Talk:Dark Circle Comics

Comics Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Hello,

I recently had some changes reverted back on this page because of citations of the Grand Comicbook Database (GCD), which was marked as an unreliable source. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard had a conversation about the GCD in November of 2012 that seemed, in the end, to determine that there is sufficient editorial oversight for it to count as reliable: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_137#Grand_Comics_Database

Additionally, the Wikipedia editor Psyphics lists the GCD as one of his "Reliable sources for comic book articles" https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Psyphics#Reliable_sources_for_comic_book_articles per Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics Cleanup (which no longer seems to have such a list attached). Is there a source or precedent for claims that the GCD is NOT a reliable source? I'm still new here, and such information would be valuable to me. Cheers, Mquillig (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Noticeboard doesn't really come to a conclusion except to say that it is similar to the usable IMBD and Psyphics' page doesn't negate that. Spshu (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 May 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. The Red Circle and Dark Circle imprints were used in different periods, with Dark Circle starting in 2015. So this is not two competing names for the same thing, it is two different brands under which similar comics were issued in different time periods. The material could be organized in various ways -- as when a sports team gets a new name. The present article already does a good job of explaining the two names, and the breakdown into time periods is done in List of Archie Comics imprint publications. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Circle Comics → Red Circle Comics – The Red Circle name has become the common name for MLJ/Archies' superhero line. As the article encompasses MLJ's superhero period, Archie Adventure Series, Mighty Comics, Red Circle Comics, Spectrum Comics, DC's Impact imprint & Red Circle line, Red Circle digital imprint and Dark Circle. Dark Circle hasn't supplanted Red Circle as the primary use for Archie's superheroes. I submit that the article should be returned to Red Circle Comics. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC) Spshu (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Spshu — the article as written still talks almost exclusively about Red Circle, which seems like the primary topic given its decades of existence. Who knows if this new branding will last? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A search on site:archiecomics.com circle gives dark circle results. Greg Kaye 06:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is clearly not valid for WP per common name. --Spshu (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose. It appears that the new name has become well established in sources published since the name change: [1] vs. [2]. If the new name doesn't end up working out we can revisit the question then.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Tone of the article

I'm a little concerned about the promotional tone the article is taking under a redlink-editor SPA who's also said he's interested in adding "current news", which goes against WP:NOTNEWS. It's worth keeping an eye on. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]