This category is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
This category and its subcats either need to be renamed, repurposed, or heavily purged. A large number of the items in the sub-categories here explicitly do not conform to this category's description, i.e. works that were both written and drawn as solo series by the named creator. Ford MF (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just change the description of the category so that it can include comics not written and drawn by one person. Even comics with a single writer/artist sometimes have another person inking, lettering, editing, etc. so specifying only "solo" works seems extremely limiting, and the description is basically ignored anyway.
Right, except as it stands it's mostly like "Comics that at one point were worked on by X author or artist". Ford MF (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few ¢...
"By author" is a bit open ended for comics since the term can really be applied to both the writer and the penciller.
It's tempting to suggest renaming this to "Comics material by author" with "Comics material by X" subs. That would allow for, if there is sufficient material, 2ndary subs of "Comics by..." (the current created, written and drawn by 1 person), "Comics characters created by...", "Comics written by...", and "Comics drawn by..." (broad definition there).
In any event, anthology books shouldn't get catted under this.
As I've said at WT:CMC its not that indiscriminate - the problem is the description was parachuted in without discussion and doesn't reflect the way the sub-categories are being used. This is for "comics created by X" which is clear and easy definition (and easily checkable - it should be the names in the infobox, if that is stable, no loophole from changing the infobox!!), I think the description should be changed to reflect that (as that description should never have been added) but I don't think it necessarily needs to be renamed to "Comics created by author" as the only confusion really being generated is coming from the misleading description and some misuse. The latter comes from attaching people who have written stories in anthologies to the anthology, when only the creator of the anthology should be attached and sometimes this is far from clear (so Pat Mills did create 2000 AD and that process is well documented). However, I could go with "Comics by creator" if that would be thought to help clarify matters.
I'd really want to avoid any categories along the lines of "comics material by", "comics written by", etc. as that would lead to crazy category bloat in long-running titles with a big turnover of writers/artists. (Emperor (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
To be fair, some titles with turn over issues do have notable associations with one or more writers and/or artists. Catting around those does make a degree of sense. So does grouping articles on arcs and series with a primary writer or artists.
The stumbling block becomes criteria... Some are slam dunks - Mills and 2000 AD, Stan Saki and Usagi Yojimbo, Miller and Sin City, etc. Where there is little or no argument that B should be catted under A. It starts becoming a problem with this like Batman, Strange Adventures, Captain America, "Annihilation", Aquaman, etc.
The category just isn't useful. The cases in which there are slam dunks might make sense, but creating a category around them just creates an endless series of battles over additional entries. After Sin City comes Dark Knight and then Daredevil and then something Miller just wrote once. The time and effort that will be expended over these far outweigh whatever meager use they might have. DoczillaSTOMP! 08:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how useful "comics by artist" and "comics by writer" would be because some creators are writers and artists, sometimes they can draw what they write, sometimes they just write and sometimes just draw (see, for example Alan Davis). I'd be fine with changing this to "comics by creator" and renaming the others to "comics created by X". As it is, it works fine for limited series but is open to abuse with ongoing (although as it stands there isn't too much of a problem - Daredevil (Marvel Comics), for example is categorised to Frank Miller and BMB and while they have had notable runs on the title that is purely subjective, people would be better off creating redirects for specific volumes and limited series that don't have their own page and categorising those which should allow this category to be used right and keep it fine-grained enough to be useful).
I'm also unsure about that cover category as it'd lead to massive category bloat because anyone provided a cover could be added in and it wouldn't be that useful (knowing artist X did a cover for a specific title doesn't tell us which issue it was) - they have this on the DC and Marvel Wikia sites where they break things down to individual issues so the "Covers by Steve Ditko" category then becomes a de facto bibliography. I think we should leave that job to those sites and the databases that can make the fine distinction that is required for it to be useful (Emperor (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
I'm very very hesitant to see the start of any book-related category "...by creator". Books are collaborative.
Incidentally, I think any scheme we devise should start with books, to keep this all in the same tree, to prevent possible duplication or other tangled messes : )
Maybe a solution would be to group nom the entire "books by author" tree to become "books by writer". Then we can start a "books by illustrator" as well, if wanted. But with pencillers, inkers, and finishers (to name a few) I dunno if the latter is possible as categories, and may need to be lists? - jc37 01:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
