@razzatazz: I was thinking maybe a good way to determine the difference is the options on the character page, ie; Robot, Cyborg, Mutant, etc would be concepts. Anything else would be teams. Just a thought I had when editing a character earlier.
Why should any of those things be teams. They're not teams because most of them don't even co-exist in the same universe, the only thing linking Elektra to some indie character is the of ninja. These things are the definitions of because the broad idea is all that links them. And now you can link characters to concepts so there's absolutely no reason for them to remain as teams.
@x35: That had been my original thought back at the beginning of the topic, but seemed like it isn't the majority opinion. My last post was a sort of compromise with something concrete to use as a basis. This debate will probably never be solved.
I guess what should maybe occur is not to have generic teams. So for Ninjas to be a team and to link it to an issue, it should be a specific clan. Same for Pirates, they would only link and should be a specific team that exists in a single universe and can be named. Otherwise if the book is about Ninjas or Pirates or even Cowboys then concept works better and should be linked along with the actual team that appears.
It might be the majority opinion, but it doesn't mean that it's not beyond stupid. The purpose of having a "Vampires" or "Ninja" team pages applied to multiple titles and companies is ludicrous because all that links them is the CONCEPT.. it doesn't matter what response anyone comes up with, it's defying logic. The only reason I'm righteous and insistent on this is because I am legitimately right here. The only thing that links Morbius to Spike is that they're both VAMPIRES. The mechanics and lore of vampires between the two are completely different and the only thing that links them is the general notion that they're both based on the idea of vampires. It's the goddamn definition of the word concept for Christ's sake.
@x35: And that makes perfect sense, like Pika said since we can now associate characters we can now use concepts in the appropriate manner and teams for just that, a single universe group or race/species. All others as you put it make more sense as a concept, and would be linked to a book that involves them Buffy or True Blood for example. While a team page can be used to explain the specific faction of vampires in each, if they even exist.
Opinions/guide the newbie -- Prime Directive. Should this be a paragraph added to the Star Trek concept page, or should it be a separate concept?
Also, is there a convention for distinguish current movie universe Star Trek from the prior continuity. In an edit I did to Robert April earlier I used "In the alternate timestream that follows the 2009 Star Trek film..." There may be something better? The on-going IDW comic happens in this new continuity, so it will come up a lot going forward.
I was just going over the Magical Gateways concept and noticed that it appears to have been originally intended to be specific to the Fables universe. But subsequent editors have also attached it to other properties.
I myself have thought about using it for issue story lines which involve the opening of gates or portals between dimensions through the use of magic which is an extremely common trope in sword and sorcery and Lovecraftian fiction.
Perhaps a more general write up to expand it beyond the Fables U?
And then there is the issue of Dimensional Travel. There seems to be some overlap with Magical Gateways generally emerging from some ritual behavior and Dimensional Travel being more science fiction and science based.
@kuonphobos: hmm, keep them separate and move the non-Fables stuff over to Dimensional Travel and come up with some aliases so people can figure out which to use.
I transferred non-Fables associations to dimensional travel.
I re-wrote descriptions to better emphasize each concept (hopefully). Please check to see if OK.
I would like to suggest "Crossing Dimensions" because that would remove the emphasis upon sci-fi implicit in "Dimensional Travel"
Also I would suggest "Homeland Gateway" or "Gateways Between Homelands" for "magical gateways" in order to focus upon the Fables U and not have a confusing generic term as "magical gateways" Homelands already exists and is currently linked to "magical gateways".
I noticed the original setup for company wide concepts like The New 52, Marvel NOW!, Valiant First should only include the first issue. It seems a wiki editor took it upon themselves to remove that wording from the pages and then started adding every issue to the concept. You can see All-New Marvel NOW! still has the statement. It's tedious and something that annoys me that somebody has to fix. It would only make sense to add every issue if arcs like Dark Reign & The Initiative were considered concepts too.
@pikahyper@renchamp I've been wondering about this for a while, but is worth removing the associations from pages such as Superpowers and All-New Marvel NOW!. For the latter, many issues have this tag even though the concept page states that it should only be added to selected issue's not the whole volume.
@cloudguy: if you want to, things like that are common and concept misuse is one of the most common mistakes editors make, even older editors. Trade Paperback is the worst one, no matter how many I remove more people keep using it... it'll never get zeroed out.
@pikahyper For the All-New Marvel Now! concept, it states "This concept should only be attached to All-New Marvel NOW! #1 and relaunch issues. No other issues, annuals, international prints, or trade collections." Does this mean it should only be added to issue's with the All-New Marvel Now! tag on the cover or just the ones stated on the concept page?
@cloudguy: the Marvel one's are tricky, I say it should only be the branded ones but most editors use it for any that start during the time period, i.e. once it starts to when the next All-New initiative/branding starts. It is a big problem right now with Marvel NOW! 2.0 cause it gets added to every first issue since October 2016 and the branding was rarely used and I don't think it's been used at all in many months, I stopped using it like six months ago.
@pikahyper: I'll add it to the issues with the branding as it makes sense for completion and organisation purposes as they have the branding and was a thing for a while. But I can see why it can become a problem as it could be over added, but i'll keep an eye on it and make sure that everything is kept in check.
Please Log In to post.