Talk:Men in Black (franchise)

Help needed

Can anybody help me in making a Men in Black (franchise) portal. I think it's a good franchise, and most of all, with the upcoming 3D movie, many articles in the franchise need updating. I hope anybody or somebody can help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.217.185 (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Franchise?

If "<title> (franchise)", then how about a link to Media franchise somewhere in there? That's the least thing to do for such a title. Some info about that particuliar franchise would be nice too. --Jerome Potts (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 24 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Men in Black (disambiguation) → Men in Black – The disambiguation page should head here, per WP:DIFFCAPS._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, not terms that WP:DIFFCAPS clearly differentiate between, our article on the general topic was under the capitalized title "Men in Black" from 2001–2015. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above and the fact that Men in Black (1997 film) gets 46,343 and The Men in Black (comics) gets 6,878 compared to 4,566 for the franchise. The song also gets 3,844. While many of the uses are named after the franchise, the franchise is named after the comics and given the existence of the generic topic as well I don't see a primary topic, move Men in Black (disambiguation)>Men in Black as a compromise per WP:DIFFCAPS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose DIFFCAPS rarely benefits. but target should head to Men in Black (disambiguation) In ictu oculi (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Þjarkur: @Crouch, Swale: @In ictu oculi: I have replaced the franchise with the disambiguation for the requested move, due to not having realized the page was there. If you agree with this new move please adjust your votes accordingly._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Confirming my support for the alternative proposal (that I proposed above) per WP:DIFFCAPS someone who types "Men in Black" (and doesn't click on Men in black in the search suggestions) as opposed to "Men in black" or "men in black" could easily be looking for a proper noun and they will still have the generic meaning as the 1st link and per WP:DABNAME since all other uses are title case. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support new proposal per nom. Disambiguation page should be at the basename for the capitalized form. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think Lowell Cunningham owns the underlying rights to MIB, not Marvel

Since the legal indicia for MIB: Far Cry (a one-shot movie tie-in comic from 1997) [link:https://www.milehighcomics.com/cgi-bin/backissue.cgi?action=page2&issue=55844819280%201 ] says that Columbia Pictures owns the copyright to the comic, but Lowell Cunningham owns the trademark to MIB. Marvel/Malibu perhaps serves more as a licensing agent for the property, like how Dark Horse does with Hellboy and sometimes Usagi Yojimbo, even though it doesn't outright own those characters. --JFP (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Agent J, Agent K and Frank the Pug should be merged here. There is almost no real world discussion of any of these characters; all their articles contain are plot summaries. There is a lack of reliable sources for all of them. 81blazko92 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Strongly oppose Many Wikipedia articles on fictional characters have been merged. Enough is enough. IPs are people too (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Strongly agree. The reason many Wikipedia articles on fictional characters have been merged is precisely because they have not become stand-alone entities. The Beatles character Nowhere Man should not have his own article, because "Nowhere Man" only appears in a Beatles song, even if he is an evocative character. Greek demi god Achilles deserves his own article, because he did much more than appear in Homer's "The Iliad". At worst, there could be an article on MIB characters, but I don't think the "franchise" is big enough yet for that, unlike, say Star Trek. This is a silly page. Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.