Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media franchises

Template:Fiction notice This is the talk page for WikiProject Media franchises. Please give us your input to help this project get restarted once again.

What's been going on with the project?

At WP Films, I've had to field several requests for franchise-specific task forces, and I usually refer them over here. However, looking at the complete lack of task forces and low amount of participation and assessment, I was wondering what is going on and why has this project seemed to stall? (IMHO.)

I believe that the current task force situation of chicken/egg dilemma probably can be most easily solved at present by starting to integrate the inactive WikiProjects and working things forward from there, but I'd like to hear if anyone else is already ruminating on this. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If you wish, you can start sending people to the task force proposal page of this project. If WikiProject Films would like for this project to handle film franchises, a link to the above could be useful to keep down the paperwork at Films. Most franchises these days have more than one media, so send any over to the link above where the proposals can be looked over. This way, Films can focus on the broad issues without having franchises to deal with as well. Plus, we could use a little help to get this moving forward. I hope that made sense. - LA (T) 21:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Just heard this WikiProject exists. Normally we've been having people make tasks forces for WP:TV, WP:ANIME, WP:VG, etc. I guess I can see the logic for the ones that don't have a clear dominate media, but taskforces can be listed under more than one project. *shrug* -- Ned Scott 08:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Rescoping

Here is the proposed scope of this project. - LA (T) 20:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Media grid
	books	comics	films	games	music	plays	television series	toys
Books		Books based on comics	Books based on films	Books based on games	Books based on music	Books based on plays	Books based on television series	Books based on toys
Comics	Comics based on books		Comics based on films	Comics based on games	Comics based on music	Comics based on plays	Comics based on television series	Comics based on toys
Films	Films based on books	Films based on comics		Films based on games	Films based on music	Films based on plays	Films based on television series	Films based on toys
Games	Games based on books	Games based on comics	Games based on films		Games based on music	Games based on plays	Games based on television series	Games based on toys
Music	Music based on books	Music based on comics	Music based on films	Music based on games		Music based on plays	Music based on television series	Music based on toys
Plays	Plays based on books	Plays based on comics	Plays based on films	Plays based on games	Plays based on music		Plays based on television series	Plays based on toys
Television series	Television series based on books	Television series based on comics	Television series based on films	Television series based on games	Television series based on music	Television series based on plays		Television series based on toys
Toys	Toys based on books	Toys based on comics	Toys based on films	Toys based on games	Toys based on music	Toys based on plays	Toys based on television series

That seems about right. I have been working on a lot of the categories to make them work together (with consistent naming and the like) and have used {{seealso}} to cross link related categories, e.g. Category: Comics based on films and Category: Films based on comics. Obviously, being included in this category doesn't automatically make it franchise but those are the places that franchise start to come together and it'd make sense to tag the various categories. (Emperor (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

Is this an appropriate project, or is the concept too commercial?

To LA: As I understand it, a media franchise is a commercial concept based on exploiting intellectual property. So why is it appropriate for a non-commercial encyclopedia? I see you are the only active member here. Can you give me an idea of what you are trying to achieve? Thanks and best wishes. --Kleinzach 22:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The word franchise is being used rather loosely here. Some topics might not need a full blown WikiProject, but a task force here might do winders for the articles of the topic.

Examples where a full blown WikiProject might be too much.

Alien Nation has 7 films, 1 television series, and 1 book.

Cagney & Lacey has 1 television series, 4 films, and 3 books.

The Kids in the Hall have 1 television series, 1 film, and 2 stage plays.

Ripley's Believe It or Not! has 4 television series, 1 radio series, 1 game, a lot of books filled with trivia, and the museums.

This is the kind of thing I am hoping we gather here. If within a week or so, there isn't enough interest, I may shut this project down as a failure. - LA (T) 00:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I do most of my work in comics there is a lot of crossover with other media and I have done a lot of work in those areas trying to get the various structures coherent and consistent, see e.g. Category: Comics by source and Category: Works based on comics. There is a higher level category Category:Media by source (with the child Category: Media based on media) but this is out of just about everyone's jurisdiction (there were probably easier ways of doing this and an already existing structures but the CfD went no where). I see such a project as this as helping keep an overview on this issues that are beyond the scope of any one media-focused project. It could help keep naming consistent across media so that it is easy to slot it all together.

I've also worked on getting CSI franchise fixed up, which I hope is a good example of what you are talking about - the first CSI series spawned a franchise of TV shows as well as spin-off media with books, comics, games and toys. We based it on Law & Order franchise which also has a big franchise of TV shows but not so much spin-off media (some books and games). We were largely making it up as we went along, largely based on the single existing precedent in the same area. It would also be handy if there was help and advise from a project like this which would allow other people to establish such franchise-based projects/pages. It would help keep consistency across the various articles and the input of people who have set up such pages would be invaluable. I would expect this project to be fairly quiet but really useful. Perhaps some example pages would be handy to let people know what we are talking about. I posted a couple above but you also have: Alien vs. Predator and Alien (franchise). SOme are currently pitched as say a film series with spin-off media tagged on when you are really looking at a franchise, for example the Alien one was originally Alien (film series) and was moved [1] (see also Ghostbusters (franchise). Examples of pages that could benefit from similar treatment include: Evil Dead (series).

A good first stage might be tagging the talk pages of the articles and categories I mention above with the media franchise header. It would help get more involvement from people who are actively involved in those areas who can help those looking for help and perhaps build up resources which people can use. (Emperor (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

I would love to see that happen, however, I may be the only active member of this project so really need help to get this off of the ground. This project needs more active members to tag articles, help find a direction, build templates, etc. It is just so overwhelming for just one person. Any help is better than none. LA @ 01:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

OK I've added my name to this. As I'm already doing work in the area it makes sense to make it more official.

As I only found out about this when you dropped a note into the comics project I think a bit of publicity can't hurt. I'll start adding tags to talk pages and try and cover the main ones, it would also make sense to drop notes into the various franchise projects (I just dropped a link into the CSI franchise project on your front page) - they are the kind of experienced people who can be useful in offering help and advice. (Emperor (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC))

I will be doing that in a bit. Give me time, I am only on dial-up, so I have to take a really deep breath before diving into a mass appeal. Welcome aboard. :) LA @ 03:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Added myself as a sympathiser, I'd be more active and help out, but I'm rather busy with the 24 project, co-ordination of it, article work, and also mediation, my time is somewhat limited. But if I can help out, let me know. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 05:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff. List of 24 (TV series) media is virtually already a franchise article and a good example of the kind of depth and breadth we'd be aiming at. (Emperor (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

Infobox

You spoke of a media franchise infobox, well, here is one that needs to be tested on various pages before being put into official use. I have added as many types of media which I have encountered over my time here. I am thinking of other tweaks, but this is the bare bones basic framework of it. So, take it for a spin (add it to a page and fill it out, hit the Show preview button, and see what it looks like) and tell me what you think either here or on its talk page. LA @ 07:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Great. I'll give it a spin later. (Emperor (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

I started it at its permanent home. The links above will take you to it. LA @ 20:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Great - it might as well go live. I've added it to CSI franchise and it looks good. One thing though - would it be possible to swap the order of the fields? Obviously with CSI the most important part of the franchise is the original TV series and the two spin-offs with the other media merging from that. For the Batman franchise you'd expect the comics to be first followed by the films, TV series and then novels. I imagine swapping them around within the template wouldn't work but could you add an "order" field so for CSI tv_order=1, then video_game_order=2 and for Batman we might have comic_order=1, film_order=2, etc. I suspect it would need fiendishly complicated markup but perhaps if you had a number of slots to be filled, the code would look for what has an order of 1 and put the appropriate content in slot 1, etc. Anyway just a thought, as looking at it I can see that is going to be one of the early questions about the infobox. Other wise looks good. (Emperor (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC))

I wish I could come up with a way to do that, but right now I am tapped out of ideas. Let me give it a good long think. The reason for the Origin field is to show which item was first, and where the others sprang from. Please give me some time. Thanks! LA @ 20:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No rush, just an idea that occurred to me. We should also see if there is a great call for it. (Emperor (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC))

Added to Law & Order franchise. Shapes up nicely. (Emperor (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC))

Article importance

I think we need to have a chat about article importance on the assessment talk page soon. We have over 100 articles assessed as ours, and we need to figure out how important they are. LA @ 05:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea I agree, and will try to get the conversation going. -Sykko-(talk to me) (yesterday but forgot to sign)

I put a few suggestions on the talk page. I figure there is likely to be a bit of adjustment needed so comments would be much appreciated -Sykko-(talk to me) 14:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Things to do Section?

As I am considering joining up I was thinking how it would be useful if there was a list of exact things that members of the project should do. This would give me a better idea as to if I have the ability to contribute enough to make joining worth it (as I dropped all my other projects due to the fact that I couldnt figure out what to contribute) -Sykko-(talk to me) 20:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Right now there isn't such a list since this project is being rebuilt, so a direction is what we need first. Feel free to suggest areas which we should focus on. LA @ 21:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We could always stick an {{todo}} box at the top for starters. We could throw in links to categories for unassessed talk pages so when we are on the same page we can sort them out.

Some other thoughts:

• Perhaps have a list of franchises we could reach out to - I was looking at Buffyverse and it struck me it could be improved by expanding the focus on the franchise. Batman franchise media might need a slight rename and it could also do with including the Bat Family titles. What you tend to find is articles set up as "in other media" or focused on the core series and then tagging on the spin-off/tie-in media on the end (Aliens (franchise) started along the lines of the latter example, Batman franchise media is "in other media" that has evolved slightly - I feel Superman in other media could be moved up to a franchise article. See my further thoughts on other comics franchises here).
• We could draw up examples of good franchise articles
• Perhaps draw up other resources - do you think we need an infobox? I note most of the media franchise articles don't have one and where they do (e.g. Aliens (franchise) it doesn't seem to fit). Fields might include original work, media (TV, film, comics, etc.)
• Possibly draw up an outline of things like might be useful to include (sections for each media, beginning with the original work and any spin-offs within the same media) and also perhaps any characters/locations/objects that reoccur (the major ones would obviously have their own articles).

Anyway just a few ideas on where we can focus our work and really help people improve and round out articles that have arrived at the brink of being a franchise article from a number of different routes. (Emperor (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

Oh another thing - most franchise will tend to generate its own footer template but if it doesn't it'd be worth out pitching in to see if anyone needs help starting one. Could be one of the checks to do when we run across a franchise.

I suppose ultimately we'd want to act as a guiding hand to help people get all the franchise articles up to standard and relatively consistent. (Emperor (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

Sounds good! so in general I have decided that I will help out, but am not exactly joining for now. I don't want to commit myself to stuff right now so this may be something I get involved in for a day or two or a month or I may eventually join as a member of the project long term. -Sykko-(talk to me) 02:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Way I see it is that I am already doing things in this area anyway so I might as well contribute my thoughts on the topic and I can also have one eye on Media Franchise Project needs while doing what I am doing (like adding talk page headers, spotting likely candidates for help). I suspect activity is going to be variable as well, kicking into gear if someone needs help setting up a franchise page or in related matters. (Emperor (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

A couple more examples of things we could do:

• Warhammer 40,000 spin-offs, could be easily converted and upgraded into a media franchise section
• Starship Troopers (film)#Spinoffs - this is crying out for a "Starship Troopers (franchise)" article. It isn't even mentioned on Starship Troopers, partly because the spin-offs are largely from the film but anyone going there looking for information on something like the TV series could easily be stumped. If you had a franchise page you could at least link to it from "see also."

So we could spot articles that could easily be converted or we could reach out to something like the Starship Troopers article with an offer of help and advice in starting the article (it'd make sense to split off the Spinoffs section as a core and then add information on the original book and the film from which everything else flows.

So we keep an eye out for the two general cases (those articles that can be improved to cover a franchise and those that need it) and focus on them. With general background activity adding the talkpage header and infobox (see above), as well as rating unassessed articles. (Emperor (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

UBX

This user is a member of the Media Franchises Wikiproject.

Hey, I just threw together an user box for the project. {{User:Sykko/templates/ubxmediafran}} if you want different colors or anything let me know and I will edit it, or feel free to go in and do the edits yourself. Here is what it currently looks like (going to subst it so that if it gets changed people can look back on this version here. -Sykko-(talk to me) 20:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, though green might be a better color as it is more encompassing. Maybe... LA @ 21:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This user is a member of the Media Franchises Wikiproject.

OK, second go at it. Let me know what you think. -Sykko-(talk to me) 22:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This user is a participant of the Media Franchises Wikiproject.

Look at the code, let the editor choose the color. :) LA @ 08:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks great, take a look at the template and let me know if you think I should do anything different before moving it into mainspace User:Sykko/templates/ubxmediafran -Sykko-(talk to me) 14:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I like it, why not move it to {{User WikiProject Media franchises}} to get the ball rolling? :) LA @ 21:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, move sucessful -Sykko-(talk to me) 21:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The image is ok, I suppose, but can we lose the "star"? (Or perhaps save it for use as the project's Barnstar? - jc37 02:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I simply used it because it was the image on the tag for talk pages that fall within the scope of the project. if you have an alternative idea we can definately test it and see what people think about it as an alternative. Although I think it is fine as a star, and a project barnstar should without a doubt include this star symbol though since it really fits in with the project and should be recognizable as a symbol for the project in general. -Sykko-(talk to me) 02:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Jc37...I put in a request for an image to be made here. You are certainly invited to try your hand at making us an image out of those. LA (T) @ 03:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

While I am happy to discuss, images aren't my forte. I was merely suggesting that the "star" seems less-than-indicative of a franchise, and instead can seem to give other less appropriate connotaions: Star=actor; star=5 "somethings"; star=barnstar. Even just those three possible confusions would seem to be enough to suggest (as I did), that, if keeping the image, the star part of the image be removed. - jc37 05:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention?

Should we go for a naming convention here? There are so many ways these types of articles are being named, that it is hard to keep track.

Do we want to argue with the editors of each article about the name? There may be some who will adamantly refuse to change. LA @ 21:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well my thoughts:

• "X franchise" and "X (franchise)" seem pretty interchangeable - there might be a guideline somewhere on the naming but I'd say encourage people to go for the latter but the former seems OK too.
• "(series)" and "series" tend to focus on one aspect of the franchise (often film series) and it depends on how they shape up - this would be the kind of thing we'd be looking out for to help encourage people to expand into a franchise article, which would usually involve adding the spin-off media to it. Alien (franchise) started like this and I and others expanded the comics, books and video games until the article became about the franchise and it was renamed. That happened organically but offers of help could certainly help move things along in the right direction.
• "in other media" (and actually "franchise media" in the case of things like Batman franchise media) are the opposite of the series as they usually contain only the spin-offs in other media. So, for example with Batman, the original is Detective Comics but has spawned various titles Batman (comic book), and many others. "in other media" has its place where you can get characters appearing in other media (without them being the franchise, for example Cyclops in other media, where the franchise is the X-Men).

So as you can see the coverage is variable and it feels like the franchises should be helped to develop their pages with an eye for a rounded franchise page and there are clearly two types of articles that need one area or another expanding (series need the spin-offs, in other media need the original works and spin-offs in the same media). I don't see a big problem with this as it is the end point of the natural growth of an article although it might be impeded due to the naming. It may be when we check that there are pages that are already media pages named as something else and it only needs a renaming and the infobox to set it up. These might be a natural first step. I plan on floating the idea to the comics project - using Superman in other media, Batman franchise media and the X-Men as natural jumping off points (the last being interesting as no "in other media" article exists so we could split the article straight to a franchise article) and there are others like Hulk (comics) and Spider-Man. See how the land lies and there might be enthusiasm get all the eligible ones done. (Emperor (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC))

I see on Talk:Law & Order franchise you've asked them if they'd mind changing to "(franchise)" - is there any preference? If it is actually about the Law & Order franchise then it doesn't seem a bad idea. I mean when we disambiguate we usually do it to differentiate between things of the same name, e.g. Superman (film) is about the film with the title Superman, equally that article isn't about the franchise called "Law & Order" it is about the "Law & Order franchise". Although I had a hand in naming CSI franchise I don't think I am fussed either way (actually thinking about it we probably only named it that way because we were basing it on the Law & Order one) but if we are going to prefer one and look for them to be renamed I'd rather we settled on something sooner rather than later as it'll mean less mess later on. (Emperor (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC))

My preference is (franchise) because I love the pipe trick. It makes listing things so much easier if I only have to type the name once, and then use the pipe trick to fix the link.

[[Law & Order franchise|Law & Order]] vs. [[Law & Order (franchise)|]]

What would you rather have to type? LA (T) @ 06:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if I was writing "This video game is part of the [[Law & Order franchise]]" then that. If I was referring to Law & Order, it would be "This novel is based on events and characters in [[Law & Order]]" as you'd need to be specific. It might be unwise to overuse piping in those cases as the piping would be misleading, for example some of the Alien comics (like Avenging Angel) are specifically based in the Alien universe and you'd want to be clear what you are referring to (i.e. it is not based on Alien (film) but on the Alien franchise (which in that case means the link requires more typing. So if I see "this is based on Law & Order" I'd expect it to be referring to that specific show, if it is a spin-off from the wider fictional universe then it should clearly say that, e.g. CSI: Miami span-off from the main CSI series and CSI: New York span-off from CSI: Miami, whereas some of the law & Order spin-offs are more generated from the fictional world of the franchise rather than any one specific series. (Emperor (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC))

Good points. I think I need to do another round of messages to get a wider consensus from other WikiProjects before we do any mass renaming. Let's not get everyone in a tizzy. What do you think? LA (T) @ 18:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Got the message. Quick question. Which of, (if any), of the articles in Category:24 articles by quality would be renamed, under this new naming convention? If you could give me a list, then I can discuss it amongst our project. If there are none, thats fine too :). Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 22:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

2¢-ish running off of Emperor's comments.

I'd prefer "<series> franchise" with a clear statement of purpose an article so named is covering what has spun off of the focal series and how. So articles like Doctor Who, Batman, and Star Wars would still be the primary articles on the core concept in the media the started in, and each would have a "child" article covering the spin-offs, or pointing to articles on specific spin-offs.

I'd also think that the "<comics character> in other media" articles, an the like for other fictional characters/concepts, would fit under this project as well. In most cases they are "franchise" stubs or starts. It the odd one that is for a character that isn't, link Emperor's Cyclops example. The character isn't a franchise per se, but part of the "X-Men franchise" which, as an article, would have a natural break point at how the cast of characters for the franchise are/were portrayed in other media. - J Greb (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer Steve's question: The only article that might be effected by the naming would be: List of 24 (TV series) media which, I suggested above, is the one that would make sense as a franchise article. So it would become either "24 franchise" or "24 (franchise)" if you all wanted to rename it. (Emperor (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

←Whatever naming convention, ya'll decide on? is exceptable to me. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

For my 2 cents, as the founder of WP:ALIEN...I only think this is an issue if a disambiguation is necessary. For example with Star Wars no dab is necessary, since Star Wars is the umbrella title for the entire franchise and there is no single item within the franchise that is simply called Star Wars (excepting the original 1977 film, which was later re-titled to fit within the episodic film series). For Alien (franchise) the (franchise) dab is necessary as there are numerous single items within the franchise that use the singular title Alien (the 1979 film, a comic book series, and several video games), therefore we need a dab phrase to show that this article is about the franchise as a whole. I would say that for Batman or Superman no dab would be necessary, since these are franchises built around single characters and therefore the character articles are, in effect, articles about the franchises as wholes. Basically I'm saying that article naming is going to fluctuate on a case-by-case basis depending on the name of the franchise and the nature of the article, so a set of naming conventions isn't going to be all that helpful. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really hold a position on (franchise) vs. series, but I don't like <subject> franchise or <subject series. It'd be like calling Shaun of the Dead "Shaun of the Dead film". - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not quite that... It's more Shaun of the Dead - an article about the movie - and Shaun of the Dead franchise - an article about the spin-offs, the toys, games, TV show, musical, etc.

The "franchise" articles should not, never ever ever, be though of as a replacement for the article for the core series/property. A logical split, yes, but not a replacement. And Batman is a good example of when this happens. The article right now, covering the character, pushes the threshold of too larg file-wise. Various things were split out of it, opne being an "In other media" section. That article is the start of a "Batman franchise" article, deliniating where, why, and how DC Comics has licensed and marketed the character outside of its original comic book series. That article then points to the article on the seriels, the television shows, the films, and the video games.

- J Greb (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Batman and Superman aren't franchise pages. As mentioned above the ones that come closest (and could be refocused as franchise articles) are Batman franchise media and Superman in other media. Any work that spawns enough spin-offs to be considered a media franchise are going to either have a page covering the media (like the two examples there) or are bulging at the seams and need such a page (in comics I've flagged X-Men as being one such - Shaun of the Dead may be another). (Emperor (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

How is this not instruction creep? -Malkinann (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt deciding whether "X franchise" or "X (franchise)" would be the best way to go is really instruction creep but it could be argued that it is best to leave it up to the various projects. However, as the media franchise is a grey area where media crossover you could easily find clashes if the TV project went for one and film went for another. I suspect in the end, as consensus, looks to be far off it will come down to discussion on the talk page of the relevant articles, which is fine by me. (Emperor (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

This doesn't really seem to be very necessary to me. Most, if not all, of the various projects who left messages with have their own naming conventions that work just fine, and simple discussion deals with any conflicts. Rarely, and I mean seriously rarely, is there a need to disambiguate a franchise as it should be the main article of the topic. For example, from the Anime and Manga project, we have Sailor Moon, the franchise. It needs no disambiguation at all. The character is Sailor Moon (character) to disambiguate, and there is a disambiguate page for other instances as needd. All in all, I applaud your enthusiasm, but your message notes that "this may affect one or more articles under our project" when in reality, no, it won't. Our naming guidelines come first on all our articles, not anything decided here. I'd recommend doing nothing more than linking to the various naming guidelines already in place. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Generally speaking, the franchise should be the main article anyway, and other naming conventions shouldn't be dictated by this one Project; its scope is just too general for that to work. --Masamage ♫ 02:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I also think this may be a solution in search of a problem. What exactly is the reason why this naming guideline would be useful? Could the advocates of this guideline perhaps point to some existing "franchise" articles in which the naming is problematic or ambiguous? If this is just for the sake of standardization, then I oppose it. As Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought that "<subject> (franchise)" was the best way to title these pages, especially since I've seen many articles use that layout. Inclusively, for the majority of articles there is "<subject> (film)", "<subject> (comics)", "<subject> (fictional character)", etc., so I definitely think "<subject> (franchise)" may be consistent enough to follow similar page names. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Specifics

I think that this should follow the same convention that "series" does. (per WP:NCF, WP:NC-TV, etc.)

The dab phrases are things like: (TV series), (film series), (video game series), etc.

Books are apparently the exception, per WP:NC-B.

So for franchise, just follow the same format, deferring to the medium in which the franchise began.

• Star Wars (film franchise)
• Lord of the Rings (franchise)
• Charlie's Angels (TV franchise)
• Street Fighter (video game franchise)

etc.

Thoughts? - jc37 02:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There are some cases in which the medium in which a "franchise" became most popular is not the medium in which it first appeared. I'm thinking of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which began as a film, but gained widespread popularity as a television series.

Incidentally, there doesn't seem to be an article for The Lord of the Rings regarded as a franchise. The Lord of the Rings (disambiguation) shows articles for the books, the recent film series, and several on adaptations in other media, but no article on the "franchise" as a whole.

By contrast, the articles Star Wars and Star Trek seem to do fine covering those two franchises without any disambiguation. Doctor Who, by contrast, is primarily about the television series, with a section on "adaptations and other appearances". This seems fine to me — I don't see any need to install a one-size-fits-all rule for different franchises, which don't necessarily fit into the same mold. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This would be open to interpretation - "Star Wars (film franchise)" would be the equivalent of "Star Wars (film series)" so the addition of the media type is either going to make it overly redundant (where "Star Wars (franchise)" would be fine) or confusing - it'd be best to keep it simple (one of the principles at WP:D, after all). (Emperor (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

Here is a few sample franchises where a naming convention would be a good idea.

Firefly franchise or Firefly (franchise)

The word firefly is a common word, so nothing in this franchise would be able to use it without disambiguation.

Television series

Firefly (TV series)

Film

Serenity (film)

Soundtracks

Firefly (soundtrack)

Serenity (soundtrack)

The Kids in the Hall franchise or The Kids in the Hall (franchise)

Television series

The Kids in the Hall (this is the original work, so gets the non-disambiguated article title)

Film

Brain Candy

Plays

Kids in the Hall: Same Guys, New Dresses

Kids in the Hall: Tour of Duty

Young Frankenstein franchise or Young Frankenstein (franchise)

Film

Young Frankenstein (this is the original work, so gets the non-disambiguated article title)

Musical

Young Frankenstein (musical)

Soundtracks

Young Frankenstein: Dialogue & Music From Original Soundtrack

Young Frankenstein: The New Mel Brooks Musical

So, we are just trying to figure out which is preferable. LA (T) @ 07:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't like the parentheses because they seem to imply that the entire franchise in question is a proper noun. The use of the parentheses in something like "Star Wars (franchise)" implies that the series related to Star Wars is named "Star Wars," which it's not. "Star Wars franchise" on the other hand avoids these implications (Does that make sense to anyone?). Which is preferable: "Rudy Giuliani during the September 11, 2001_attacks" or "Rudy Giuliani (during the September 11, 2001 attacks)"? Just my opinion. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that if the primary title of the related works is the subject title (i.e. Friday the 13th is generally the primary title for all of the related works, though there are a few exceptions), then it should be "(franchise)". Now, something like "James Bond" is not the primary title, though it is a franchise. In which case, I think "James Bond franchise" is more appropriate. With "Star Wars", that is generally the primary title of all of the related works. So, a parenthesis would be more appropriate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, and in answering the question which is the best naming convention, if we want a naming convention that is, I would go with no parentheses because it includes all of the above, all franchises with primary and just general titles. We should look for a way to include all types of franchises, like James Bond and Star Wars, in one stroke. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? Not all "franchises" are the same. What is the urgent need to fit them all into the same mold for naming? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you read my comments, I said nothing about urgency. I am not a part of this WikiProject. I was merely invited to state my opinion about which naming convention is better and most consistent in my opinion. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

One or the other, but not both

Here is why this is important, at least to me. When making a general template, it makes things a lot easier when there is a set naming convention in place. Now, I was planning on making a template to help make a list franchises. Now, to find out if a franchise has a franchise page, I would use the following...

{{#ifexist:<subject> franchise|[[<subject> franchise]]|[[<subject>]] - no franchise page}}

Now, if there were more than one way to name these articles, I would have to nest several #ifexist functions within each other. The problem is that after 500 occurrences of #ifexist the parser function ceases to work due to technical limitations. I know that I would already have to split the list up, putting up to 500 franchises per page. For each variation that I have to nest, it cuts that down even further. If there were 2 ways of naming these articles, that means only up to 250 franchises per page. If there are 3 ways of naming franchises, that cuts it down to 166 franchises per page. If there are 4 ways of naming franchises, that cuts it down to 125 franchises per page. If there are 5 ways of naming franchises, that cuts it down to 100 franchises per page. It keeps reducing the more variations there are.

So, please, help us figure out the one way which these articles, templates, and categories can be named to make it easier to create them without having to agonize over the titles, and help make templating these things easier. LA (T) @ 20:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, articles should be named based on most common usage, not on what makes templating easier. Some franchises (such as Star Wars) are commonly referred to by the name, and "franchise" could be used as a disambiguator. Other franchises, like the James Bond franchise, work well as an article title (per Bignole's argument above). Still other franchises, like Young Frankenstein, are rarely referred to as franchises, so putting "franchise" in the title would be odd. (A Google search for the phrase "Young Frankenstein franchise" gets no hits.) I'm sorry that this inconsistency in common usage complicates template-making, but you can't put everybody's feet in the same size shoe. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Poll

This is just a poll to find out how things stand as of right now and to possibly get this discussion wrapped up sometime in the very near future. The discussion part of consensus building sometimes wanders far from the topic. So while this poll may not lead to an ultimate decision (thought it could), it will at least hopefully speed things along. LA (T) @ 09:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. Voting is a tool :) LA (T) @ 09:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Your desire to "speed things along" and the wording of the initial message to "independent projects" (especially "implementing sweeping changes") make me wary of this poll, therefore I have added the "polling is evil" option. -Malkinann (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the discussion above is pretty clear. Few people think this project needs to do anything regarding naming conventions at all. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

<subject> (franchise)

Lady Aleena (talk · contribs)

Sykko (talk · contribs) - although my opinion on the matter perhaps should not carry as much weight as others since I am not entirely deep into the subject, but I do agree that the parenthesis seems to add more of a consistency to the articles and keeps it in line with many other naming conventions

Sesshomaru (talk · contribs)

<subject> franchise

Emperor (talk · contribs) - although I'm leaning towards letting people decide this is the option that makes sense to me. It doesn't need disambiguating as "X franchise" is the name, for example the CSI franchise isn't called "CSI" and so doesn't need disambiguating from other things sharing the name "CSI."

Wikipedical (talk · contribs) per my comments above.

Hiding (talk · contribs) per this is the title and content you'd expect to find in an encyclopedia. Dab phrases are meant to be used in exceptional circumstances, they are not the norm. We don't have an article on Space (outer) (Outer space) or Space (exploration) (Space exploration) or even Space (European Union) (Space policy of the European Union). Dab only when absolutely necessary. The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors. Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. Hiding T 13:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Voting is evil

Malkinann (talk · contribs)

Masamage (talk · contribs) - This does not need to be standardized.

Quasirandom (talk · contribs) - need to be flexible depending on circumstances of given subject

jc37 (talk · contribs) - Normally, I'm a fan of straw polls, but this actually seems a case where the poll is interrupting discussion.

Steve Crossin (talk · contribs) - per jc37, while I'm all for progress, this seems a little rushed. Remember that there's no deadline, and that if things aren't done right away, it's not the "end of the world", so to speak. I'd suggest you give this some more time for discussion before trying a straw poll, but I'll add I understand the frustration. It's hard to get a dead Wikiproject active again, just keep at it. It's not impossible. Best, Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 05:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian (talk · contribs) per Quasirandom and jc37 05:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Josiah Rowe (talk · contribs) — I'm not convinced that the ease of template making is sufficient reason to impose a one-size-fits-all rule to media franchises which might be quite diverse. Some franchises are commonly called "the such-and-such franchise", whereas others, despite being franchises, are rarely called by that name. Hiding is correct above when s/he says "use the most common name ... that does not conflict with the names of other people or things", but that doesn't always point to the use of the word "franchise" in the title. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It will be one or the other, so choose which one you like more. This stupid fence sitting is intolerable. How hard is it to pick one? I will be making templates and those templates will require a choice. If you wish, I will change my opinion to be what Emperor and Wikipedical like just to get a decision. I want to start getting articles written and to do that there needs to be a clear naming convention. I am getting very weary of this. This was supposed to be short and sweet with a choice made quickly, basically a no-brainer. Instead it is getting drawn out intolerably. Why do we need flexibility? What is there to be flexible about? If the article is about the Xanadu franchise, then name it Xanadu franchise or Xanadu (franchise), whichever way this falls. What is the big deal about one or the other? Make life for editors simple by having a hard and fast rule for naming these articles. Again, please get off the fence and make a decision. LA (T) @ 06:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Voting is evil is not "fence sitting", it is conscientious objection and, I believe, a strong indication that consensus is unlikely to be reached at this time. For my part it is objection to the poll, to the poll being started up before discussion has properly been addressed and to the idea that this needs to be standardised at all. -Malkinann (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Patience, Aleena. When you're talking about a standardization that may affect articles across several subject areas, it's going to take time to get a consensus. Let the talk continue for a while longer before demanding a snap decision. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Getting aggressive is not an appropriate response. If consensus goes against a standardized name, you as an individual don't actually have the right to insist on something else. Please review WP:CREEP--there absolutely does not need to be a rule about everything, and as Malkinann indicates, voting that both of these are bad choices is not the same as deliberately hampering the process. Meanwhile, you are more than welcome to start writing articles without setting rules for everybody else. Pick whichever you like best--I think "<subject> (franchise)" is perfectly fine--and go for it. To avoid any confusion, just create a redirect from "<subject> franchise" and you're good to go. --Masamage ♫ 16:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I want to apologize for my outburst, but what I thought was going to be a no brainer turned into brain surgery. LA (T) @ 08:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not part of this WikiProject, but I do seem to have an opinion on the matter and case against using parentheses, which I have stated above in this discussion and that User:Hiding seems to echo in the above poll. To keep the discussion moving as opposed to rushing to action or stalling consensus, I would ask what problems could arise from standardizing non-use of parentheses, e.g. "Star Wars franchise" as opposed to "Star Wars (franchise)." -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

LA, what kinds of templates are you intending to make? -Malkinann (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am thinking about adding a line at the very bottom of the existing infobox templates for each media type along the lines of...

{{#if:{{{franchise|}}}|
{{!}}-
{{!}}colspan="2"{{!}}Part of {{#ifexist:{{{franchise name}}} franchise|the [[{{{franchise name}}} franchise]]|[[{{{franchise name}}}]]}}.
}}

...or something like that.

That way there is a link in the infoboxes to the franchise article where more general information can be retrieved by the user that is at the top of the page instead of having to scroll all the way to the bottom of the articles, some of which are so long that they take forever to load, especially some comic articles.

The reason that I am for (franchise) is because there are already conventions in place for (novel series) and (film series), which if there are both a novel and a film series in the franchise, they would be linked on the (franchise) page if it is needed. Not all articles will need franchise on them at all, such as Dragonriders of Pern which is a novel series, has a soundtrack, has various games, a comic book, and a possible film in the works but not one item in that franchise is called Dragonriders of Pern the last time I checked. So, yes, I would have to tweak the code above, but that is simple.

Another thing, there is an incomplete list of possible franchise articles which need names, and until this is sorted, they can't be started since too many pages moves makes me nervous. The convention to be decided here is how to disambiguate franchise articles, and usually disambiguation means (term). LA (T) @ 08:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for explaining - I wasn't sure where the template talk was coming from, as it wasn't in your initial message to the projects. What does that code mean in English? What will it do? Would it be very difficult to make it have a different display name to whatever the article's called? WP:ANIME has an {{Infobox animanga}} that you might like to have a look at. -Malkinann (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Malkinann, what it does is provide a link to the article about the franchise as a whole. The article about the franchise would be a general overview of everything within the franchise. See the example franchises above, please. LA (T) @ 12:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

General comment: I agree with a name convention. This would give Wikipedia a more standarized and professional look. However, I have still some doubts regarding this. I will work with Harry Potter as an example, as I am an active member of the WikiProject. The main article for all things related to Harry Potter is the one linked before, without any sub-title (like "series", "book series" or "franchise"). The introduction of the article mainly talks about a "series of novels" and most of the article is about the book series, but it has also a section for "Other media" that includes the film series, videogames, and other stuff. I do not know if this article is indeed about a franchise or only about the book series. Apart from this article, we have also a Harry Potter (film series) article. There is no article for the videogame series (each videogame has its individual article), nor the soundtracks (there was previously a ridiculous article called "Harry Potter music" that was a list of tracklists with each song's appearance, and that now is a disambiguation page). --LøЯd ۞pεth 01:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Under the 'no parentheses' convention, the idea would be that the currently-named "Harry Potter" article would become "Harry Potter franchise," "Harry Potter (film series)" would become "Harry Potter film series," and that "Harry Potter (character)" would become "Harry Potter." -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with that happening; generally when someone says "I love Harry Potter!" or for that matter "I love Sailor Moon!" they're talking about the series, not the character. --Masamage ♫ 15:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Lord Opeth, I just took a look at the Harry Potter article and am a bit disappointed at the sever lack of information in the article about the films, video games, stage productions, and theme park attraction; also why no information about the soundtracks? For that article, my first take would be that the sections for the various media would be == level 2 ==, so ==Novels==, ==Films==, ==Soundtracks==, ==Video games==, etc. which would all go before anything else about the franchise. Move the "other media" up above "structure and genre," and split other media up to their respective media types. I would also suggest that an article for each media type for Harry Potter be started. Harry Potter (novel series), Harry Potter (film series), Harry Potter (video game series), Harry Potter (soundtracks), etc. Oh, and the article name is fine since it is the name of the series and the only item in the series that shares that name is the title character, which should stay Harry Potter (character). (Isn't there another Harry Potter character from another unrelated series?)

Basically, this naming convention is for disambiguation if the title of the original work is the same as the franchise, which is why I prefer (franchise) <standard disambiguation> over plain franchise. And right now I am a bit tired. I took a few days away from this topic because I was getting a little frustrated as you all could plainly see with my angry outburst above. Right now I am not sure if I am making sense or not. If I didn't, I will try to explain when I am more cogent. LA (T) @ 12:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. To Wikipedical, I think that, for practical purposes, the title character's article should stay as "Harry Potter (character)" or "Harry Potter character". As Masamage said, Harry Potter is more like a general subject, that's why there are articles about real-world issues like Politics of Harry Potter, Harry Potter influences and analogues or Harry Potter fandom.

To LA, I get your point, but I think that the Harry Potter article does not lack information on films, music, games, etc. I think that we instead lack a general article about the franchise, because as you noted, this is really centred on the book series. I agree with you, however, that we still need to separate the book series from the general franchise and expand all issues about the franchise. But I am not sure about having individual articles on the soundtracks and the videogames. The Harry Potter music article I talked was an annoying list of tracklists, with each song having a description like "this song is a very comical one that you can hear when Harry falls from his bed." For instance, soundtracks and videogames have individual articles for their own (Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (soundtrack) or Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (video game)). --LøЯd ۞pεth 18:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

assessments...

I was just wondering if anyone would be willing to help me out with assessing importance on articles that have tagged talk pages. Aleena and I have come up with a pretty solid standard on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media franchises/Assessment so it takes alot of the guess work and subjectivity out of it. Anyway the reason I ask is because I am pretty much doing most of it for now and it will take me another couple of weeks to get it all done but if I had someone helping me out I could potentially get it done a lot quicker. Typically I do about 10-15 a day, and as of this post there are 81 that need assessments. So between 2 people at 10 a day we would have it all caught up by the weekend and then we can deal with them as they get added later. -Sykko-(talk to me) 01:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering: Why are assessments necessary for this project? - jc37 22:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Assessments are necessary for any project for the benefit of organizing which articles need help and perhaps how much attention they deserve from that project. If per-se someone were to go on a hunt to improve articles with the project's infobox they could benefit by starting with articles of top importance of a low quality scale as often stubs can be easily taken up to start class. It's just a way to really look at large-scale article improvement in a quick glance -Sykko-(talk to me) 00:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Depends... will the project be assessing importance, something that really doesn't make much sense, or "class", which does make sense. - J Greb (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

All of the class assessments have been caught up, it was a small backlock of 10 or 15 articles and I took care of that a few days ago. Importance is as important as class if not more-so since it helps members of the project get an idea of priorities without having to guess based on title names.

All the same, if assessments aren't even important then I need to know now because it actually does take work and time to take care of and I would hate to be doing it for nothing. -Sykko-(talk to me) 00:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well... I guess I will just hold off on continuing this work until I know it's worth it. -Sykko-(talk to me) 20:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Groovy enough, I hope you all the best success with this project :) -Sykko-(talk to me) 02:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Example article to show what this is all about

There is an example article for those who are interested in what this project is all about. It was written using the Young Frankenstein franchise. I can put together several more if need be. LA (T) @ 05:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. If you want to improve it by replacing the lorem ipsum in the example, feel free to do so. LA (T) @ 05:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing that its necessary at all. It overruns several other projects, which already handle their franchises fine. I've yet to see any major issues of conflicts, or any need for one project to "reign in" the various parts of the franchise. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that other media specific projects tend to focus on one media only and neglect the rest. The above mentioned Harry Potter article is all about the novels with everything else squirreled away at the bottom of the article. The films and video games should have an equal amount of coverage in the article as the novels, and there is no mention of the soundtracks at all. The only item in that article which should be given a little more attention then anything else is the very first novel, as it is the origin of the franchise. The article should have links to every other article about the franchise in it somewhere that is not the navbox. So, this project, which is non-media specific aims to get articles written which are media neutral. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of franchises that the only way to find out there is a franchise is to find the origin article and hope that everything else is linked in it.

It is hoped that this project will be a bridge between all media specific projects. This project will hopefully enhance the others and give media franchises a place to call home, especially the small ones which may not merit a full blown project. This project is for those franchises which may have only one item per media type.

I am still working on a list of media franchises in my user space that, when done, I hope will provide a base for this project. (It takes a lot of time to track down all related media of a subject, and I have had to take breaks to catch my mental breath.)

This project does not want to usurp media specific series which have not branched out into other media as of yet. If a novel series does not have any other media attached to it, that novel series falls under the auspices of WikiProject Novels. If a film series never produced anything other than films, it falls under the auspices of WikiProject Films. And so on. But once a media specific series crosses between media, that is where this project comes in and starts writing the franchise article and making sure that everything in the franchise is treated equally. Also, if there is a media franchise that is large and without a project, this one may suggest that one be started. Just look at how much there is to The Addams Family. It is a very large media franchise without a project, but something as small as The 4400 (1 television series, 1 novel, 1 book, and 1 soundtrack) has a WikiProject.

I hope that starts to clarify why this project was started. LA (T) @ 22:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why there needs to be as much information about, say, Harry Potter video games as about the books. There's far less to say about them, as they've affected the world less, and far fewer people have given a hoot over their existence. They're not as important, and have not received as much coverage in secondary sources. There's no reason to inflate their significance just because they're part of a franchise. I mean, one of the biggest parts of any franchise is the merchandising, and it's not like there's going to be a viable article about Harry Potter T-shirts, cereal box offers, action figures, and bedsheets. Some things just are, and there's little to say about them. --Masamage ♫ 22:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty strong accusation (of a sort) and wholly inaccurate. The anime and manga project certainly doesn't neglect any of the media, we cover all of it as part of the series. Ditto the television project. And, again, yes, you are usurping by presuming that it should take over any article that has multiple media. Again, anime and manga project includes ALL its media, including the manga series, the anime, the films, the art books, the video games, etc. Addams Family has a project as well. It is part of Television, with specific articles also being part of films. Projects can and do overlap. That's how it works. It has nothing to do with neglect. Yeah, sometimes the articles are of various quality, but that's ALL articles. There are a limited number of good editors who actually work to bring articles to standard. There will also be some in the cracks waiting. Also agree with Masamage. We don't give undue weight to secondary "media' and marketing materials. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 22:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How about using a more difficult franchise as an example of how you want to do this? Young Frankenstein seems to be pretty straight forward and easily pressed into a scheme, I'd say the same is true for Harry Potter.

Why not use Transformers as an example? I think that would be a good proving point. The Transfomers franchise has comics, movies, video games, but those are interwoven into Generations or subseries. How would you handle Transformers? For example, there are two movies which have been shown in cinemas, one belongs to the G1 cartoon [in comparison to the different independent G1 comic canons: G1 UK, G1 US, G1 Dreamwave, G1 IDW - the cartoon itself has partially alternate Japanese only seasons], the other started a new subseries with books, comics, soundtracks, video games of its own. Not to mention Beast Wars (which stems from an amalgam of G1 comics and G1 cartoon), the Unicron triology and all the others. Which layout would that franchise get? --89.246.214.218 (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Collectonian and Masamage, above — sometimes a concept exists in more than one medium, but not all the media are equally important. I don't think it's a big problem, for example, that Doctor Who doesn't mention the Doctor Who pinball game — because in the long history of Doctor Who, the pinball game isn't that important. There are scads of reliable secondary sources talking about the Doctor Who television series and the films; slightly fewer talking about the books and other spin-offs. What exactly is to be gained by squeezing it into the model you propose with your Young Frankenstein example?

Another question that would have to be answered is exactly what constitutes a "franchise". (I'm not mad about the term, actually, as to my ear it emphasizes the money-making aspect of a creative endeavour over the creative impulse, but I'll let that go for now.) Is it any work which appears in more than one medium? What about something like the comic book Hellblazer and the film Constantine — the latter was supposedly an adaptation of the former, but it underwent so many changes that it's hard to say what a "Hellblazer/Constantine franchise" would be. It's also worth remembering that "franchises" aren't limited to fiction: for example, the television show Pop Idol has become a franchise with multiple national incarnations and spin-offs in different media, and I don't know how well something like that would fit into your Young Frankenstein example.

Perhaps I'm missing the point here — if this isn't about standardizing articles which are currently being shepherded by different WikiProjects, what is it about? And if it is about that sort of standardization, isn't it a sort of "meta-project", with (to mix my metaphors) fingers in lots of pies and the potential for stepping on lots of toes? I can see the benefit for "lesser franchises" like, say, Alien Nation, which might otherwise slip through the cracks, but in cases where a project exists I don't really see the benefit of this "media-neutral" approach. Sometimes one medium is more notable than another, and the people who care about the subject are likely to be able to determine when that is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to pour any more cold water on this concept, I happened across the list which appears (please correct me if otherwise) to include Bedknobs and Broomsticks simply because it's a musical/film based on a novel, and therefore in two discrete mediums: print and film...

That would tend to imply that - perhaps under a misconception of the logic underlying the focus - all films based on novels are immediate "media franchises" (patently untrue) and might also cross-suggest that under the current logic any film that is novellised also enters the scope of this project...!

I think there's a likely need for an eye to be cast over cases like, perhaps, Harry Potter, Transformers, Superman, Batman and The Shadow, but I question what the current guidelines entail. Certainly it would be more inaccurate to spend as much time on the Potter videogames as on the Potter films; and just as bad to take as many words to detail the films as to cover the books (in that specific example, as mentioned above). An insidious side-effect of the project as it stands might be that it opens the floodgates for individuals to offer their own slanted opinion over which incarnation/medium's representation of a particular character is the "most true" - there's already some confusion over the origin of Two-Face thanks to the differing depiction on film. Clearly Two-Face is a comics character first and foremost; the Potters are books; Transformers is more confusing, and so forth. Not every medium is equal in all (or even most) cases, as has already been noted. ntnon (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The point

The purpose of this WikiProject is to create articles which offer an overview of an entire franchise and links to all of the articles on the subject, specifically the media of the subject. The articles would not overburden the reader with specific information about a singular media or group of media of the subject. So, as we are using Harry Potter as a continuing example, the entire section on the novels would be trimmed to a few sentences on each, and for the secondary media, there would be a section on each secondary media type with at least a list of the articles created. So, in the section on video games, a mention of the producer of the games would be in the lede of the section; in the section on the soundtracks, the composer and record label would get a mention. Both video games and soundtracks articles would then be listed. Also, the image in the infobox could contain a novel cover, a DVD cover, a soundtrack cover, and a video game cover to show how varied the franchise is. (I have not read the novels, just seen the films. It might take me a while to afford the novels, since first edition first printings are probably very expensive.)

As another example, let's look at the Blade Runner franchise, some of which surprised me when I was looking into it.

Blade Runner

Blade Runner novels

by Philip K. Dick

1. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968) ISBN 0345404475
2. Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human (1995) ISBN 0553099795
3. Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night (1996) ISBN 0553099833
4. Blade Runner 4: Eye and Talon (2000) ISBN 0575068655

Other novels

We Can Remember It for You Wholesale by Philip K. Dick (1966)

Total Recall by Piers Anthony (1989) ISBN 0380708744

Blade Runner films

Blade Runner (1982)

Total Recall (1990)

Soldier (1998)

Blade Runner soundtracks by Vangelis

Blade Runner (1982)

Blade Runner (1994)

Blade Runner (2007)

Total Recall by Jerry Goldsmith (1990)

Blade Runner television series

Total Recall 2070 (1999)

Blade Runner video games

Blade Runner by Westwood Studios (1997)

Total Recall

I had no idea that Total Recall and Soldier were part of the Blade Runner franchise for several articles. If there had been an overview (franchise) article, I would have known at a glance that all of these media were connected. I didn't know that there was a novel series for Blade Runner. All I knew about was that the film was based on a novel with a long name, which I couldn't remember until I read the article on the film again. It took a lot of digging though articles to put that list together.

The Total Recall media are all buried at the tail end of the article about the film. They don't even have infoboxes for the television series or the video game. The article doesn't mention the soundtrack or that it was released again as a Deluxe Edition.

So, instead of tucking all of the secondary media away at the bottom of articles, they get moved to the overview article which shows everything. Also, when it is found that an article needs to be created such as the Total Recall novel, video game, and soundtrack articles, the talk pages get tagged with the appropriate WikiProject banners. The novel would get tagged with WikiProject Novels, the video game with WikiProject Video games, and the soundtrack with WikiProject Albums all as Needed-Class above with the WikiProject Media franchises banner. Also, a Blade Runner navbox might be created with all of the media in it, if one hasn't been already.

By the way, Bedknobs and Broomsticks has two novels, a film, and a soundtrack. The film is the only article created. There are no articles for the novels or the soundtrack nor infoboxes for them in the article either. The origin of the franchise should at least have an article, which is the novel The Magic Bed-Knob: Or How to Become a Witch in Ten Easy Lessons.

I am staying away from extremely large franchises in my examples, since, well, I have not completely searched them yet. Also, if the word franchise is not appropriate for this project, please help me come up with the more appropriate title. I am certainly willing to change the name of the project and all of its subpages, categories, and templates to suit.

So, this WikiProject was not formed to be a meta-project over other media WikiProjects. It was formed to build the media bridges between the articles of those WikiProjects. So, a film based on a novel belongs to WikiProject Films and WikiProject Novels, with WikiProject Media franchises acting as a bridge between them by creating the article that would join the articles on the film and the novel together. If a video game spawns a soundtrack, the article would belong to WikiProject Video games and WikiProject Albums, and again WikiProject Media franchises building the bridge.

WikiProject Media franchises will follow any guidelines set forth by the other media WikiProjects in regards to naming and templating articles on a media specific article. All that is asked in return is that our one template is used on the overview article. Also, if anyone has any ideas of how to shuffle the sections of that template around so that they can be more adaptive to the franchise, I am very willing to listen. LA (T) @ 08:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Now Blade Runner is a good example. I wonder though, based on the Blade Runner article, whether creating and adapting infoboxes might not be more helpful in many cases..? For example, I don't really see the definite need for full articles on all the Blade Runner novels - let alone novellisations or minor videogames. Surely AN article on "Blade Runner novels" would suffice in this instance, and mentions that "a soundtrack was released featuring the music composed by..." on the page for the film would take care of the soundtracks?

Similarly, Bedknobs and Broomsticks is not a particularly notable novel - it's really only famous because of the film. (And the soundtrack surely doesn't deserve anything more than a very minor mention on the page about the film. Should every film that has a soundtrack released have a separate article..? Some are certainly independantly notable - often thouse "inspired by" rather than simply "music from"; most are not.)

It is very helpful to put those Blade Runner links together, telling people who aren't aware that the other films are set in nominally the same universe, but that could be done with links rather than an overview page. Is the intention to have the Franchise Article be the "main" article..? Otherwise, how will the franchise pages be linked? ntnon (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I can sort of agree that not all of the novelizations need articles and also that one article on them would suffice. I also agree that there will be a need for media specific infobox modifications. A place to see where there was no infobox to cover the various television programs of a franchise is at Ripley's Believe It or Not!. There are three television programs, and I remember adding the three infoboxes for them. Another helpful editor came in and just made a custom infobox for the article to tidy it up. The infobox looks good and is far better than the three I added. With that as an example, we could expand on that work.

I also had an idea of an infobox shell for articles which will cover all media, as with the Bedknobs and Broomsticks example. That article would have 1 {{Infobox film}}, 2 {{Infobox novel}}s, and 1 {{Infobox Album}}. I have already added the Infobox Album to the section that I renamed to Soundtrack from Songs. However, do we want the infoboxes in the sections for each of the media, or do we want to shell them all at the top of the article?

Also, I was thinking that there would be "main" articles about the various franchises. Blade Runner (franchise) would be the main article for that topic, however Bedknobs and Broomsticks is doing a good enough job as the main and sole article of that franchise.

It is hoped that the various media WikiProjects will participate here to help bring their articles together whenever one media crosses over to another. This project can not act without the approval of them, since it is their templates and conventions we will be following, with the exception of {{Infobox Media franchises}} which is for the "main" franchise articles where there are seperate articles for the various media within it. That is why I am hoping for those projects to sign up as liaisons so that we don't step on their toes. Maybe come up with a co-ordinated naming convention between them, or at least a page with all of the naming conventions listed.

Bridge building is tough, but that is what this project is trying to accomplish. LA (T) @ 08:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What can I do to help?

I was invited to come back here. What could I do to help?--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I confess to not being overly familiar with this Project. But, I'll try. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I echo GoodDay, and what do you want me to do? ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 19:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. The first thing you could do is crawl through the WikiProject to see what it has and see where we need to go from here. Also read through some of the conversations here and on the subpages. After doing that, suggest away! LA (T) @ 20:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the WikiProject basically deals with co-ordinating the TV/Movie articles (correct me if I'm wrong). Now, what is the trouble? GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)