Talk:Trinity War

Unexplained reversion

@Favre1fan93: Would you please explain your unexplained reversion of my formatting improvements, per WP:CYCLE?

The same could be said to you for your initial changes, which are against conventional comic article layout. But to go in depth: it is "The New 52" not "New 52". The "The" is included; the Name section is not part of the synopsis. It is isn't own thing, almost as a "Background" section, but "Background" is an inappropriate title heading; Dr. Arthur Light is the appropriate pipe, because A) there are multiple character by that codename; and B) at that point in the narrative, he is not using the codename "Doctor Light". He is just a regular doctor; Sales and Collected editions sections are not subsections of Titles. They are each their own level two section; and finally, restored the wording/format of Collected edition section per the accepted/used formatted of comic related articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Per BRD, you're generally supposed to offer a reason for a revert. I gave my reasons as "cleanup sections", "wikilinks", and "ce; rmv unneeded primary source"; you said you were "restoring layout, words/formatting, and a link", but offered no reason for the revert.

I didn't have any section named "Background". Other characters with multiple versions are not named specifically, they are merely linked to the proper article. Likewise, the various "Justice League", "Justice League of America", etc. articles, which could refer to any number of publications, were not specified in-text. "Doctor" is part of his superhero name, and "Arthur" is not; "Professor X", not "Prof. X" or "Prof. Charles Xavier"; "Mister Fantastic", not "Mr. Fantastic"; "Doctor Doom", not "Dr. Doom" or "Dr. Victor Von Doom"; "Doctor Octopus", not "Dr. Octopus", "Dr. Octavius", or "Dr. Otto Octavius". If you want to refer to their civilian names, omit the titles Dr./Mr./etc. per WP:MOS.

Okay fine, I'll agree to switch to "The New 52" since that seems to be what the RS use.

Is there an established convention on "Collected editions" being their own main sections, or is this just your personal opinion (note WP:BRD-NOT and WP:OWN)? Policy/convention shortcut link, please. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 05:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Please sign all of your comments with ~~~~ so users know who is responding. Now, you also should have provided a reason for your initial edits. "cleanup" and "ce" are very vague and you did not state you moved content around. I stated explicitly what I was doing: restoring the layout of the article, along with words and word formatting, as well as a link.

I didn't say you had a "Background" section. I was saying that the "Name" section almost acts like a background section, which should be its own level 2 heading.

Dr. Arthur Light is his civilian name. At the point in which the wikilink occurs, in the "Lead-up" section, the appearance of the character in JLA 4 is as a civilian; hence Dr. Arthur Light is the correct usage there, along with including "Dr." in the wikilink. Please show where in the MOS linking the title is frowned upon.

WP:CMOS#LSECTION for Collected editions as lists. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I usually do sign; I rearranged my reply and must have missed it. My bad.

By saying "cleanup", I expressed my intent to improve the formatting, structure, and/or content of the article. That's obvious on its face. You described your actions but didn't say why.

Why is it not part of the synopsis? The name is part of the story, is it not?

MOS:DOCTOR. It should be just "Arthur Light" if he's not using his superhero name "Doctor Light" in the story.

WP:CMOS#LSECTION says nothing prohibiting "Collected editions" from being a subsection of "Titles". Doing so makes the most sense—they are in themselves yet another "title" in which the story is published, but they are distinct from the original publications. Making it a level-2 section is a pointless, arbitrary, and unfounded decision, which would unnecessarily split one publication from the others into a single-sentence section. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 05:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Now that we have the MOS issues cited properly, can we agree to revert back to my version, but changing my "the New 52" to the RSs' "The New 52" and my "Doctor Light" to the story's "Arthur Light"? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 05:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No we can't. The naming of the story, which the section is covering, is its publication history/"background", which I've been explaining. Placing it under the "Synopsis" section gives it an WP:INUNIVERSE attribution, when it is instead discussing the real world referencing process Johns went about in crafting it. Additionally, MOS:DOCTOR is for biographies. This is a fictional character, and including "Dr." in Arthur Light's link and the fact that it is covering plot, is acceptable. If we had a listing of the characters in the story, then I would agree with its exclusion. As for Collected editions, it is not yet another "title" in which the story is published. It is, as the name implies, collecting the single release titles, much like a home media release for a television show. The thinking is exactly the same for them being separated out, as done on television articles as well as other comic articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)