This template is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This template 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
Archie Comics has been recently shaking its own foundations. Albeit the company did not necessarily rise to the same superhero glory as Marvel and DC, Archie Comics remains one of the oldest monthly publishers in the United States, and their original non-superhero characters are very well-known intellectual properties. Nowadays, Archie has been actively pursuing franchising their beloved IPs, publishing many high value compilation comics, and even licensing to third-parties to appear in other media. Additionally, they're now working with IDW to localize their comics in more global markets. Not to mention the company's heavily influence on the history of the comic book industry in the United States.
If this template is going to be trimmed, it should be done based on consensus-based, objective criteria... not one editor's impressions of notability. For example, removing publishers who put out several pages of solicits every month, while keeping other publishers who might solicit just a few items per year, doesn't make sense. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It should not have done badly to begin with by slapping any comic publisher that some could put up an article for on WP. Opposing the clear remove of imprints by claiming "Doing it badly is not constructive." You did not give any publisher that fits that criteria. Notability is not established by how many pages of solicits every month. Yes, we should not give you, one editor's impression of notability. Spshu (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact I think this template should include any publisher notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia; isn't that the point of a navigation template? If you think a publisher doesn't meet that criteria, address that on that article. There are several other problems with your removals, but as the most obvious, the idea that Vertigo shouldn't be included (soon as "inactive") is absurd.
The more important question is what criteria differentiates "major" from "minor". Any publisher with its own section at the front of Previews should automatically qualify, since that distributor dominates the comics shop market in North America. Other than, I don't know. Archie based on its longevity and its footprint in what's left of the newsstand market? I don't know how to evaluate those that sell mainly thru the bookstore market (e.g. Viz). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Publishers that have their own sections at the front of Previews" could be a decent independent measure of importance. I don't have a copy of Previews on hand -- can you list the companies that are currently at the front? -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I first assumed major meant studios that primarily publish comics, whereas minor being studios that studios that publish comics but not as their primary purpose or are subsidiaries of bigger companies (Such as Titan Books and Milestone Media). As is, the divide doesn't really seem to be based on anything objective or substantial and there are plenty of publishers in the 'minor' section that could be argued as major, and vice versa.--Amelia-the-comic-geek (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
