliable source, (bad idea in my opinion), note that the article referred to above, Comic book, states In the United Kingdom, the term comic book is used to refer to American comic books by their readers and collectors, while the general populace would likely consider a comic book a hardcover book collecting comics stories.[citation needed] The analogous term in the UK is a comic, short for comic paper or comic magazine. Comic books are not simply comics in a printed, bound format. That's an American definition. An English dictionary does not define the term comic book, at least not my Penguin one or the shorter version of the OED. And also, if that were true, then all collections of comic strips would be comic books, since they are "comics in a printed, bound format", and so all comic strips so collected would still be eligible for entry on this list, thus not solving the problem that the user suggests exists. Hiding Talk 10:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, several things... "In the United Kingdom, the term comic book is used to refer to American comic books by their readers and collectors, while the general populace would likely consider a comic book a hardcover book collecting comics stories.[citation needed]" There are a few key points there - first of all, the citation needed tag: somebody needs to establish that this guideline is true. Second, There's tons of weasel words here. In the UK, the general populace "would likely consider..." that hardly sounds like absolute factual statement such as: in Britain "comic book" means only a hardcover book collection comics stories. Lastly, the phrase quoted from the article--which appears half-way down and serves mainly to illustrate a smaller, more specialized, detailed issue rather than the promote a general-purpose understanding of the subject--plays with general expectations, not absolute requirements. The question really becomes What is most befitting a general purpose encyclopedia: the of 'comics' when the article itself does not actually represent the whole subject? Or "comic books" with the knowledge that on some occassions some readers might briefly misunderstand the subject? People are going to be lost when an article on 'comics' does not include comic strips; however, people really won't be confused when an article called comic books includes graphic novels and British comics. Torc2 12:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The citation was added, so I think we can put that one to one side. I think you're right that we should remember we are a general purpose encyclopedia. I think a general purpose encyclopedia uses the most common name possible, does not entrench systemic bias and informs readers. As has been pointed out, this list does not appear to be doing what you suggest it is doing; it is not a list of comic books so adapted. Therefore it is better to work out what this list is for, and then work out what it is called. As to what people are confused by, you seem to be asking us to accept that you are the arbitrator of what causes confusion, since it is your assertion that this title is confusing, yet you over-ride other peoples concerns that the new name will be misleading. Renaming the page will not solve the underlying issue; A better lead and better editing will. Why is the merge of the comic strip list not even countenanced as a possible solution? I think your point that "People are going to be lost when an article on 'comics' does not include comic strips" is completely undermined by the fact that the page does indeed include comic strips. Hiding Talk 13:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I would point out as well, that another possibility is to consider this as the parent list, with the comic strip list a sub-list split off in summary style. That would be another way to fix the issue. I do not think this issue is as cut and dried as is made out. I think Torc2 has identified an issue, but I think the solution is the wrong one for the problem. The proposed solution seems to be making the case that because a comic strip list exists, it makes sense to also have a comic book list. Whilst there is logic in that solution, it misrepresents the issue; Wikipedia isn't a binary position which can only work with either or. For example, we have List of newspapers in Scotland, List of newspapers in Wales and List of newspapers in London. This does not suggest to me that we rename List of newspapers in the United Kingdom to List of newspapers in Northern Ireland and England, excepting London, or even List of newspapers in England whilst still containing papers published in Northern Ireland. Hiding Talk 13:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"The citation was added, so I think we can put that one to one side." - Yes, I added it, but that doesn't mean it can just be ignored for the time being. Find a verifiable source that confirms the statement is true, and then it can be put to the side. (Also, please don't edit other peoples' comments on talk pages.)

"As has been pointed out, this list does not appear to be doing what you suggest it is doing; it is not a list of comic books so adapted." - What on that list would the average, non-insider agree does not fall under the umbrella term "comic book"? (Aside from the comic strips that are there by mistake.) Please give me a couple specific examples.

"As to what people are confused by, you seem to be asking us to accept that you are the arbitrator of what causes confusion, since it is your assertion that this title is confusing, yet you over-ride other peoples concerns that the new name will be misleading." - No, I asked them to explain how it would be confusing to the average, non-comic-insider reader (at least, how it would be more confusing than having a list marked "comics" with no comic strips on it). Nobody has presented any verifiable source that the phrase "comic book" in general usage is irrefutably incorrect when used to refer to comics in books or magazines. It's only incorrect when you discuss it within comic enthusiasts' circles, which really doesn't matter here. I made the assertion that the title was confusing, because when I saw one article called List of television programs based on comics and saw no comic strips on it, I was confused. I considered myself neutral on the topic because all I cared about was that the division between the lists were clear and that the article title made sense. I've said from the start that merging the 'comic strips' article into this is one acceptable way to keep the 'comics' name. Torc2 20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• I apologise for editing your comment. My intention was to edit my comment in which the quotation from the page was first used. That the level of debate has sunk to a point where simple errors are becoming an issue convinces me it is time to leave this debate. I provided the sources within the article. I'm not sure what more you want, or why you insist I Find a verifiable source that confirms the statement is true, and then it can be put to the side. If the two found are not enough to qualify as verifiable sources, I have no interest in furthering any other point of discussion. It appears we have vastly differing standards of what counts as a source. Also, I still believe you're missing my underlying point, which is that I agree that a problem exists. I do not happen to agree with your solution, and have offered numerous others for discussion. Since you are not interested in widening the frame of debate either, adds to my withdrawing from the discussion. It is my belief that the rename would indeed be confusing for European readers, and would reinforce systemic bias, something we are supposed to avoid on Wikipedia. All the best, Hiding Talk 10:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Damnit, it's like when you storm out of the room and then sheepishly remember your keys are in there. On what do you base your contention that the comic strips on this list are here by mistake? Hiding Talk 11:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Forgot my watch too. And how does that stack up against your claim to have seen the list and been confused to find no comic strips upon it? Either they are on the list, or they are not. Whether they are on the list by mistake depends upon your definition, and I am currently rejecting your definition of the list as being something which excludes some of the items listed in favour of one which includes all of the items listed. I find it easier to define something by what it is, rather than change it until it fits my definition. Perhaps that makes clearer the terms of the debate. I have to say I agree entirely with J Greb's analysis and solution, a solution I myself have also tried to push and discuss, less successfully, becoming entangled in discussions over who edited what comment when against which guideline not assuming the error was made in good faith in attempting to correct another error made in copying and pasting and closing the wrong editing tab and so on. Hiding Talk 11:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've rearranged the order of your points so my reply makes a little more sense:

"I have to say I agree entirely with J Greb's analysis" - Yes, and I said immediately after he posted it that I agreed with it. All I've been arguing against is leaving the articles as they are; I've never once rejected merging them.

"I provided the sources within the article." -Sorry, I didn't see those before. I really have no way to verify that they support the assertion "while the general populace would likely consider a comic book a hardcover book collecting comics stories" which still does seem kind of wishy-washy, and doesn't claim that the general populace would reject the use of the term to refer to the medium of printed and bound comics.

"It is my belief that the rename would indeed be confusing for European readers, and would reinforce systemic bias, something we are supposed to avoid on Wikipedia." - Insisting that "comic book" means American comic book is a much harsher systematic bias than recognizing that it also means comics in a book. It's also much more confusing to have an article called "comics" that doesn't include comic strips.

"On what do you base your contention that the comic strips on this list are here by mistake?" - Because there's a separate list for comic strips, and because only a couple strips are included instead of all of them. I'm not sure, are you arguing that including only these specific strips on that page is intentional and correct? If it's not a mistake, what's the reason? It's really kind of a side point though, I'd still like the original question answered: What specifically on that list (aside from the strips) would the average, non-insider agree cannot fall under the umbrella term "comic book"?

"And how does that stack up against your claim to have seen the list and been confused to find no comic strips upon it?" - I didn't see Popeye, I didn't see Garfield, I didn't see about a dozen shows I would have expected to see there. That was confusing - are they not comics?

"Since you are not interested in widening the frame of debate either," - Where have I ever said that? All I've done is insist that the current distinction is problematic. I've made one suggestion and haven't received a clear answer that doesn't rely completely on a European systemic bias; instead, the answers insist that the term "comic book" absolutely cannot refer to just the medium of comics in a printed, bound format (as the article comic books itself chiefly defines it). I'm not saying that the European distinction is wrong, just that it's not the only right one, and that the division between mediums (strips in a newspaper vs. bound matter) is a much more natural, already half-implemented in these lists, and used fully in places like List of comics. Torc2 20:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Take the point that a separate comic strip list exists, but renaming this list will not solve that problem. If that is the problem, then a merge is the better solution. Hiding Talk 10:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In light of the above...

I've started to try and pull the lists together. I've currently got it housed here. Feedback is welcome and requested... - J Greb 03:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Made some edits to the definitions, they come across as overly defining, but then I guess the purpose of a definition is to make it clear what you're excluding. There's a glossary here for those following at home, [4] :). God helps us if he spots this in(s)ane discussion. Re the list, the only thing I don't get is the publisher field in the strips list. Hiding Talk 10:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That's me trying for consistency. The "books/magazines" section is going to ref the publisher, ie Sable the TV show was based on Jon Sable, Freelance published by First Comics. For the strips it would mostly be the originating syndicates, like King Feature. - J Greb 12:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Removals

I removed the entries of Preacher and Legion because the lists for Marvel and DC were already posted. I also removed entries such as Baby Blues and Wild Palms because they're based on comic strips, not comic books. If I was wrong to do this, then go ahead and undo the changes. But it would help if there were some independent reliable sources verifying that these entries are shows based on comic books. Thanks and God bless!!!Sparkles32 (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)