Talk:Showcase Presents

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by DC Comics work group.

Numbering[edit]

The numbering of the table is deeply misleading; it doesn't reflect chronological or publication order at all, but merely alphabetical order -- and what is #8 today may be #9 a few months from now. Can the numbers please be removed?

I agree --Emb021 14:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the numbers and re-edited. Let keep it this way, just like the table for Marvel Essentials. --Emb021 21 Sept 2006

Ugh!! Can this be put back in publication order, please? It was much more useful before!

Useful how?

The order now makes the most sense and makes specific titles easier to find, something that will become more important as the list grows longer.

Duggy 1138 07:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but I found it handy for seeing what the newer editions were. What about a column listing the publication date of each volume? (GLG 10/11/06)

I agree. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:08, 11

I enjoyed that they were in publication order, but alphabetical is best in the long run. There should be a column for the Month/Year they were published though. The table would satisfy both needs then.

October 2006 (UTC) I have just put in the publication month for all the volums that have not been relesed yet. I don't think I need to put in the exact dates, but I can if need be. The dates can just be removed after the month has passed. Rhino131 19:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see columns indicating the writers and artists for each collection... 66.38.204.134 16:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC) brook Newton[reply]

Showcase presents the Flash ??[edit]

any news if and when DC might release a similar compilation about the Flash?? Would be very interested in it. It should by all means include lots of works by Carmine Infantino --Haris 03:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good news. DC just advance solicited The Flash vol 1 TP. "on sale May 16" More info here: [1] .

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haris Aggelopoulos (talk • contribs) 23:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

the "Controversy" section seems like someone's personal opinions and functions more as an editorial piece than the documentation of an actual controversy. if the points made exist as part of a dialogue among comics readers then this needs to be documented.

Agreed. That whole section can safely be deleted. "Some people allege" doesn't make it NPOV, does it? (GLG 10/11/06)

New Format[edit]

Clearly you don't like my changes Rhino, and I have to agree that some didn't work. Let's see what others think before you start a revert war.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I am just against the volumes and the names being together. I think it makes for easy navigation if they were separate, and the table looks a bit better. And to keep it the same with Essential Marvel Comics, which also lists each volume by itself. Rhino131 (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on what you mean. I added a column so the names and vols were no longer together and you changed it back. Now you are saying you're against them being together.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I preferred it when "Batman Vol. 1" had its own row and "Batman Vol. 2" had its own row, and so on. When you did was change it so there is just one "batman" row, with a different column that says "Vol. 1", "Vol. 2", etc. That is what I was against. Unless that was not your edit that made it that way, but I am pretty sure it was. Rhino131 (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I made that change. I just still don't get what you meant by "the volumes and the names" being "separate".

Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compare [2]This old version of the page to [3] the current one. The volume column between the title and years covered is not in the old version, which I prefer over the current one. Rhino131 (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get that. I mean, I'm not sure why you'd describe that as new format as "the volumes and the names being together".

Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of there being a separate row for each volume, there is just the one row of the title and another column of the volume. So, in a way, they are together.Rhino131 (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

Duggy 1138 (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I guess I am not explaining it well enough. When each volume of the same character had a different row, they were separated. Now, each volume is just combined into one row with character, so they are together. See what I am saying? And it don't think that any other editor is going to contribute to this discussion, but oh well. Rhino131 (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, we know how you feel, we know how I feel... I just wish we had some input one way or another by other contributers.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still not getting you explanation, but that's moot now.

Yeah, doesn't look like anyone is going to contribute. Which is annoying. I'd rather people say "change it back" then this silence... if you know what I mean.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets just say I liked the old version better (I am not getting why you're not getting it, but thats okay, at least it makes sense to me.) I guess it is up to us to decide what to so with the page, which, I'm sure, will get us nowhere. One of us will have to relent and either change it back or stop complaining. Rhino131 (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the single column for name & volume looks a mess, and the new format is cleaner and less cramped. So, obviously, I like the new version. The only reason I could se for changing it back is if you were going to make the rows sortable.

But, yeah, two people with opposing views is hardly the bast way to find a consensus.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the current one makes it seem like the same book with different volumes, like it was really big and was made smaller. Which is untrue, they are separate books. And as I have said before, it makes for easy navigation and it is the same as the Marvel Essentials page. Rhino131 (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make it seem like one book made smaller at all. Why would you think that? Strange.

Marvel Essential page? Eh. This style is the same as other DC reprint pages List of DC Comics reprint collections and List of DC Archive Editions

But as I say, if it was more than just the two of us, I'd happily change it.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that because that is what I think. You obviously don't think the same way. But if no one else will comment, I don't know what to do. I think we will be arguing for a long time. Rhino131 (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be de facto acceptance of the new format (as long as you accept that 71.131.190.37 isn't me). I'd still be happier with some interaction here, though.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep it your way I suppose, I may not like it as much, but I certainly don't hate it. So unless others say they like it better the original way (I doubt it), I am okay if it is just left the way it is; its not worth it to try to change it or something. Of course, who knows if I might come back in a few months and change it back without your knowledge. (Now there is a good idea.....). Rhino131 (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required[edit]

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-Class rated for Comics Project[edit]

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]