Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

Something to keep an eye on...

There was a set of bold edits to duplicate sections of Green Goblin and Mysterio in stand alone article.

I've redirected both back into the articles since all the editor, User:Williamstrother did was copy and paste one iteration. He didn't actually remove them from the parent article.

There may be a need to watch the articles and keep an eye out for similar "new" articles.

- J Greb (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think splitting off the in other media from the Green Goblin would be a good idea, but it clearly needs to be done right. (Emperor (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chappa'Hai

FYI. Supposed Skrull character. Postdlf (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Somebody just speedy it already. It's either a hoax or an attack page. --Dragonfiend (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    • That seems like a scary triple collision of fandom: a Skrull, at an anime convention, named after the Chappa'ai!! I'd have thought such a conjunction would generate a geek singularity, from which no light (or smell) would escape, but it seems not. I will return to my back of the envelope mathematics. (Emperor (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC))

Linking to portals

I can't immediatley find either a general guideline or a comics specicfic guideline on this: do we link to portals on article pages, on talk pages, or not at all? I'm as king this because User:Pah777 is enthusiastically working on Franco-Belgian comics articles, but is also including links to the new BD portal on them. I personally dislike such links, butI have no idea is in general this is supported or not. E.g. the article Boule et Bill has such a link at the bottom. Fram (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I found it (from WP:P). Usually, ifa link to a portal is included, it should use Template:Portal, which creates a small icon at the side of the see also section. The BD portal uses a large banner, like a navigation template, at the bottom. I have notified the creator of this banner at his talk page about this discussion: my suggestion would be to convert the banner to a template similar to the ones in Template:Portal. Fram (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd echo that suggestion. Hiding T 10:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
My post was obviously written after I saw your first comment, but without seeing the second one. I spent too much time reading the template talk page... Fram (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I spent too little time reading WP:P... Hiding T 10:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I knew there was a template for links to portals, but I found it unappropriate and inconveniant: too small, uneasthetical, and one does not know how to put it in the articles (at the top, the bottom, right/left ?). A strip (as used for the BD portal) is more conveniant and aesthetical, but also more logical, for it has the same appearance and width as the navboxes, and the link is to be placed at the very bottom of the articles. French wikipedia uses the template to link towards portals, as in the article Boule et Bill. The template is known as Méta lien vers portail, and is very used (in 500 000 articles out of 700 000). We can conclude that the utilisation of such a link cannot be forbidden. What's more, these links are useful, well-visible and displayed in an aesthetically pleasing way. Even if one refuses to admit that the strip link is useful, one may recognize that originality, innovation and initiative are not forbidden : Wikipedia users are invited to design new template and to innovate (without perpetual innovation, what would become Wikipedia and would it exist ?). As articles and portals of Wikipedia are all very different, displayed and structured in various ways, links can also be different. The aim is only for the Bande Dessinée portal to have good connections and to be seen by people who may be interested by the subject. For the moment, I stop adding this link in related articles untill the banning of the link or the possibility to use it is clearly established. --Pah777 (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Your reasoning is incorrect. Every Wikipedia has its own rules and preferences, and it isnot because the French Wikipedia uses something that it "cannot be forbidden" here. Originality and so on are obviously not forbidden (talking about a strawman argument...), and no one is blaming you for trying something: but this does not mean that every bold, original initiative is to be continued. Your stated aim "to have good connections and to be seen by people who may be interested by the subject" is at least partly the reason why I object to it: we don't add links to have good connections, that is internal link spamming. We add links which give additional info to the reader, but it is hard to see how portals provide such additional info. If consensus should be that your initiative was well intended but not what we want after all, then there will obviously be no blame or repercussions for you, but the link will be gone or changed. Fram (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I think we know if they are included where they should go but should we include them at all? I've noticed quite a few more commons, quotes, etc. boxes popping up in the see also section (or external links if SA doesn't exist) and the real estate down there is starting to get rather crowded and as that happens the ones there get less useful (I especially am unsure of the commons one). I'd have thought that portals are better kept on the talk page - perhaps we could have a flag in the Comics Proj talk header to include an extra portal link?
That said I do quite like the examples Pah gives and if the portals were part of a strip running across the bottom of the page then I could see that being a better option than in the see also area. However, wouldn't this have to be run past the relevant areas as we are obviously going to have a lot of articles within our remit that fall under other projects and their portals and it'd need to be something decided across Wikipedia as a whole or it will start causing problems where this way of doing things clash with the current way. (Emperor (talk) 04:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC))
I would personally prefer to not have any links to portals in articles, and to keep them on the talk page, since there are indeed many portals that can be added to these articles (well, in general one per project, which gives for most artists at least three ones: biography, their country, and comics or BD). I don't like the links to commons either (oh look, we have more images!), but I'ld prefer to stick to one discussion for now. Links in articles should provide extra info about the subject of the article; a portal however does not provide extra info about the specific subject, but is a starting point for a general subject. And that's exactly why we link to projects on the talk page. While projects and portals are not one on one, a solution can be found to have a link to this portal in the talk page header if this is wanted. Fram (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, in looking over Template:Comicsproj, that functionality (and link, btw) was already there. (I did capitalise "comics" though.)
And there seems to actually be a whole set of settings for portals imbedded in the template already. Is this standard for all WikiProjects' talkpage templates? If so, then perhaps a discussion should be started "somewhere" to deprecate the current convention for "see also" sections. - jc37 09:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Portal links in a project banner are a standard, as can be seen in the template banner {{WPBannerMeta}}. See also is a page section which has been on the deprecation list ever since piped links were initiated, I believe. However, on occasion they are of use, so they remain. The links to sister projects are, at least were last time I checked, supposed to go in the external links section rather than the see also since they are by definition external links. Hiding T 10:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
(clarify) Sorry, I meant: "If so, then perhaps a discussion should be started "somewhere" to deprecate the current convention for portal links in "see also" sections."
Also, I think Wiktionary links may be found in various places in an article (often at the top), including such places as etymology sections, and at the top of dab pages. - jc37 10:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that clinches it for me - keep it to the talk page. Now what do we need to do to remove the commons boxes from pages? (Emperor (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC))

I have started a discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:Portal#Portal links in articles, noticing that in most cases, portals are not linked in articles but by various projects on the talk page. This should indeed not be decided only for comics-related projects, but on a project-wide basis. Should I link this discussion at the WP:VPP as well, or is this sufficient? Fram (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Adventures of Tintin

The Adventures of Tintin has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --TheLeftorium 18:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Marvel Comics serial killers

Umm... 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Does this category really exist? Seems like a potential CfD candidate to me. Anakinjmt (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I say place a {{popcat}} on it for expansion. Or are you folks thinking the cat is better off deleted? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Apparently it was made earlier today: Category:Marvel Comics serial killers. Haven't we already killed this or something similar (like Serial killers in comics)? (Emperor (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC))
Can't say I remember. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The user even created a Category:Fictional security guards. I say we let this person know about these kinds of things. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, as a non-fictional security guard, I think a category recognizing significant appearances of my fictional brethren is really helpful.  :-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There was a similar category that was deleted.[WikiProject_Comics/Archive_27#Is_Magneto_a_mass_murderer.3F] This one should be deleted to. It's too hard to define what a serial killer is. Most villains have killed repeatedly, but they don't fit what we think of as a serial killer. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, it is overcategorization afterall. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Kind of like the "mass murderer" category that I keep seeing. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Anyone besides me think that Category:Fictional virgins is downright ridiculous? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Not least because of the lack of them... ntnon (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Lose it. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
So can someone delete the following:
Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Nominated them at CfD. Ford MF (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please everyone become more involved

It's slowly beocming my experience that things are being nominated for deletion simply because someone has personally decided that the article(s) inquestion don't meet some personal demarcation line of "notability".

I've found accusations of WP:OR simply due to (often accurately) citing primary sources. Or claims that since they couldn't find anything but what they deemed to be "trivia" in their google search, the thing likely doesn't assert "notability".

As should be needless to say, this is really a problem.

For one thing, just because someone may not be writing online about something, doesn't mean that something is not worthy of inclusion.

The links at the top are the main ones, but there obviously are others which may be of interest.

Look at it this way, but joining in on these discussions, you can learn better how to write effective articles, if only by noting what others find problematic in articles. And also, these are great places to help edit to improve existing articles. (You will often receive great cheers for "saving" an article through development.)

So again, I implore everyone to please get involved in these discussions. - jc37 00:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Also if you see anything relevant add it in here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation. (Emperor (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC))
It can be hard to find sources. I think Don Markstein's Toonopedia might be a reilable source that we can use.[1][2][3][4] If it is, it would give us one of the two required sources for WP:NOTE for about 1400 articles! - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes I'd go with using the Toonopedia but the first priority would be be to use some of those resources to improve the main article because it could be the target of an AfD (ah the irony). (Emperor (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC))
In contrast there are also articles that should be deleted but aren't because situations where most of the people speaking in the AfDs might be the primary editors of the articles in questions, and thus think the articles should stay. Either way, greater input in AfD discussions would be a positive thing. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Ditto to other areas - put the splits, merges, new articles areas of the noticeboard on your watchlist and throw in your opinion as it keeps things moving along and helps avoid results we have to go back and fix again (and this also relies on people listing things there). Some of the AfDs listed on the delsort have to be relisted from lack of input and I've had no interest in my split suggestion for Image Comics (despite flagging it here too - I'll just assume that means tacit support for it and go ahead and do it). (Emperor (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

Speaking of deletions

Speaking of deletions... 67.173.11.90 (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-deleted and the editor warned. - jc37 08:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Irish Comics

The Irish Comics Wiki needs contributors! --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Referencing Who's Who and OHotMU

I know that actual content (images, etc.) from those is inappropriate due to previous concensus, but are they disallowed as primary/tertiary sources? - jc37 05:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends on the context and content... My understanding is that the "Don't use" bar extends to quantification of powers. That is, we shouldn't be sourcing "Runs at speeds of X", "Can lift X", etc from them since these are fluid based on story, writer, and editor.
The same argument has been applied to the character history points that are only brought up in them. I'm a bit leery of that since all backstory elements are open to being ignored or retconned based on story needs or writer/editorial whim. If we're going for a "canon" history, then we're going to constantly be looking and asking "Does this point fit the characters most recent appearance?" of anything drawn from all primary sources.
All of that said, there are some items that could be worked into the articles if the sections were pulled out of an "in story" POV. Spider-Man's ability to stick to walls comes to mind. Marvel didn't really give an in-story explanation of how the power worked prior to 1985. They created a very detailed on for the OHOTMU which, IIRC, was never really repeated afterwards. When the first movie came out, the explanation changed. If the power section's tone were changed, then using the OHOTMU material could be incorporated, ie "Writers have described the mechanics of his 'wall crawling' as...".
- J Greb (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Did anyone ever manage to dig out the old discussion on this..? I think I remember asking last time round, and it not being easy to find... mind you, since I last asked about it, I've read the Hulk material in the Prelude to WWH TPB, and the power levels seem so utterly arbitrary as to definitely be pointless, because they simply don't make sense.
But, it would never have occurred to me to use the Official Handbooks and Who's Whos for that kind of information. So, under J Greb's extrapolations, can I reasonably assume that OH and WW are acceptable sources - just not for comparative drivel, speeds, weights and eye coloring..? Certainly the character history summaries are helpful summations, and do include "behind the scenes" information (as evidenced above). Plus, if 'canon' is ever to be discussed (and it probably shouldn't be, but...), the official histories can definitely help arbitrate. ntnon (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify:
  • Power benchmarks should not be referenced from the Handbook or Who's Who any more than "Character X is faster/stronger/smarter than character Y" comparisons should be supported from the primary sources. The benchmarks are mutable to the needs of the story and whim of the writer.
  • Character histories may have elements that were first, or only, mentioned in the Handbook or Who's Who. In writing an in-story POV history (read "plot summary"), the primary sources should be used as cites/refs over the Handbook or Who's Who.
  • Canon is a deadly topic since it can change on an editorial whim ("Brand New Day" or Crisis). The material in the Handbook and Who's Who may be decades out of date and no longer "correct" based on current stories. That alone makes them suspect as a standard for "canon".
  • At best, the Handbook or Who's Who can be used to cite attempts by the publishers to have characters fleshed out. That's real world context and should be presented in that manner. So, a minor character that got a large write up in one would have that reflected in their publication history — "Marvel highlighted the character in 1988 with a listing in they Handbook which added details to the character's origin and laid the ground work for his appearance in Whatever the following year." Or a power that they finally "explained" would either go into the PH or force the "Powers & abilities" section in to a real world formation.
- J Greb (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Good explanations, J Greb; your last paragraph gives a good example of proper treatment. It's all a matter of resisting the urge to treat the Handbook as documenting what is "true" about the character. The Handbook is itself a work of fiction, which just uses the conceit of an encyclopedia format to feign factuality. Such entries are really just depictions of the characters no less than the narrative comic book stories. Postdlf (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
ntnon asked about previous discussion - there is quite a bit on using images from the OHOTMU (which should remain verbotten) but here is the more general discussion when this has cropped up (oldest first - I can't guarantee it is comprehensive as I just scooped these up from the "what links to" page): [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and [11]. Enjoy.
I think J Greb sums it up well though: We don't want things like stats but there are times it could help verify something and there are sometimes clarifications of the status of characters (see e.g. the fifth link above which about the names of the Nasty Boys) - I have just been noddling on Black Knight (comics)-related areas and was unsure where to fit in the Black Knight construct and if the comments are right (that the OHTMU says it is the earliest in-universe appearance of Merlin) then that could be useful. I am also unure about the status of the Black Knight shown in the Otherworld Saga (which ran in Marvel UK's Hulk Comic) - it is currently mentioned under Black Knight (Dane Whitman) but I am unsure if it was explicitly stated (I am missing quite a few issues - although he is listed separately here) and I suspect if it is ever to be clarified it may have to be done outside of the comics, presumably in the OHOTMU. So it could have its uses although we should be careful. (Emperor (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

Authors in comics categories

Is there any guideline about adding or removing authors from categories about their main works? E.g. Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel are not placed in any Superman related categories, meaning that when going through the Superman categories, you will not find their main creators (they are in the navbox, so it's not like people reading about Superman will not find them, but still...). Similarly, Edgar P. Jacobs is not in the Category:Blake and Mortimer. On the other hand, Bob Kane is in the Category:Batman and Hergé is in the Category:Tintin. I would support having main authors in either the main category for their creations, or in a dedicated subcategory (Superman authors or whatvere you would prefer), but some consistency would be good, and I'll rather not start adding lots of authors to categories only to hear afterwards that they should all be removed. Fram (talk) 09:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  • It's a bone of contention, but there's nothing concrete in writing. I would prefer to have the main authors listed in the categories, certainly the creators, but other people feel that isn't what categories are for, and that the article or a navbox should suffice. It's complicated. You get into questions as to which creators should be listed, and why, and what the category structure is ultimately for. Hiding T 10:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec)
The consensus that came out of multiple CfDs was to not categorize "preformers by preformance" or "by employer" since the general trend for both is that there will be multiple categories attached to the bio articles. This leads to clutter in the category sections. This has gotten a broad interpritation, so categories like "Batman writers" and "Action Comics artists" are non-starters.
Hergé is a good example of an exception — it's unlikely that he'll be catted outside of Tintin, or that others will be included there. Kane, Shuster, and Segel could be seen as pushing it. Their inclusion can be seen as opening up the Batman and Superman categories to the inclusion of other writers and artists. And look at Stan Lee and Jack Kirby for examples of just how many categories could wind up being added to the bio articles (count the navboxes).
- J Greb (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. So basically only add it if the series is a major aspect of someone's life and series and author are closely associated with each other? It's basically what I had in mind, to add Jacobs to Blake and Mortimer but not to Tintin (he collaborated on it, so it would not be too farfetched, but they are not a major aspect of one another). Fram (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd tend to support the inclusion of important people in categories - a good guide for companies might be seeing who is in the founder or important people fields. I think it would be odd having a Marvel category without Stan Lee but think it would be distintly pushing it to include Bendis. (Emperor (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

Page moves

Catiana and Set (serpent god) seem to have been moved without prior discussion? Just wondering what others thought about this. 67.173.11.90 (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The former might work if what they say in the edit summary is true (that she only used that name as a joke once in the first issue) but I don't read the series so... The latter is more mysterious, I suppose they might be right but it isn't a name mentioned anywhere in the article so I think that'd need some proof. (Emperor (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC))
Interesting. Do we know which is the correct standard to be used for each? Any sources to point towards? 67.173.11.90 (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid there is no cast iron rule that can be applied to every case and things like that come down to the names they are best known as.
  • With Catiana, if the editor is right in their summary "She only called herself Catiana as a joke, revealed in the final issue when she judges herself. Should she stick with it, then we revert" [12] then it seems they are correct.
  • Set (serpent god) is even trickier. The Appendix (which is usually pretty good on such things) gives Set's aliases as "Apep, Apocalypse, Father Set, the Great Serpent, Lotan, Leviathan, Ophion, Serpent God, Serpent Emperor of the Waters, Tiamat, Flood" [13] so the actually name is up for grabs I suppose. However, the article makes it clear he is often called variations on Set the demon god which makes it clear we should be aiming for some kind of Set (X) name - serpent god doesn't seem unreasonable (Father Set seems like some kind of honorific like His Holiness the Pope). I doubt we are going to find a title that suits everyone. The only alternative to the one we have is "Set (Conan)." (Emperor (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC))
Set (Marvel Comics)? :) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Set is originally a Robert E. Howard creation that found its way into the Marvel Universe through the Marvel adaptations of the Conan stories so I don't think that would be an acceptable solution - the redirect is there because Set eventually became a Marvel character but it isn't a reflection of the characters creation and early history. (Emperor (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC))
I don't know about Set, but I can at least say definitively that Catiana should in fact have been moved to Tatiana Caban. Ford MF (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
(to Emperor) which is why it was at Set (serpent god) in the first place, I imagine. Hmm, interesting. 67.173.11.90 (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Although her was mentioned in a REH story, the article is about the comics version of set almost exclusively. Unless DC or someone has a Set, we should use Set (Comics), else use Set (Marvel Comics). Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions it should be what's most recognizable to readers. Using Serpent God sounds like it would link to Set (mythology), although I guess he wasn't as snake like as I thought. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That works for me. 67.173.11.90 (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't see it working - it is a character who appeared first in fiction and later appeared in comics and I think we should avoid disambiguating with a class based on either medium. I still don't see what is wrong with Set (serpent god) - it is accurate and flexible, if for some reason that isn't acceptable then... "Set (character)" perhaps? (Emperor (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC))
His only "appearance" in fiction as far as I can tell from the article was that Thoth-Amon was a follower of "the serpent god Set". I've read it, but not in a while. It sounds like Set doesn't appear in any REH books. It sounds like his first appearance is as a comic book villain unrelated to Conan. They then retconned the comic villain into a conan comic villain with the same name as mentioned in a REH book. It seems like he's a comics character all the way. Maybe Set did stuff the article doesn't mention. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you are getting that information from - he appeared in a Conan story (this was in the days of pulp fantasy/sci fi anthologies so a lot of stories appeared in that form first) and then was introduced into the Marvel Universe via the Conan comics: "The "god" was later extensively used in Marvel Comics' various Conan series starting in the 1970s." (Emperor (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

"Superman's dad is dead...again"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/10/08/supermans.dad.ap/index.html

Just thought this would be amusing to the project members, and helpful to trot out in the next inevitable debate about why fictional deaths should not be categorized or why "canon" is ephemeral. Postdlf (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Spider-Man Bibliographies

According to one of article's talk pages, the issue has come up before, but unfortunately there is no link to the discussion. So, do we really need both a List of Spider-Man comics and a Bibliography of Spider-Man titles? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

These cover the exact same ground, and have probably 90% the same text; someone should do a careful merge. I would expect list of Spider-Man comics is the preferred title? Postdlf (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

James Robinson (comics)

An editor has removed the personal information from James Robinson (comics) claiming to be James Robinson (although confusingly using the user name Terrysloan) the first one being reverted by another SPA named Robinsonfamily. For example: [14] [15]. Note also that other WP:BLP-violating material was added earlier by an anon IP which was removed [16] (they also corrected some other details which might be treated as suspect too).

I have dropped them a note on their talk page (although I'd appreciate someone double checking to make sure I've covered the bases) and while it is being sorted out what is really needed are more eyes on the page to make sure the version is kept to the one that lacks the personal details until this is resolved. (Emperor (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Proposed renaming of indie comics categories

See Categories for discussion entries here, pertaining to Category:Indie comic characters, Category:Indie comic creators, and Category:Indie comics. Postdlf (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comics supporting characters categories nominated for merging

Category:DC Comics supporting characters and Category:Marvel Comics supporting characters; see CFD here. Postdlf (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Note that we have Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Notice_board#Deletion_discussions. (I'll freely admit to being lax lately about adding.) - jc37 05:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The FURbots are back...

And they're tagging on average 15-20 images in comics articals a day for either no FURs or disputed/partial FURs

Right now I'm up to the 14th (and it just hit deadline for that day), and still have about 20 or so outstanding images to fix. Anyone that is interested, please pitch in.

Here's the list:

Tagged on Spet 14:

Thanks - J Greb (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The 14th is clear and there were none for the 15th...
Tagged on Spet 16:
Tagged on Spet 17:
- J Greb (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Anything we can do about this from Liam Sharp: Image:Liam.jpg. The uploader is Tom Muller a graphic designer who has worked for Mam Tor (he designed their logo) and the image is used by Liam Sharp elsewhere. So it seems legitimate. Is the problem that the released as free template has been depreciated or is it just that not enough information has been provided and there is nothing we can do about it? (Emperor (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC))
Seems orphanbot has been doing a few of these. Also:
  • Image:David Goyer.JPG - not much information but it is clearly from a comic convention and it might be we can find it on Flickr (it looks similar to the ones Hiding found previously).
  • Image:Marko2.jpg.
I'll keep an eye out for more. (Emperor (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC))
Six cleared from the 16th...
Tagged on Sept 18:
- J Greb (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
And it looks like the damn bots are running fast, some of the stuff tagged on the 16th has been removed from articles after just 6 days. - J Greb (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Three more cleared from the 16th...
Tagged on Sept 19:
Tagged on Sept 20:
Tagged on Sept 21:
And that should almost be current... - J Greb (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The 16th is cleared... - J Greb (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The 17th is cleared...
And everyone helping out please note: FairuseBot is tagging all images that are used in an article and don't have a related FUR. This include articles that have been moved with out the image FURs being updated.
Also be aware that the 'bot is designed to run the same list 5 days later and remove the images from the articles and the tag from the image. This is even though the category and tag indicate that the images are supposed to be held for 7 days.
When reviewing image listed here, please check the history for the 'bot erasing its work and check the tag the 'bot added to verify all articles associated to the image. Also check the articles. The mages are being removed boefore there is a fair chance for the images to be updated. - J Greb (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Tagged on Sept 22:
- 03:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
And the 18th is clear... - J Greb (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Tagged on Sept 23:
- J Greb (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you guys using User:AWeenieMan/furme? Recently, a user tagged one of the (non comic) images I had added a long time. Image:Flirting Scholar DVD cover.jpg It had a rational, although it wasn't a very good one. I asked them why and in one minute they told me it wasn't sufficent, and in another minute they added a very fancy rational to it themselves. I don't know how to use furme myself, but it looks like with a bit of practice fancy FURs can be added in one or two minutes. Anyways, just thought you should know if you didn't already. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually wasn't aware of that... though I'm not likely to use it, I've got problems with java scripts. - J Greb (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Sept 23rd cleared... and it looks like a new batch is strting with Oct 1st... - J Greb (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Tagged on Oct 1:
Tagged on Oct 2:
- 01:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Tagged on Oct 3:
- J Greb (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Tagged on Oct 4:
- J Greb (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And that should clear it for now. - J Greb (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7

Hey there! :) It's not too late to put some work into discussing getting things done for the Wikipedia 0.7 release. Check out the articles that have been selected so far from the comics project. BOZ (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Come join the fun - you know you want to. ;) BOZ (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Storm - good article?

Hey, I was wondering... on the talk page for Storm (Marvel Comics), it is listed as an A-class article for the comics project, fine. However, there is also a note about it being a GA for Language and literature - so, should we have it rated as an A or a GA? BOZ (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well A is better than GA but I am not 100% sure if the A class review has been done properly and I think someone who is more experienced in these should look it over. It went for FA but failed and it seems some of the comments have been taken on board it is just the actual review process that I am unsure about.
Seems it could be one that could be polished up to FA standard fairly easily though - might be worth another shot. (Emperor (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
I'm always confused on that one - so A is better than GA, or the other way around? :) I'm have other plans, as mentioned here, but yeah getting more FAs would also be nice for our project. 10 is good, but we have plenty of potential for more! :) BOZ (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
A-class is above GA class. Speaking of more comics FAs, if when I'm done with the Watchmen FAR anyone wants to work on The Dark Knight Returns, I'm game. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Great - the more, the merrier. :) I'm going to try to get as many comics articles up to GA as I can manage, and we can work on getting more to FA from the other end. BOZ (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Could you (Wesley) put up with me helping out again..?! ;o) ntnon (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ethan Van Sciver

How is this guy's last name pronounced? Van Skeever? Sky-ver? Siver like the sci in science? I know how it should be pronounced in the original German, but his family might have Anglocized or otherwise Americanized it along the way. Doczilla STOMP! 08:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As per the truant synonym, apparantly: Skive/er.. (or, yes "Sky-ver"). Are you adding pronunciation bits, or just curious..? ntnon (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be worth adding pronunciation in if it isn't clear or they prefer something that isn't obvious (like Hyacinth Bucket). I find it helps when reading something and it could save someone from queuing for quarter of an hour only to walk away feeling like a proper bell end (not that it has even happened to me but it is the kind of thing I'd do given the opportunity). (Emperor (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC))
Reply to Ntnon's question: For myself, I need to pronounce his name correctly when introducing him. For Wikipedia, it would be good to clarify the pronunciation when it isn't clear. That way, Wikipedia can be a good source for the next person who needs to know how to pronounce it. What I hate is that I've been telling a family member that he's probably saying it wrong; if that article is right (thanks for that source!), he gets to nyah-nyah at me over it.Doczilla STOMP! 01:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't do an Eddie Campbell whatever you do. He reportedly spent so long practising Bill Sienkiewicz's surname that when the time came to introduce him he blanked on his first name. ;) Hiding T 13:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Advice appreciated. :) Doczilla STOMP! 19:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

A new way forward

There are several such lists. The problem is that while we can use the primary sources to determine that the characters were adversaries to the hero(es) in question, in most cases, we can't use primary sources to determine "main", "major", or "minor", as that would be WP:OR.

And so splitting the lists of adversaries up by any of those three terms would also be WP:OR.

We need to find another way to present these characters.

Appearance in only one comic or even one story arc? But what if we consider the lifespan of the Bat-universe a single over-reaching story arc?

One thing is clearm however, the constant editorial reversions for which editor has what preference to whether their favourite character may be a main, major, or minor "villain", needs to stop.

And I think that the fault is ours for not nipping this presentation issue in the bud.

So right now, I'm looking for "outside the box" ideas and suggestions for how to present these lists. - jc37 09:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Incidentally, this is the edit where I split the list from its related article. Over time the article has apparently been shredded, to the point that it was redirected to the list. (How's that for irony? : ) - jc37 14:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Short observations:
  • I agree, the constant "my fave" shuffling in the list articles and navboxes and any where a list of characters happens to be needs to stop. the same with "padding" the navboxes and "examples" lists.
  • If we are going to go with "major", the sourcing should avoid both the "poll driven" and "fan pandering" lists.
  • The same goes for "fundamental", "primary" and/or "pivotal".
  • "Recurring" and "one-shot" have inherent problems: There will be movement out of the "one-shot" list and it can wind up including "pivotal" foes — Spider-Man's Burglar for example.
  • Sorting also needs to be set, either alphabetical or chronological. Both remove the POV arguments, though they may be hard sells...
- J Greb (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Outside the box solutions? Delete the lists (with a transwiki to the relevant Wikia entries)? Important foes will be mentioned in the relevant articles but these lists have unclear inclusion criteria: Do we include every enemy from every Bat comic? What about the ones who pop up fighting various heroes and have happened to cross paths with one of the Batman family? How few appearances count? There have been numerous Bat Family titles running in parallel for decades and often had a new villain pop up never to appear again and to try and include all of them is the road to madness. So there appear to be two criteria at work: exclusively Batman and number of appearances but I am unsure how strictly these are being applied.
Let's look at Flash: His Rogues (comics) are a reasonably well-defined "group" but List of Flash enemies seems to be... some others.
I'm sure I could dig out my Bat comics and find some villain in there who isn't on the list and I'm not clear why we include those we have and not some other enemy.
I'm not saying we should but it is an option to put on the table. (Emperor (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC))
Sort lists alphabetically chronologically, that way you are establishing a narrative. How to split the list is a little more problematic. My first thought is to use summary style, but that may be hard to implement. Basically, you have a top level list which summarises foes for which a number of sources exists, in chronological order. This list is supported by a further alphabetical list of all foes. Basically we then just need to keep tabs that any given foes entry is given its due weight. And if there is no name in the comic, then there's no list entry, so someone who snapped the aerial on the Batmobile isn;t counted. Someone who stole the tyres from the Batmobile is a little more interesting... Of course, to open a can of worms, define "foe". Batman versus Superman? But then with a good lead to the list, you'd explicitly state that: while superheroes are often pitted against each other, the purpose of this list is to... and footnote entries like Azrael or Anarky if we include them. Hiding T 11:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should think about listifying based upon a publication rather than by protagonist? So List of characters appearing in Detective Comics?
Or the broader: List of characters appearing in Batman Family-related comics.
The problem is that several characters (Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, etc.) have been the main protagonist in a lot of titles. How do we say that concisely in a list name? (In order to prevent multiple mostly duplicative lists of characters - between Batman, and Detective Comics, for example.) - jc37 14:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Another option might be to take a page from Dick Tracy. As Emperor notes above, The Flash has a "Rogues gallery". So do several other heores.
The problem becomes, obviously, defining the rogues gallery for each character, without straying into WP:OR. - jc37 14:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd imagine something official has defined the rogues (see discussion above for things like the OHTMU) and googling Batman and rogues I see there has been a Batman Rogues action figure line so somewhere someone must have a list. There is a list at UGO [17] and that is pretty much the list I'd come up with for Batman's rogue. Worth noting that the DC Database Project page is better than the one we have (IMHO naturally) [18] and if we could trim it down to just the Rogues I'd not have a problem with linking on to that if people want more. (Emperor (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC))
Why is this still an issue? The shuffling a while back into 'mob', 'vital' 'semi-important' and 'other' (not the best terms, probably not the used terms, but effectively the correct terms) should have put this to rest. There will always be people pushing their favorites and making the case for moving up, down and sideways, but... so what? There's always well-meaning innacuracies put all over the place; Points of view pushed with or without tangible logic; rampant vandalism and stupidity. That's (unfortunately) what happens.
The template should have been locked down ages ago. It's not original research; it's common sense. It's obvious. The only slight bones of contention are whether Bane, Harley, Croc, Hatter and Clayface have any business approaching Joker, Catwoman, Screcrow, Riddler, Two-Face, Penguin, Ivy, Ra's and Freeze. And the ultimate answer is: no. Those nine are known by everyone - comics fans, TV fans, film-fans, (some) non-comics fans. Joker and Catwoman streets ahead. Ivy, Ra's and Freeze pulling up the rear. Catwoman is a foe (and sometimes a friend/antihero/hero). Azrael isn't Batman, and BETTY KANE (Batgirl) HAS NEVER BEEN FLAMEBIRD! They're two different iterations. Fix it up; lock it down. End of problem.
If other editors want to complain and argue for, say, Black Mask, they're welcome to - here, or on the discussion page of the Template. Any consensus can see an admin-person unlock, add and re-lock. Is that not reasonable...? With very few exceptions, I don't see that most people have any business editing the templates - the pages are fair game, but (most) templates shouldn't change much, or have new sources shed new light on things, or be seriously lacking in any areas.
...and that's only very slightly a sarcastic suggestion. ;o)
As for the villains page - chronological or alphabetical might seem sensible, but are actually going to cause horrendous difficulties. For chronological, you'll be left with a list wherein you won't be able to find anyone unless you know their date of orign - or unless each has a separate section, and then the navigation box will allow them to be found more easily (barely). That would be unworkable, because the page would be impossibly cramped. In order to find the 'main' villains/foes (and they are the MAIN villains/foes), they'd need to be bolded or underlined - and that would put it back in the same situation of OR accusations.
Alphabetical is even less workable. THE RIDDLER - R, (t), N or E? TWEEDLEDUM & TWEEDLEDEE - T or D? KILLER CROC - K, C, W or J? And whichever you pick, you'll need: a) Exceptions, and b) A lengthy explanation of how it might possibly be possible to find whomever you're looking for. Now, even the recent Batman Encyclopedia ran into this problem: TALIA was not under "T". Neither was she under "A"(Al Ghul) or "G"(Al Ghul). She was under "H". For "Talia Head". Ridiculous. And without even any notes or redirects... (Incidentally, the template is fouled up alphabetically-wise for the "supporting" folk - a bizarre hybrid of forenames and surnames combining to make the order seem, perhaps, importance-related. And even then, highly dubious...)
(And based on publication would be an entirely different kind of farce - debut or most appearances? Most appearances in 'real time' or in flashback/insertion? Weighted publications, with Batman and Detective vying for precedence while Legends of the Dark Knight and Batman: Confidential appearances play second string? Unworkable.)
I did piece together a complex algorithm for calculating notability, but it didn't go anywhere, and is probably open to as many challenges as the pages themselves. But it's not really difficult: longevity; cross-media (comic, TV, film.... (cartoons)) appearances; total appearances; key roles in major stories; 3rd party lists and references. Surprise, surprise you wind up with the main nine; a quandry over whether Clayface and the Hatter are high enough above the rest to move up, a major headache with Harley, and very few other issues.
Also, ultimately - it doesn't matter that much. These pages serve a particular purpose - and the page as is does serve that purpose admirably, being basically a hybrid of what's been suggested be done to improve it. That people push their favorite or disagree is only natural - and in some cases admirable. But challenges of bias or original research should not detract from the FACT that there are "MAIN" villains/foes for Batman, and their names are known. There are "Minor" villains/foes (and, in most senses, of course, their names are lesser known). Everyone else is in limbo between the two. Three tiers. Very little contest over who goes where. No originality of thought involved, just basic common sense. ntnon (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
A few things in there make some sense...
I'm a fair way from being sold, but there is a good start for arguing that the navboxes should be treated as some heavily contentious article space templates and locked. But such a step should be taken either when the templates are stable or a stable version is fairly obvious. Batman is close to that, but there are still sticking points. And frankly, it sets up the admins as arbiters for inclusion, and that could kick off uglier arguments.
As for the lists... I honestly think that for the "bigger" names should have secondary sources that point to "pivotal" foes. Those cites should be used to point to splitting out of the "wheat from the chaff". Lacking either such a source, or a desire of editors to find one, the enemies do get run into one long list.
Chronological order... Yes, there is the problem of finding characters in a list article using this. There is also a couple of other problems: "Legacy" characters (Clayfaces) and the potiential of "post-Event-reboot" versions (Catwoman). Alphabetic eliminates this problem. Again, it has its limitation since the context of who entered the series when isn't obvious. But then I'd prefer to have to work that out rather than hunt for a character in the list.
As for "How do you alphabetize them?" — in the simplest way possible: Treat the names as titles, period.
- J Greb (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three."

ntnon - most of your comments though would seem to suggest that we should employ WP:OR. As J Greb notes, we really should shy from any of us being arbiters of inclusion. The criteria is already laid out for us. We should be relying heavily on verifiable reliable sources, not what each of us (even if it's by consensus) may decide is "true". I've transcluded the quote from WP:V above, for reference. - jc37 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
So anyway, as far as the supporting characters (and other types of information related to fictional characters) are concerned, it would seem that we all agree that we should follow/apply Wikipedia policy and require sources for determination of sections/terms like: "main", "major", "minor", "fundamental", "primary", "secondary", "pivotal", and other words on this list. - jc37 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
No. Although I do have fundamental points of disagreement regarding what can be constituted OR, why it is inherently bad, how far things can/should be demonised/deleted/{{fact}}ed/etc. I disagree with some of the guidelines and definitions of tolerable, reasonable and 'good' sources. I mistrust the occasionally petty-minded diligence with which the spirit of some guidelines is ignored in favour of personal intreptation of the "letter of the law". However, that said and out of the way, I'm not pushing for original research. If anything, I'm counselling a hardline of using sources! Check the Template Talk page for Batman - I dug out some printed sources which point to five/six "main," "major" and "crucially important" Bat-villains. (Almost) every other source is a vague list, which are based on polls, questions and original research - and to allow, say, a Channel 4 poll of idiots "the general public" but to disallow a poll of comics-bloggers; to OK the New York Times espousing comic-speak but to ignore the comic-geeks; to think that a list of 100 Fictional Villains is inherently less biased than an open [www.sporcle.com quiz taken by at least hundreds of separate individuals] shows a narrow-minded interpretation of what can be classed reasonable sources. The lines of logic ("if it's cited, it's OK, until then it's spurious...") over what is an allowable source are garbled in the extreme. BUT. They're there, they're guidelines (guidelines, not laws) to be worked with. So, logic dicates that Killer Croc be dropped. Mad Hatter and Clayface. Harley, Man-Bat, and...
Relying on an interpretation of the guidelines at WP:V, one can read much into this line:
"Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged."
So who is challenging that the Joker is the main villain? That Catwoman, the Penguin, the Riddler, Two-Face and the Scarecrow are palpably obviously next in line? Even if there weren't sound sources saying this, it's unchallengable by any logical degree. The next few may be challenged - and, because of the nature of most lists, sources will be VERY thin on the ground for anyone beyond those six. It's not OR, though, to point out that those six feature in the films. That all-bar the Scarecrow were in the first wave of films. That all-bar the Scarecrow and Two-Face were in the TV series. Similarly, it's not original thought or personal inpretation to say that, after Joker, Catwoman and Penguin; Riddler and Two-Face, the powers-that-be - the suits, producers, executives, polls, canvassing, scriptwriters and film-makers - settled on Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy for the generally-despised, but hyped and confident Batman and Robin.
There's no personal preference involved in pointing out that it is the films that most older "normal" people think of when thinking of Batman, or sometimes the TV series. There's no original straw-poll that notes that Ra's and the Scarecrow and Two-Face and the Joker were the villains chosen to relaunch the film series. There is considerable debate over how much stock and credit to give to the cartoons. Award-winning, but not culture-permeating; popular, but larger among comics fans and animation-buffs.
I've rambled; it's late. But hopefully there's another kernal of mild common sense hidden somewhere above... ;o) ntnon (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Short ones...
  • "Pivotal" is something that should crop up in critical commentary, secondary source material. Lacking that, the only other criteria would be "recognizable".
  • "Recognizable" can be something that is either arrived at by consensus, through secondary sources, or polls of JQ Public. The last might make a fans skin crawl, but remember the articles are aimed at JQ, not the converted.
  • Batman honestly breaks down to 4 primary, recognizable villains (Joker, Penguin, Catwoman, Riddler, any order) about a dozen "secondaries" (that list varies depending on who you talk to, what you're looking at, and your particular "faves"), and a few score of those that the "converted" can rattle off. Superman is the same, as is Spider-Man, Cap, and so on.
  • List articles may very well need to just go to straight lists. From there it may be possible on a case by case basis, to sell a built consensus for a "highlight" group.
  • Navboxes... I'm more of a mind to say "If someone honestly thinks Jerry shouldn't be in the 'box, pull the character and give it an airing on the talk page." Yes, that means coming down on pointy arguments of "If Jerry can't be there, pull 'em all."
One last though... and if I catch up on the end of FairBots images tags I'll try to cobble up an example... it is possible to rework a template like {{Batman}} into a "targeted" format. That way the one template would have say, a generic, a "foes" content, and a "protagonist cast" content versions. - J Greb (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
As per the above, I've got a rough version up at User:J Greb/TemplatePaste 6 with examples of how it would look when oplaced at User:J Greb/TemplatePaste 6. - J Greb (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comics characters debut-year categories

A recent talk I had with User:Sesshomaru has had me questioning the way I've been adding these categories, so I thought I'd open up a question to other members of the project and see what they think.

Multiple-character entries

This is especially pertinent with DC Comics, which has so many legacy characters that re-use the same names over and over again, and for which we often combine into one entry for simplicity's sake and because they share histories. Take for example Bulletman and Bulletgirl. He debuted in 1940, she, the year after, in 1941. Solution 1 is to merely add both 1940 and 1941 debut categories to the same article. This is what I've been doing. I think the potential for confusion here is low, although it exists. The bonus to this solution is that it is simple and uncomplicated and requires no work other than the addition of the category to the article. The problem with this solution is that it is somewhat vague and unspecific. Solution 2 (which I think Sesshomaru leaned towards) is to add, in this case, the redirects Bulletman and Bulletgirl to the categories instead. This seems like not a terrible solution (in this case), but can potentially get very messy with, for example, characters like Clayface, which would require several new redirects to be created (e.g. Clayface (Basil Karlo)) to add to the category. (Basil Karlo is already a redirect, but if you saw that in a category with no context, who the hell would know who that was?) This solution is very specific, but means these categories would be filled with an uncommonly high percentage of redirects instead of actual articles. And the redirects would just send you to the same article you would have wound up at in the first place, with the same ultimate problem of having to read the entry to figure out which debut was meant.

Also--and I think this is the reason that puts the nail in the coffin of this solution--if the categories were on the redirects it would prevent access to the categories to people actually at the article. No good.

I, obviously, think solution 1 is the wiser course, but I don't think it's impossible to argue in favor of the second option, or an option I had not previously imagined.

I suppose I'd tend towards the first option if it was just this issue, as the infobox/PH would quickly clarify who it refers to but there are other issues where you have a range of characters with their own categories. See e.g. Electro (comics) which has fictional robots and fictional communists, Timely Comics characters, etc. and you'd have to read through the article carefully to find out which is being referred to. I think we should consider such articles as if they were something like Ant Man, all of which have their own articles so the main article is kept stripped down (with an alias infobox rather than the full comic character one). In which case you could flag the categories that apply to the overall character (so the first appearance of the name for example) and establish redirects which could then hold the specific categories. So the article would still be categorised but with a more stripped down set of categories. The fact that you can categorise redirects is often overlooked but it is a useful tool that could help refine some of the categorisation. (Emperor (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
Some thoughts...
I can see the positive to the redirect solution, but it really is just a half step. So id just linking the articles with multiple versions. Ideally both would have the links. Using Clayface as an example:
  • The article would be catted into 1940, 1961, 1978, 1987, and 2003
  • Clayface (Basil Karlo) would cat to 1940 and point to the Basil Karlo section
  • Clayface (Matt Hagen) would cat to 1961 and point to the Matt Hagen section
  • Clayface (Preston Payne) would cat to 1978 and point to the Preston Payne section
  • Clayface (Sondra Fuller) would cat to 1987 and point to the Sondra Fuller section
  • Clayface (Johnny Williams) would cat to 1940 and point to the Johnny Williams section
It may wind up with a few double appearances in the cats, but it allows the best functionality. And the sorting should wind up with the redirect under the article.
And as Emperor points out, is a character is split off into its own article, the cat should be removed from the "hub" article, so articles like Atom (comics) would have some but not all and those like Huntress (comics) would have none, or at best one.
- J Greb (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
That is an interesting approach, and even though it creates some extra steps, it probably is the best fix from a functionality standpoint. Ford MF (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Good example - it shows how it can be very handy for two characters of the same name in one year. It also makes linking much simpler and when linking to sections it makes it easier to update the single redirect rather than trying to hunt down links (worth placing a comment in the section too so that editors know they should update the redirect and that there is a redirect they can use). Also remember it is worth adding a redirect reason (I have a little list of the common ones I use) so in the case above you might also add {{R to section}}.
This could also be used for different series (handy if they are in different formats - graphic novels, one-shots, limited series, ongoing) although we'd need to come up with a system for the naming (based on films or TV series going by the starting year: "Justice League of America (1987 comics" or something similar. (Emperor (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
I'd shy away from applying it to the comics at the moment, espcially since it's likely we'd wind up dabing them differently than we're citing them in references. - J Greb (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Debateable first appearances

And what about those rare characters who are mentioned before they're actually in the comic? Take, for example, Foxglove (DC Comics), who is spoken of as early as 1989, but isn't on-panel until 1991. In this case I'm inclined to take "first appearance" to literally mean just that: the first time the character is, in some sense "there", that is, present in some way on panel. (I don't want to say "the first time we see the character" because this could trip up in the case characters normally invisible, or, say, cosmic entities that don't ordinarily or at first have physical form.

So...thoughts? Ford MF (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd have to go with actual appearance as just being mentioned in the text could be vague and open to interpretation - I suppose some first appearances might (for example if they appeared in the background in a scene) but they will be rare and is something you could either find a source on or thrash out on the talk page and come to a consensus. As in the foxglove article it is worth flagging this issue in place that allow more flexibility. (Emperor (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
I tend to agree with that... and care should be take with "behind the scenes" comments from annotators or writers.
There are also two other categories that will cause problems:
  • Last page/one panel cameos
  • Obscured appearances
Personally, I take the last page cameos as the "first appearance", period. That's when the character is first revealed or "put into play".
The other though is harder. Some characters are presented as "teasers" leading up to the reveal — only a shoulder or hand shown, always in shadows, only a voice over a phone, and so on. More often than not, I'd say those "count" when trying to pin down the first appearance, but there's always the "How do we know that really was the character?" hanging over them.
- J Greb (talk)
I asked for comments on a related/identical issue here a little while ago, but it got sidelined because I was also asking about the multiverses... Simply: some characters "debuted" in comics that were not printed, distributed or generally ever seen - so should those count? Does the proto-Captain Marvel (which alternate name, secret identity, etc.) from Whiz #1 - which barely exists anyway - matter? Does Motion Picture Funnies Weekly "count" for Namor? Surely not. ntnon (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Short answer? Yes, ashcans count. Yes, Motion Picture Funnies Weekly counts. These are publications printed to secure the rights for the characters, so they are where the characters first appeared.
Keep something firmly in mind, a good chunk of the comic book characters currently in use don't have clear "reboot" points". At best, retconed in "alts" or "variants" have an identifiable "1st appearance". For example:
Batman first appeared in Detective Comics #27 (1939), that covers the character appearing up to the current day because the Earth-One, post-Crisis, post-InfiniteC, and post-ZH versions don't have clean start points. The only variant that does is the Earth-Two version: Justice League of America #82 (1970) - A version created get the writers out of a continuity mess.
Captain America was only one version, starting with Captain America Comics #1 only until someone pestered about the stories from between 1945 and 1964. Writers then "inserted" other character: William Naslund (The Invaders #14 (1977) made a Cap for the mid `40s in the same year); Jeffrey Mace (Human Torch Comics #4 (1941) made a cap for the late `40s in 1977); and the "Grand Director" (Captain America #153 (1972) filling in the 1950s Atlas stories).
There are others that follow this same pattern. It's best if "first appearance" means just that, the first appearance of the character, period. No attempts made to apply current continuity. - J Greb (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Admirable sentiments..! ;o) However, the guides and agreements are not entirely is support of that short answer - Whiz #2 is Captain Marvel, and for Wolverine you find the oddity of "first full appearance", since Hulk #181 'counts' but isn't actually the first appearance...
(Ironically, even the "only" Batman with a reasonable second-origin is tricky: the Earth-2 Batman's adventures stretch back to Detective #27, since that's when the E-2 incarnation debuted, while E-1 is always relative to the present on a sliding scale. Contrarily, it's fairly safe to say that post-ZH Batman appeared in ZH #0 (or was it #1?), while post-Crisis Batman 'first' appeared in History of the DCU #1 - the most logical point to tie all post-Crisis origins to.)
But that's beside the point. ;o) It does seem decidedly odd, though, to say that a publication which was never/barely circulated can could as a '1st appearance'. Not least because that will muck everything up - who (else) knows about the variety of black and white ashcan versions of Flash Comics, Sensation, Adventure, etc..? Because there are only one or two copies of each known to exist; probably not many more ever published, and yet "technically" they may be the first appearances of a number of DC characters. Or, Superman's first appearance (wasn't) in the S&S fanzine story "Reign of the Superman," or he first appeared in a newspaper strip that was never published, or... Still, clearly several experts do allow for Motion Picture Funnies, just as they don't allow Whiz #1. And madness ensues..! ntnon (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use of scans

There are many character pages that don't have an image, and it seems fitting to scan an appropriate page or panel (for example, panel of first appearance) and upload it. I often come upon instances in which I can easily do it, but am not sure about copyright status. Does that fall under fair use? Patchwor (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the image, but usually it's OK if no free equivalent is available and if the image is lo-res enough that it cannot harm the original publisher. Consult WP:NFC for full details, and make sure you give it a careful and thorough reading! Also, make sure you add a justification to the images page for EVERY page that the image is used on. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
A few other things...
The Comics Project has a pair of refs that are relevant:
- J Greb (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Patchwor (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

One thing that I think we should also (somewhat) take into consideration is that every time one of our higher used templates in edited it now does affect Wikipedia performance. The job queue has been staying fairly high lately. And our use of article templates would seem to be rather prolific.

Should we (at least) semi-protect protagonist-related navboxes, in order to help facilitate talk page discussion concerning sources for inclusion? (As an option, full protection by navbox section can be done through sub-page transclusion.)

See Template:Batman and Template talk:Batman for some lengthy discussion, and some possible solutions, including the usage of a /doc page. (And also see User:J Greb/Docs, which is a rough draft for some basic information to be included in all such /docs.)

I personally like the /doc page idea. It helps prevent bite, and should help provide well-meaning/enthusiastic editors some quick guidance for inclusion (since the talk page is often not seen prior to editing/reversion).

Whatever we do, we really need to find positive ways to "help" our editors use talk page discussion more, and edit-warring less. - jc37 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support general semi-protection of such templates, full protection as necessary, and especially the usage of /doc pages. - jc37 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I think we should aim for most of these to remain stable barring page moves, new things coming out, etc. - mainly to avoid advance dicking around with them. Could I make a supplementary suggestion? People should propose the creation of any nvaboxes footers. It doesn't have to be overly formal - just post a note here with an idea of the size and scope (possibly knock one up in your sandbox?) and see what the consensus is. There seems to have been an awful lot of these popping up (usually depending on the editor's enthusiasm rather than any need) and this would help put a brake on this. (Emperor (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC))
  • We should require a reference for each villain included. Here's one for the top 30 [19] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • That's palpably not the "top thirty," though. It's plausible contendors for the third film. That takes many unsaid factors into account - Nolan prefers the more realistic; the choosers personal preferences; who has come before, etc. - and is ultimately unhelpful and unuseable. Unfortunately. :o) ntnon (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruption question

So the next question is: What do we do when faced with a (presumably) well-meaning editor who is consistantly adding names to such sections without sources. It (by definition) effectively makes them a POV pusher.

I shy away from blocking, but if they repeatedly ignore requests to "take it to the talk page", or "please do not re-add without a reference", should they be blocked? And further, what about situations where those requesting that they "take it to the talk page", are also reverting?

We've had several contentions of late concerning whether admins (and others) are "involved" in the discussions, even if all they were doing was reverting, and suggesting talk page discussion, per WP:BRD. Though Civility was abundant, and I think that the issues have now been (mostly) resolved, it was only through lengthy discussion, and pride/feeling apparently have been hurt, with editor congeniality strained. Yes, some of that is unavoidable, but I'm wondering if we should have a quick-list page here at the comics-project, to help lessen some of the bite, to even some not-so-new editors? Something that isn't massively long, but something that we could link to on a talk page to help guide well-meaning editors.

So I guess I'm asking several questions:

  • At what point do we feel that editors should be blocked? Or rather, how egregious do we define POV pushing on something like the placing of the names (or other information) of fictional characters? Including the usage of terms or suections which use these terms?
  • Should we create a bullet-point "quick guidance" page for such incidents? (And do we have something like that already?)

In my opinion this is rather important and I especially would like to hear from all the Project's admins on this, since we have the ability to act upon this by blocking, or page protection, among other things (such as "closing" talk page discussions). - jc37 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've said it before (and I'm pretty sure we have done it before) but I think we can define boundaries to force recalcitrant editors into engaging with others. If they constantly try and force their view on the page then it moves beyond WP:BRD and is infringing WP:CONSENSUS and must be pushing on WP:OWN. We have had cases where neither side would talk to the other which leads to pages being protected to force them to discuss this on the talk page, which seems rather a crude tool. We should be able to say "If you keep trying to force your preferred version into the article and not addressing concerns on the talk page you will be violating WP:CONSENSUS - please read WP:BRD. Further editing of X on these lines will lead to you being blocked for 24 hours." I'd much rather we forced editors to discuss this with such a warning rather than having to actual protect that page (which ended up in even more a mess last time we did this and ended making the situation even more convoluted, as well as obviously causing problems for ordinary editors who just want to try and get on with actually improving the article, rather than arguing over the wording or content of some specific section)
The key though is that this has to done by an uninvolved editor and if the complaining party hasn't made any actual efforts to sort this out themselves then they should be made aware of the fact that this can cut both ways. (Emperor (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC))
Have I misunderstood the topic of this section? My reply to the original post seems to have no connection with anyone else's and I fear I have got the wrong end of the stick. Sorry about that if I have. I'll have a read through later and try and find out where I went wrong. (Emperor (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC))
No, I think that the other two were intending to post above, based upon their comments. Refactored to reflect that. - jc37 01:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah OK. I was getting a bit worried there. So anyone else got any input on this? (Emperor (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC))
Apparently not, though I'm disenheartened by it. I really was hoping for more input, especially the admins active in the comics project. - jc37 09:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
It is an important issue so I don't think it'd be rude to drop those admins a note pointing them at this. (Emperor (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC))
Just some observations...
Blocking can be as blunt an instrument as page protection, and just as problematic. Which party, or parties, involved in the dispute get blocked? What if it's the only article they are digging their heels in on? Is it going to actually prod communication or just encourage someone to walk away entirely?
For me, unless its blatant vandalism, blocking should be a last resort. And in most other cases page protection shouldn't be the first. The editor, or editors, should be approached about the problem first, either in edit summaries or on their talk page.
As for COI issues... that's a nasty situation. Especially given some admins stance that once you try to engage in trying to correct a situation, you are involved. Even if that means your only edit to an article is to revert to the "wrong version" or remove something that is in conflict with guidelines or policy. And there are even cases of editors wikilawyering that once and admin blocks/chides them, that admin is no longer "uninvolved". For me, both of those attitudes make for counter productive volunteer environment since an admin that finds a problem is likely to have to go hunting for an "uninvolved" admin who's willing to take a look.
As for the question of POV pushes, I'd think the following qualify:
  • Editor(s) inserting and re-inserting peacokcing
  • Editor(s) inserting and re-inserting weaseling
  • Fanssite formatting that slants the importance of or acts as an apology/attack on the actions of a publisher, writer, editor, or artists
Any of those should be grounds for another editor reverting and noting in an edit summary what is wrong. As well as possible notes or warnings dropped on the pusher's talk. And continued pushing should be grounds for an admin to step up and protect the page and look at the pusher(s) edit history to see if it's a larger problem. Even if the admin has been one of the voices pulling out the problem text.
- J Greb (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Can Admin-types block specific users from specific pages..? So, not blanket-block or -protect, but dissuade a particular individual from editing a particular page? I think that would be more help than either of the other options. I remember relatively recently that protecting a page wholesale caused/exacerbated a problem (in part due to ensuing debate over which version should be protected), while blocking people for one - possibly minor - point could be an outrageous insult, as J Greb notes above.
If you can tailor blocking one person from one page, then you can use their/the talk page to say why and invite them to explain their logic. No logic; no edit; no problem. Some logic; some discussion; some results. Great logic; sound edit; good result.
I also think that there can be a gulf between what is "known," what is sourced and what is debated. The issue with sourcing is categorically stated as being relevent only really to statements likely to be contested - which would be fine were everyone always on the same page... but, obviously, some people seem to feel the need to question everything; while others seem to think that something is 'common knowledge' - but may not be able to find a source today/tomorrow/ever. And it should be obvious to suggest that some things are accurate but unsourceable under Wikipedia regulations, and only mildly controversial to suggest that some things are "common knowledge" even if there are vocal detractors (in essense, that's a definition of consensus - there's usually still some people who don't agree).
  • So it can - not is, but can - be deeply unfair to say that somebody is using "weasel" or "peacock" terms, if they think they are reflecting the Truth. (Not to mention that there are "good" sources that use "weasel" and "peacock" terms all the time, so many purportedly-weaselly or peacocky terms can actually be sourced - would that be a positive thing?! - so how rigorous and fair do people want to be..?)
  • Similarly, it can be very unhelpful to ban/block people who think they are doing the 'right thing' - and that applies doubly to essentially-uninvolved editors who are trying to lend a hand to help out and get caught up in everything.
  • It's almost childish - in some/many situations - to protect a page. It's not a million miles different from cutting off your nose to spite your face. (And can leave individuals wide open to accusations that X admin person is only protecting a page to push their own preferences...) The whole point of a joint effort is to let many people have their say; to talk away the method by which anyone can say anything seems anti-the-spirit of the whole project.
...but there needs to be a way to deal with the vandals and oafs. Which is probably blocking, warning and banning. (On a potentially ever-increasing cycle of disenchantment and sock-puppetry.) So long as the advice of "assuming good faith" holds sway even when tempers flare over wars-of-words and opinions, there shouldn't be a problem. Debate is healthy, even when it goes ways the originators didn't intend..! ntnon (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for help creating guidelines for another area of Wikipedia

Hi, I know this isn't about comics, but I figured a number of you could help me out. Currently there's a huge debate going on about genres at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. What I'm trying to do with come up with some proposed guidelines for dealing with the topic of genre in music articles, which will be the first step in crafting a new set of proposed guidelines for music articles (since we pretty much agree the current guidelines are out of date and rarely used). I know many of you have experience crafting guidelines for this project and others, so I wanted to ask for assistance and guidance while I outline my proposals in the next few days, as I have never crafted Wiki guidelines before. Please leave a note on my talk page if you're willing to assist me in this endeavor, as well as any further comments on the matter. Thanks. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Statistics Issue

There's been a discussion going on for a while over at the Powers and abilities of the Hulk page regarding the use of statistics. A few months ago, and later a few weeks ago, I removed stats taken from an old Marvel RPG from the article and User:David A is obviously an advocate of them. I believe he is the one the posted them to begin with. His most recent post on the article's discussion page suggests that he's trying to play word games with the policy. statistics rule He's trying to claim that since the rule uses the word "discourage" rather than "forbidden" that it should be circumvented. I know that nothing is set in stone here, but it seems to me that the project obviously doesn't want them included, otherwise that particular rule wouldn't exist in the first place. Now, while he hasn't placed any of the stats into the article yet, I just have a feeling that it's a matter of time before he does. I can't say for certain that he will or if he's just trying to make a point. However, he strikes me as an editor that wants things the way he wants them regardless of policy or consensus. Maybe I'm being too rough on the guy but I've tried reasoning with him but his responses tend to become these excrutiatingly long rants about whatever he thinks is wrong with Wikipedia.Odin's Beard (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, a few things. I don´t use sockpuppets, _ever_. I find them vile, weasel-y, and thoroughly dishonourable. The eternal bane of Wikipedia. A few times I have been unwillingly logged out, but always try to make a specific edit note when this happens. The ip likely doesn´t even match my area. Someone else clumsily reinserted part of my old addition without even referencing itn. Second, I am not trying to "play wordgames". I am trying to check through the oft-cited regulation and say exactly what I read it as. Third you didn´t even bother informing me about bringing our discussion (?) here. Fourth I was waiting for you to read through the regulation, and respond, and wasn´t about to insert anything until that agreement. Fifth you hardly did a fair and balanced summary of my points. It´s about the entire section going into the same observations I had done on previous occasions, and additionally your recent explanation of why it was established (because most p and a sections turned into copies of the handbook). That the concerns are to not overquote to the point of copyright infringement, and to cite contradictory sources since fiction isn´t set in stone). Additionally, as I´ve noted previously it doesn´t make any sense to specifically exclude 2nd-3rd part references when the rest of Wikipedia favours them, given that they are approved by editorial. It´s stated in the regulation text that it´s ok to use handbook references if contrasted with contradictions in the works themselves. Meaning, this page is so extremely referenced from many 1st hand sources that it more than balances out. This in conjunction with avoiding to say that it is forbidden, made me draw the conclusion that it´s deliberate, i.e. a sensible regulation that can allow minor irregularities if this is warranted, in this case because it´s the only source I know of that establishes some kind of upper limit, and to get rid of the frequent "unlimited strength" inserts. As for the ´rambling´, I´m add and Asperger, as I think you are aware. I tend to consider several patterns at once in jumbled order, but make an effort to be thorough and honest when doing so. Dave (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
....why is there a "powers and abilities" page? That surely flies in the face of the guidance against using statistics and 'facts' and the like. However, if it serves a valid purpose, then surely that is one of the few cases where RPG and OHOTMU stats should actually have a viable home. Perhaps. ntnon (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Short answer? I believe it was to get the edit warring over a major "fansite"-esque section moved away from the main article. It worked to a degree, but... - J Greb (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
More like that the section turned far too long, that creating a separate page was the best way to keep everyone happy, and that there existed a precedent of various far less well-reference P&A pages. The Superman page is littered with thin air claims for example, while this one is almost exclusively matter-of-fact. Dave (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't part of the discussion on the wording of those guidelines (as far as I can recall anyway) and my interpretation is that we shouldn't use them. The reason it doesn't say "forbidden" is that there may some unforeseen exception to this that wasn't envisioned when those guidelines were drawn up so I assume they didn't want to hinder legitimate use if someone ever came up with one. I don't see this being an exception an they shouldn't be used here.
Powers and abilities are a real pain as they are kind of assumed to be common knowledge so are unreferenced but adding in stats isn't the answer. (Emperor (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC))
Then why does it say that it´s ok to use minor stats inserts if contrasted with other sources? Dave (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
That page shouldn't exist - it's a really long winded way of saying "the hulk is really strong and hard to kill" supported by cherry-picking the examples that support that reading. Should be merged. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Given that you´re a 1-sday account, somehow familiar with the Wikipedia community, and specifically target the by far most well-referenced powers and abilities page, that literally screams "sockpuppet" to me, but then I´m a paranoid sort based on automatically putting a large enouggh amount of previous experiences into pattern. In any case, the powers/feats/irregularities etc are an extremely prominent part of the character and its history, as is displayed on the page, and a massive amount of work has been done to gather it. A whole lot of viewers enjoy the feature, virtually everything is matter-of-fact referenced, and nobody is forcing anybody to read it. If they want the light version they are free to simply visit the main Hulk page. It´s quite strange that anyone would even be interested in suddenly specifically censoring/deleting it. Dave (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed - the whole thing is a nightmare. The section is a real magnet for unsourced opinion and original research and if there is any specific section that is going to ruin a B-class assessment for an article it is the powers and abilities one (the only section that could attract more of this is "parodies and homages" but few pages have them thankfully). Such sections should be kept trimmed back hard to what can be demonstrated in the comics and, while I understand the reason for splitting off that section it is really just shuffling the problem off somewhere that it can fester and grow. Is there any chance we can take this out into the back paddock and put it out of its misery? Or has the monster got completely out of control and will no longer go back in the cage? (Emperor (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC))
It's completely over the top, we are not a marvel encyclopaedia, we give a general overview of his powers in the main article and that's IT. We do not get into "greatest feats" and the like because it's not important to us and place the character in a real world context and why he is important as a cultural figure. The article should be trimmed down to the bones and then merged back into the main article. We are not writing for fans (and I AM one). --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe J Greb is right about that. The P&A section of the Hulk article was becoming an article unto itself. It was in a near constant state of edit war. I agree that it's worked to a certain degree, but the P&A of the Hulk article really has become more of an homage to the Hulk than anything else. Wouldn't hurt my feelings to see it merged, I'd support it. I questioned the need for it overall on at the article's discussion page after it was first created. To be honest, I don't think the page really attracts all that much vandalism any more and edit wars seem to be nonexistent. After I deleted the stats for the second time, I added it to my watchlist and traffic has been very light. People might be browsing it, but there's been very little editing. I think that it'd go quietly into that good night except for one factor, User:David A. As I said, I believe most of the content in the article has been placed there by him and it's kind of a baby of his. Just be prepared for an advanced tutorial of Ranting and Raving 101.Odin's Beard (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
OK - I think the point is, we should *never* create sub-articles because it's an easier road but because it would result in a quality article. I don't think that is an example of a quality article and I don't think one could result from it's continued existence. I've set up the merge template but I actually think it should be stubbed there before being merged into the main article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


Can we have a bit more input? David A has removed the tags on the basis that it's "censorship" - how it's censorship to have a discussion about something is beyond me... --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
"Discussion", when I and User:Sesshomaru weren´t even informed? When most of the ´discussion´ I´ve seen is personal attacks, misrepresentations, false accusations in my absense, offhandedly conceited and extremely exaggerated offensive loose claims that it´s a "nightmare" and "should be put to sleep" (which makes little sense given the lack of references and low content for many other start-class character pages), and the first I hear of it when a completely new account suddenly inserts an overkill deletion tag, and doesn´t care about any of the other far less referenced pages? It´s a nice expansion, and intended as a complementary thorough information-source based on the entire history of the character. A lot of care has been put into inserting as many references as possible to make it reliable and fun for many fans of the character. It doesn´t force any casual fan to read it. It most definitely doesn´t harm anyone (beyond possibly a few fans of other characters, but I´ve said before that they could create similar pages to even it out). If someone actually has a burning motivation to specifically delete accurate information, when we´ve already handled this in the past, by ensuring that a ´discussion´ takes off in a very uniform attack pattern before any counter can be made by the involved editors (in my case tired and busy elsewhere) and even makes his first edits for this very purpose, and completely disregarding the amount of work put into it simply because ´it´s too exaggerated´ then yes, I honestly read the motivation behind that action as getting rid of information one is uncomfortable with, but I had this situation suddenly thrown on me at an inappropriate time, and tend to pattern incidents after sufficient similar experiences (as OB has noted Wikipedia people have started to flow together/turn hard to keep distinct for me), so I may misinterpret it. Dave (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
when I and User:Sesshomaru weren´t even informed? I did when I added the tags, I'm not required to message individuals, that's the whole purpose of the tags. In addition, you seem to have a WP:OWN problem. It's irrelevant if it's "inappropriate" for you because we operate as a community not on an individual basis. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
That particular point mostly related to me and OB habving a discussion, and him going off and misrepresenting my words in an official matter without informing me. What applies to you is making your first edit a few days ago, suddenly specifically fanatically attacks this page as your ´first´ thing to do, instantly quotes multiple regulations, and use terms like "we" and "community", while apparently only being concerned with "requirement"/regulation-calculation rather than honourable conduct. Meaning, excepting if JJonz was overtly cyberstalking me again, my sockpuppet alarm couldn´t ring louder, and I´d seriously like someone to ipcheck you before your agitation should be granted any merit, and if confirmed perm-ban all aliases. That said, no this isn't a community decision, just the few people who choose to focus on the topic, due to taking the opportunity when a mostly unrelated matter was brought up. There should also always be _very considerable_ reasons to actually delete an already created page, not simply _your_ personal convenience. Deletion-sprees are almost always driven by an agenda, and yes are generally complete overreactions, rather than, if necessary, gathering people to help restructure or improve the quality. Dave (talk)
General comments:
  • Removing maintenance tags without addressing them is considered vandalism (see {{uw-tdel1}} through {{uw-tdel4}}). The exception being a PROD.
  • Merge tags are maintenance tags.
  • Since the merge tag points to, or should point to, a talk page discussion of the merge, removing it can stink of ownership of the article.
  • This is in addition to being it's own brand of censorship. Remember, consensus can change, especially when new eyes look at an article. If you feel that there is a recent, solid consensus to keep the Hulk P&A article, provide a link to it within the context of the current discussion.
  • Clean-up: It's isn't proper to redact an article that you've tagged for merger or deletion before a consensus to merge or delete is reached. There is some latitude here for copy editing and items that are blatant violations of policy and some guide lines.
  • Dave, is the above sufficient or do you need a formal warning dropped on you talk page regarding the tag removal, ownership, civility, and biting issues?
- J Greb (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Removing the tag was because the first thing I saw was yet another suddenly popped up/´new´ editor inserting a lot of changes and getting into an edit-conflict with Sesshomaru. I wouldn´t have done so if it was an editor I didn´t seriously believe to be a troll or sockpuppet specifically targetting the page for personal reasons. As for the civility, you´ll note that false claims, derogatory conceit, and insults were first levelled in mt direction and in my absence. This, along with an extremely suspicious just-created identity seemed extremely dishonourable to me. Why is that acceptable when taking note of this and honestly defending myself instantly gets a reaction? I really can´t get this kind of ´fortright honesty is worse than mean-spirited deceit´ kind of thinking. It doesn´t make sense to me. Dave (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Please don't lie - I am not involved in any edit-conflict - he didn't like how I'd worded something, so I reworked it and that was the end of it. In addition, I notice that today he's reverted a lot of changes of mine but I haven't reverted them back, you cannot have edit-conflict with only one editor. Please stick to the facts. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Lie? As you most likely know given your overstated/repeated smugly taunting use of the words "lie" and "please" in both edit-history and thread, I´m the straightforward but observant type, who finds deceit akin to swimming in filth, so no, I get plenty of things wrong and am apt to jump to conclusions based on my observations, but lying is very alien to me. There are plenty of deletion-tags in the Ranma section that I don´t want there, but let be unless it was something we had already handled in the Talk, such as the use of images, which seemed to be the case here as well: something long over and done with that yet another sockpuppet-troll inserts without foundation. I also don´t see how seeing this and this in conjunction with the recurrent patttern of 'new' (usually JJonz) users or ips 'suddenly' deciding to attack the page, and trusting Sesshomaru´s judgement, and making a conclusion while not knowing that this thread already existed should somehow be a lie. On the other hand you still haven´t responded about creating an identity right before to attacking this page, or being able to quote Wikipedia policy, find this community page, while putting on a familiar "we in the community" tone etc. Dave (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Dave:
  • Add assuming good faith to that list. And in all honesty, if Cameron Scott were just working with HP&A, there might be grounds for your concerns about a single purpose account. He isn't so there really isn't.
  • As for Cameron's comments with the content of the article, I'm sorry, I don't see a level of incivility there, nor is there a personal attack since the primary concern is the content of the article.
  • The "in my absence" line is troubling. Bluntly, any editor can edit any article or seek advise from any one else without having to "check in" first. Editing articles that you have touched or asking for second or third opinions about the content of them is not restricted to when you are available to be informed. And the only guidelines that point to informing editors about taggings are with:
    • Images - IfDs, fair use tagging, orphaned images (Uploader)
    • Templates - TfDs (creator)
    • Articles - PRODS and AfDs (creator and/or primary editor(s)0
    • Editor conduct - Letting the subject know an issue has been filed at the appropriate Admin Noticeboard
  • None of these is the case here.
- J Greb (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
1) He is a supposedly new editor that just set up an account, did 1 previous edit, then suddenly decided to visit the community page and get an agenda against a page with a history of people using temporary identities and ips against it, while displaying experience with local jargon. It's easy enough to do a few simultaneous edits on the side to avert more blatant/self-proving suspicion in the JJonz style. In a way at least JJonz is usually honest about being dishonest, which at least from one angle probably makes him a nicer person than the people who try to keep it under wraps.
2) First OB said that I was the one who reposted the stats, and that it was likely only a matter of time before I re-added them, which is inaccurate. We discussed the original removal in my own talk page, and while I completely disagreed with the rationale it's not like I was heavily invested. (Edit: I reread the sentence, and he may simply have meant that he thinks I was the one who originally inserted them long ago, which I've consistently stated outright, and is completely correct, but I allowed him to remove them.) Much later someone reinserted part of it, and I noticed the following Talk discussion. There were some misunderstandings (editing from the mobile tends to make me grumpier than usual, since it's clumsy and frequently erases what I write), but I decided to seek out the regulation, and found that it didn't seem nearly as heavy-handed as usually described. Then there was the "playing wordgames" bit, which is also inaccurate, and would be extremely out of character. I read it as I see it. Then he misrepresented my argument by saying that I only had one point, and didn't inform me so I could defend myself. Then there was an editor who had only done 1 previous edit who extremely oddly suddenly decided to get an agenda at the community page, and was far too familiar with regulations and jargon to be new. Then my efforts with the page were called a "nightmare", filled with OR (this is something I've made an effort to keep aways, as it's far more well-referenced and matter-of-fact than any other powers page), that it would somehow ruin the ordinary Hulk page, a "problem" that "festers and grows", should be "put out of its misery", a "monster" "out of control" that should go back to its cage, "completely over the top", that it should "go quietly into that good night", that I am a major problem of "ranting and raving 101" (this when he is aware of my problem to keep things concise, and going behind my back). Additionally 'Cameron' had preivously said that I used "weasel words" for direc tly quoting the handbook to get rid of the frequent "virtually unlimited strength" inserts.
3) "In my absense" means that OB and I were in the middle of a discussion. I patiently waited for feedback, and then I find out that he's gone away to singlehandedly present the case in an unfair manner without informing me by finding out that this has caused the page to be up for deletion. Not 'being obliged to' do something doesn't mean that it isn't dishonourable to go behind my back, but I suppose that he didn't intend to push getting the page deleted. Dave (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Dave: Removing someone else's comments is not a "minor" edit by any stretch. Please be more careful when you're fixing typos in your own comments. - J Greb (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
No customary conflict warning showed up, so the mobile apparently doesn't register in-between edits. Does this mean that I've given Cameron an opening to push that I've done that kind of pointless silliness deliberately now? Dave (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be unhelpful to the Hulk article to merge all this stuff back. The powers article could be cut down to about half the size of its current obesity, but it's a reasonable fork.

As for RPG/OHOTMU statistics, however, I don't think their use is supportable AT ALL, in any context, on Wikipedia. It's essentially the same argument that prevents us from using artwork from those sources, that is, because we would be competing with that product and reducing the value of its source, however slightly. The stats in RPG books are the product. They assess characters as having certain stats for purposes of playing the game. They are not encyclopedic references, and should not be used as such. Period. Ford MF (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. What was an issue was to use 1-3 sentences stating that the Hulk has had a maximum defined in an official source, state a few other characters to give a rough scale, and use nothing else whatsoever, while following the conduct described by the regulation of using conflicting 1st source references to contrast with. That's it. Dave (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I've now made an effort to create a better and more compressed internal structure, along with deleting a bunch or duplicate or redundant references. Help to beautify the language flow and structure is appreciated. I also still don't think it would hurt to write in the stated upper strength limit, but it's not all that important. I also wonder about the image policy. I thought each page was allowed 5 images maximum or similar? Are 3 in total (1 each for the main sections) too much now? Dave (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
About the image...
The policy points that generally affect comics articles are:
  • WP:NFCC#2 - (short form) Replication of original use. This is why there's the "no go" comments about using profile page art. The OHOTMU is/was sold as a reference guide, the image commissioned for it were made for the purpose of illustrating Marvel's reference product. We cannot reuse them for the same purpose.
  • WP:NFCC#3 - (short form) Limited number, limited use. This is where the normal "no more than 5-8 images" comes from. But it also addresses how the images are used, so that if there is already an image in the article illustrating a point, additional images doing the same cannot be added.
  • WP:NFCC#8 - {short form) A significant point and significant in helping the reader to understand the point.
These work hand in hand. So, yes, an article can have a "reasonable" limited number of non-free images. But those images must not be in conflict with NFCC#2, must not be redundant, and the must be a case where the lack of the image will significantly hinder a reader's understanding. For the Hulk P&A article, the only image that really meets/met these criteria is the one in the "Healing Factor" section. For the rest, the article text is sufficiently clear.
- J Greb (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok. They are not OHOTMU references, and do illustrate different mentioned instances, but I suppose that the last one is valid enough. The reader doesn't exactly need them to understand that Hulk punched Onslaught, or took a blast from the Silver Surfer. I'm removing them. Help to keep the page would be appreciated. Dave (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Fictional character biography

As I'm sure you've all noticed a robot has changed "Fictional character biography" to "Character's background" apparently based on WP:WAF. However, I can't seem to find the justification there. If this is something we need to do then we will need to change WP:CMC/X, although I can't see this being a better solution personally. (Emperor (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Tenebrea and I both left notes on the 'bot's handler's talk page.
Also of note:
  • The 'bot is creating links out of "fictional character" everywhere. So it's likely there are some article where thephraes is linked in 2 or more times.
  • It's been misspelling "background" in every one of its edits.
- J Greb (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

My bot is reverting the last edits. Check my page for relevant discussion. My sincere apologies. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of a different policy in this project. I still believe that "Character's background" is better because "biography" is connected with real world. Moreover, many editors outside the Wikiproject Comics are influenced and use the same term for fictional characters appearing in TV shows. My apologies again for my last edits. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt correction of this but can you direct me to the discussion you based this on? I checked the talk page archives at WP:WAF back a few months and didn't spot anything relevant. It is, obviously, a discussion some of us would have liked to have input into to make sure we get a decision that works across the various affected areas. (Emperor (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC))
Check Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)/Archive 9. Bignole, DGG are commenting that the use of word "biography" is misleading. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
A couple of people's comments aren't sufficient grounds for rampant robo-editing without first finding out if greater consensus already exists. Doczilla STOMP! 10:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I know that. I had no intent to skip the consensus and I am sorry for the upset I caused. Read above. I corrected my yesterday' s mistake immediately. Now the discussion is not about the edits but if the use of "Fictional character biography" is appropriate or not". -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Having this same discussion repeatedly is wearisome. It must say "fictional" because that's a necessary compromise until people figure out how best to deal with the in-universe language that's in thousands of comic character articles. It's says "biography" because it's about one fictional life. The fictional character has real world background. The fictional chracter does not have a real world biography. The word "history" is likely to get used instead of "biography" when the article is about more than one character. It's not a single storyline. In fact, a lot of the character's bio may never have been a storyline at all.Doczilla STOMP! 10:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"Character's background" doesn't have the right connotation; it implies a backstory or origin as opposed to the sum total of events that has been portrayed in the stories. Can we get a third idea? WesleyDodds (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right. "Character's background" is more like "Early life". In Tv series we also use "Storylines" or something like that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Plenty of detail in a character bio was never a storyline at all. Doczilla STOMP! 10:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(I am just writing down my thoughts) ..and then we arrive to the common problem: How do we present the appearances of a fictional character in a comic book or in a TV show? A "background" section can give some general lines about the character. But then? Rearranging the order of the stories in order to construct a "biography" is described in WP:FICTION as thing to avoid. The only possibility is to write down the things with chronological order as they appeared in media. In any case, no "biography" can be formed by different sources and put in in-universe chronological order because this will give an in-universe point of view. I think, but I may be wrong that, "fictional character biography" forces in this in-universe rearrangement of information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You're now getting into the greater problem of how the comic book character articles are written, and you're right about some of these problems. This is a bigger issue than the FCB heading, and nobody can figure out a good fix. The majority of these articles are ridiculously in-universe, but people simply are going to compile fictional bios. The heading is a way to stress that it's fiction until we come up with a way to fix the way thousands of comic book character articles are written. Doczilla STOMP! 19:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to note that while the primary sources often use the word "biography" (among others), I'm not sure I've ever seen one use "background". (Though I'd welcome some sources showing this : ) - jc37 13:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
What jc said. Doczilla STOMP! 19:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Fictional, in-universe 'biography' constitutes a large part of what a significant number of people use these articles for. If not the outright majority, then close to it. So while it is certainly a problem if a whole article is in-universe, it would be doing a large number of pages a significant disservice if the "fictional biography" were not in place. Continuity causes massive headaches. Rearranging storylines causes confusion, controversy and problems. Retroactive history, flashbacks, fill-ins, and so forth also prevent difficulties, but it should be noted that in addition to Doczilla's point that editors are going to create such sections, many readers are also looking for such sections. (Which doesn't justify them per se, but is, I assume, a relevant factor.) ntnon (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
why do we even have those separate "fictional bios"? Captain Marvel is given as an example of an excellent article and that does not have a fictional character bio. The relevant detail is woven into the prose as needed and against the historical context set in the article. Isn't that the standard we should be going for? not just shuffling the chairs - which is what this rename amounts to? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Change the sections to "publication history", if their isn't one already. Then people will start adding out of universe info. A section titled "fictional character biography" is going to inevitably lead to an in universe biography that takes retcons as true and ignores publication order. If there is already a pub hist section, then a bot may not be able to handle it. Or a new merge tag could be added saying please merge FCB and PH. = Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Interesting you should ask - it came up tangentially in a discussion I was having so I have given this a bit of thought. It comes down the simple fact that no one is going to drop in an FA-A-GA class article, so we have to take things in stages.
  • WP:CMC/X shows how to lay out a character article and if people go with that layout and fill the sections out and make sure it is properly referenced (as well as including supporting material - which is the easy bit) then you can get an article up to B-class. This doesn't necessarily mean it is a great article but should be pretty useful and doesn't contain original research.
  • Character articles at B or pushing higher will start to accumulate information about character development in the publication history, not just, they appeared in this, then that, etc. so this section starts getting fleshed out (the FCB should be complete at this point). In other media and other versions will also probably have been split off by now as most popular and/or long-lasting characters will have cropped up in various places (if not then these sections are pretty small and not a problem). so it is the PH which starts expanding - you can see an example of a longer PH at Galactus, for example.
  • As an article progresses on from B it seems that in most cases the PH swallows the FCB, this is partly because there is a limit to the amount of plot you can cover for major characters (and you will probably find the most notable storylines and series have their own well-developed articles). This is a bit of a tricky stage but basically when an article is moving on to GA status it needs a heavy rewrite and the change over will happen somewhere around this time. Examples include: Captain Marvel (DC Comics), Superman, Wonder Woman, Hulk (comics), Batgirl, etc. although there are exceptions, like Batman but even there it is clear the "fictional character history" is completely out-of-universe and would make better sense being called "Character development" (the same argument might also be made from Batwoman, Barbara Gordon, Storm (Marvel Comics) and Lex Luthor - what is clear is that the PH has usually expanded with the FCB contracting and being pitched in a more out-of-universe tone). Again this isn't a rule but seems to be the way a lot of articles evolve - for others that don't follow that pattern see: Silver Surfer and Spider-Man, so it might be unwise to say there is only one way to do things.
So an FCB is a necessary evil in the early stages of an article but when it moves on from a B-class it'll need to expand the PH and start reworking the FCB into a more out-of-universe form which result in it either being absorbed into the PH, split between the PH and "Power and abilities" or turning into a character development section. On a practical front it is easier for editors to write in-universe plot as that is how it is given on the page. This means that we get the necessary material to work with just not in the right "tone" but a couple of skilled editors can hammer this into shape as an article approaches or passes the B-class assessment with an eye to an FA. Obviously, editors could try and take an article in hand from the outset which is what I've seen a number of us suggest: keep the plot of an ongoing story hammered right down as it is ongoing and we don't really know what is important. The beauty of that is that it makes it easier to hammer into shape, although it is difficult as people really do love retelling the plot (with an in progress story, usually at great length). It is something we might want to look at with newer characters - trying to get people to focus on the PH as well as the character development angle and make sure the FCB is phrased in an out-of-universe manner (where possible) so the article will develop in the right direction so that it easy to upgrade as it pushes on to higher quality levels. This isn't going to be easy but neither is taking a B-class article by the scruff of the neck and hammering it into better shape, as Hiding can tell us after his reworking of Psylocke.
So I don't see any way of stopping people from writing plot in the early stages of the article but I think there are steps we can take to make the transition somewhere around B-class less painful:
  • Focus on the PH, including character development and other out-of-universe aspects - there are almost always interviews with creators of American comic books somewhere and these can be very useful in these areas.
  • Try and keep the FCB from being 100% in-universe which will encourage more people to do less of a plot regurgitation.
So yes I think we have to concede that we will have FCBs in Stub->B articles otherwise you'd spend your time policing the article hard and engaging in running debates about this but there are ways to keep the article on track with an eye to higher quality classes.
Or at least that is my (admittedly rambling) take on things. (Emperor (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

Wally West

Anyone want to have a go at helping me rewrite the Wally West article - it's a complete mess and needs lots of work to bring it upto community standards. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left my thought here. The first step, and I think you can be bold with this is to split off the "in other media" section. The bit that will take the longest is to add a PH and expand it with information on character development - of which there is very little that is out-of-universe). (Emperor (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

Comics creators by state

I stumbled across this today: Category:Comics creators from Pittsburgh but see it has been up for deletion and the result was no consensus although the discussion [20] was possibly too broad. Are there any others like this out there? Do we want such categories and if so we need a better structure for them than this. (Emperor (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

We don't. Please see CFD for the Pittsburgh category and its two parent categories. Postdlf (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Right. Voted. (Emperor (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC))
While we are here I noticed this popped up: Category:Comic book creators being added to comic writers an artists. Not only does it seem too general to be added to those articles we already have Category:Comics creators already which is, logically, the parent of the comics artists and comics writers categories. I may have missed something here though and will be chasing it up with the creators. (Emperor (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC))
If it's CFD fodder, let's deal with it in a separate nom so we don't muddy the issues with the overly local categories. Postdlf (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
It is a separate issue - I just mentioned it as I just spotted it. I have asked the creator about it and I'll see if they have a better idea of why it is needed. (Emperor (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC))

Batman templates being misused

Recently I noticed several of the templates just being placed on articles that don't need them. From the edit histories: it seems like TMC1982 is doing this on a regular basis. If anyone has time, look through Category:Batman templates and check what they link to. He's added them to anything loosely related to the subject. One example: Batman: Arkham Asylum, he added villain templates to it, just because they are in the game. Another: Penguins in popular culture: where the Penguin template was added, even though more than enough information about the villain is listed in the article already. Even though the templates have a hide feature, that doesn't mean they should be cluttering up every Batman (and in some cases: very loosely related) articles. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I brought this up before. I see at most a need for two templates: the main Batman one and the Batman in other media one. There's needs to be mass cleanup and deletions. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Also I want to point out: I left a note on TMC's talk page. He replied on my talk with just an attack. So talking with him about the matter doesn't seem to help. Also from the looks of his talk page: he has had numerous issues with comic related images he has uploaded. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
You did bring his up and the situation was pretty poor and it has clearly got worse as there have been a number of new ones dropped in all made by the same user:
I see no reason why the lot shouldn't be put up for deletion.
Note there is also {{Catwoman}} that was started by a different user back in March (seems to be the inspiration for the others) - I don't see any reason this shouldn't be included too.
We can then return to fixing the others with a merge and a trim but that lot needs addressing asap. (Emperor (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC))
But Catwoman needs a serious trim, and maybe a boot with the other. I mean come on, including bullwhip and claws??!? - J Greb (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, villian templates really not needed. Batman and Batman in other media is all that's needed IMO. As for that attack on your page Rob, I must say...how original. Anakinjmt (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

These templates are worthless, but I am too lazy to TFD them. The creator hasn't made much of a case for their utility. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

All the Bat-villain templates (save perhaps Catwoman - who's had her own title, among other things) should be deleted. They're essentially a list of appearances in "other media/works", including television, films, and rollercoasters. (And some trival inclusions, as noted above. Wow, I called something included, trivial. It must really be bad...) What here isn't already in each main article? And is there any reason that the reader will need each of the members of each navbox to cross-linked to each other? No and no. Strong Delete. - jc37 00:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone put the templates up for deletion yet? I would do it, but the last time I tried multiple related AfD noms at the same time I was quite confused. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be TfD not Afd... and I think they would have to be listed individually, not as a group. - J Greb (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I know, I was just pointing out that nominating things for deletion is kind of a chore. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, we can actually have that discussion here. Then, based on the consensus of this discussion, they can be kept, merged, deleted, etc., or even put through the additional process of TfD, at the closer's discretion.

I'll start a new thread below. - jc37 02:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this project's consensus is to delete, so let's just take the lot to TFD. There's nowhere to merge, anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with giving this a bit of time. - jc37 04:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Time until what? We don't need to vote on whether or not we should take this to another forum for discussion. This is an encyclopedia project, not an exercise in parliamentary procedure. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a "vote on whether or not we should take this to another forum for discussion". WikiProjects can hold consensual discussions on whether something should be deleted/moved/merged/whatever. (This is not uncommon.) Though, as I mentioned already, whoever closes the poll, may subsequently decide to list the templates at TfD based on the outcome of the poll. However, if you strongly feel that these should be listed there, I have no strong objection to you doing so. - jc37 07:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Except for the deleted part. None of these are tagged for deletion anywhere obvious. TFD is not ZOMG TEH ONLY WAY TO DELETE TEMPLATES, but the TFD process makes sure that we're not having discussions in non-obvious places. Just take these to TFD instead of strawpolling here, geez. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
AMiB has a very good point. And keep in mind what happend with the AfD for the Batman timeline. Same editor. He wasn't too keen on that, and I think he'll be less keen on what will look like a "backroom decision". - J Greb (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Repeating: "However, if you strongly feel that these should be listed there, I have no strong objection to you doing so." - jc37 06:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I think all belong in templates for deletion as soon as possible. I've had issues nominating multiple things before, so hopefully someone else can do it. It would be a lot better than just discussing it here. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note - all six (Joker has since been created) are up at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 2 - J Greb (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Supervillain navbox discussion

Resolved
 – See discussion above. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

For reasons noted in the discussion directly above, these templates should be deleted.

(On the fence concerning Template:Catwoman, which should probably be a separate discussion.) - jc37 02:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete all (including Catwoman), however, is this being listed as a TfD? If so we might as well wait for that and do it properly. Have the creators been informed this is happening here? Has it been flagged on those templates? (Emperor (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

Other templates

I ran across this today: {{NYX (comics)}} but don't know enough about the series to know if it is worthwhile. (Emperor (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

Another one: {{WildCATs}} it is skimpy and I'm unsure if it is needed (all those links are covered just fine in the main article). See my suggestion below about asking people to propose making templates before they start them. (Emperor (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
Also: {{Howling Commandos}}. (Emperor (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC))
Thinnest one yet: {{Warrior Nun Areala Info}}
Below I mention that it might be an idea for people to propose new templates but what would be the rule of thumb? Which of the above would make the cut? Do we have too many or not enough? (Emperor (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Assessments

Looking through our "best" articles, I have demoted two of our 5 A-Class articles (and am not really happy about at least one of the remaining three, Avengers (comics)), and two of our GA's as well. An article like Exiles (Marvel Comics) only has primary sources, not one reliable independent source, so shouldn't even meet the GA criteria. The other articles (Newshounds, The Amazing Spider-Man (comic book) and Comics Arts Conference) have similar though slightly less severe problems. I hope I haven't ruined any chances of getting into WP0.7 with this, but I do believe that we have to maintain better standards than this. A-class should mean that a slight push could get it to FA, like may be the case (at first glance) with Smallville, but which was definitely not so with the other ones. GA's should be clearly better than B-Class, which wasn't the case for the ones I changed either. Fram (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit baffled by how people are grading - Exiles is entirely in-universe - it's in no way a good article in regards to our grading critera. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll go through Exiles when you have finished with it and do a B-class assessment but it looks to only be a C - it is lacking references and has nothing out-of-universe material on character creation, development, etc. I'll have a look for more material on this but it will clearly take a while to get up to standard.
A general question: Articles that are A-class are supposed to be better than GA and so should have gone through a couple of stages of intensive review at the very least and all I can find for the Avengers is this which is clearly inadequate. I'll go through the article this evening and see how it hangs together but I can't see how it made it to GA and A. With Wikipedia 0.7 assessments I have been looking at the B-class articles (and 70 % of them aren't Bs) but it looks like the articles higher than this may be suspect too. If anyone sees any others drop them in here and I'll take a look at them later. (Emperor (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC))
Yep, we need to be tougher on anything higher than a C-class. If something is clearly outside the mark, it needs to be fixed or reassessed. If anything needs to be fixed on this page, have a look. Fortunately the three A's you kept were the same ones listed there. :) BOZ (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I know, but I would like some other people to assess Avengers (comics) as well. I would personally rate it B-Class, but it wasn't clear cut enough to move it away from A for me so additional input is welcome. The only independent source (apart from the GCD, which is good but not discussing the comic, only indexing it) is SuperHeroHype.com, the status of which as a reliable source is probably debatable, but which certainly is far removed from articles in mainstream press or books, which we would expect in GA's and so on. Storm (one of the other A-class articles) is of a much higher quality in my opinion. Fram (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll look at it now. (Emperor (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC))
I've looked over all three As on the list:
  • Storm (Marvel Comics) is a good A and has been through GA and shot for FA taking on-board the comments there and while it needs a polish (there are some issue numbers needed if someone could look over it). A good example too of how the PH expands and the FCB contracts as the articles are polished (see comments in another section here).
  • Smallville seems fine as it has gone through the GA and has a lot of interest from 2 different projects.
  • Avengers (comics) has no sign of it being through a GA assessment and the A one seems to be that they thought it was OK. It also fails the B class and will need some work to get it up to that standard and a lot of work before it can be put up for GA status. Nothing a few enthusiastic and knowledgeable editors couldn't do if they are prepared to dig out sources providing more out-of-universe material (as it has more than enough plot). Seems like on that really fell through the assessment cracks there. (Emperor (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC))
I've had a look at a few more articles Fictional history of Spider-Man is considered a B class - what a joke. The rating system is so broken it's completely meaningless. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It isn't the rating system per se - it is the assessment. We have recently introduced the C-class and a lot of articles that were far better than a Start were being assigned to B but in the light of the new class they are more likely Cs. Also people have been a bit slack over applying the assessment standards and we have moved to change that too- making the criteria clearer. What it does mean is that we have to go through the articles and make sure the class assessments have been done properly. (Emperor (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC))
I concur completely. I'm perfectly comfortable having a fat C-class and a thin B-class. Although the goal would be to take the C's to B's, the B's to GA's, etc. Cameron, a bit of advice. Thanks to Emperor, Hiding, myself, and others, most comics articles now have the B-class checklist on the talk page. Chances are good that any article which is marked as a B, *and* has all the items on the checklist marked, has been well-reviewed. (This doesn't make it perfect, merely better than most.) If an article is marked as a B, but has few or any items on the checklist marked, then chances are good that the article has not been properly reviewed. The Punisher, for example, was rated as a B but was not properly assessed using the checklist. BOZ (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll take a swing at the Punisher article in a bit. (Emperor (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC))
I have moved Avengers (comics) further down on the list. BOZ (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Supporting characters upmerge

If like me, the upmerging of the supporting character category has lit up your watchlist like a Christmas tree then it might be worth checking the changes. In the updated character infobox the category is generated internally so the change of category may be redundant - if it isn't the infobox needs updating which is the work of moments (just copy and paste in the new bits). (Emperor (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC))

The category is redundant for any character that has any other Marvel category, and I've already removed it from quite a few. 67.173.11.90 (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comics magazine categories

I propose to create a category for comics magazines of Franco-Belgian comics. There are many arguments to support this:

  1. There is a category for comic book publishing companies of each country, it would be logical to do the same for comics magazines.
  2. Titles published by comics magazines are not always the same as the titles published by the publishing house that owns the magazines. Dupuis titles are roughly the same as Spirou titles, but there are a lot of magazines, and very few are in the same case: Dupuis is almost a unique case. The distinction between publishers and magazines is relevant.
  3. À Suivre, Le Petit Vingtième, Spirou (magazine), Tintin (magazine) are in the Franco-Belgian comics category but this is this is not a right place to cite them, for the Franco-Belgian comics category must include articles directly linked to the subject, not titles of series nor magazines. They need a much more specific category.
  4. There are not categories directly linked to comics magazine, and none of the existing categories are relevant to include comics magazine. The only solution would be to create a category for these comics magazines. This new category would be very useful and convenient.
  5. We cannot contenting ourselves with including magazines in the category named after their publisher, because magazines can be mistaken for titles. For example, if we include Pilote in Category:Dargaud, people can think "Pilote" is the name of a comics series. To avoid this mistake, we must create a new category.
  6. Comics magazine has an essential role in the culture and the history of the Franco-Belgian comics, much more than with anglo-saxon comics. In French and Belgian culture, comics magazines are more important and more renowned than publishing houses.
  7. There is a distinction between graphic novels and comic strips (while there are very few French and Belgian comics strips and graphic novels). The distinction between comics magazines and comics publishers must be done as well.
  8. There is a category for graphic novels and comic strips, while this kind of comics is very rare in France and Belgium. A category dedicated to comics magazines would be much more useful and essential than those dedicated to graphic novels and comics strips. Pointless categories must be deleted, not useful categories.

This is why we should create a Category:French comics magazines and Category:Belgian comics magazines or something like that, and to include them in Category:Belgian comics and Category:French comics. --Pah777 (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I left a few comments on Pah777's page when they raise this: here. I don't think it is impossible to create a French comics magazine article but as comics magazine means different things to different people (and we recently changed the category to Category:Magazines about comics which was a better description for the majority of articles in the category, which otherwise was a real mixed bag) and so we'd need to be 100% sure of the name. Hence why it is being raised here.
Also the above touches on one issue that has been kicking around for a bit: what to call stories published in anthologies as, strictly speaking, it is the anthology which is the title. Personally I'd be fine with calling them "stories" (and we have been discussing an infobox which covers such things which don't comfortably fit with the comic titles) - they are sometimes called comic strips but there is too much potential confusion with comic strips which are a distinct format. (Emperor (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

Changes to Cite comic

I have proposed adding optional parameters url and accessdate to {{Cite comic}}, as well as fixing a few spacing and punctuation errors. You may read a summary of changes at Template talk:Cite comic#URL and accessdate. Please review the differences at Template:Cite comic/testcases and let me know if there are any problems with the proposed new version. Thanks, Pagrashtak 21:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_October_16#Category:Antiheroes

FYI. Postdlf (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Comic creator PRODs

Looks like there have been a number of PROD added to comic creators like Alex Sinclair and Pat Olliffe. Looking at the PRODers talk page they believe any BLP without a source should be deleted forthwith. While a little on the extreme end of things it is pretty poor when there is nothing at all on the article. Most of them PRODs have been reverted but that doesn't fix the problem (and they are saying on the reverters that they'll just AfD the lot). If anyone sees this happen then the best thing to do would be to add some kind of link - I give instructions on how to use {{gcdb}} on the talk page and it couldn't be easier. I'll sort out the ones I've seen but keep an eye out for others and try and address the problem as the means is fairly straightforward. (Emperor (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

There is quite a list here, I got the ones on my watchlist and others I spotted like Doug Mahnke (as I was surprised at him not having a better article) but there are plenty more that need something. I also do wonder why someone would bother starting an article that is one small sentence. (Emperor (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

Resources list

This came up a while back when someone showed a list of resources for the music project and the tables included people who had them. This would be pretty useful here and if we were working on improving an article we could always find the right person to ask. Every now and again something crops up which reminds me this would be a good idea and so I thought I'd get the ball rolling now (rather than have this crop again a few months down the line and I kick myself for not bringing this up again).

Basically you'd break the page up into headers like General, DC, Marvel, British comics, Franco-Belgian comics, etc.

Thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC))

Sounds a good idea - why not just create it and see if we can make it work? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I probably will do, but I won't have the time until this evening so I thought I'd float the idea while it was on my mind and see how things go (this way I won't forget again until it rears its head again). Also someone might have a better idea. (Emperor (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC))
Question 1 - I can't (be bothered to look hard enough to) find the music list, so do you have a link handy for me to peruse, please..? :o)
Question 2 - Might it be a good idea on the magazine front to just hammer out a long list of titles, and see if anyone admits to having some/most/few, or would it be best to ask individuals to upload their own lists...? Something to mull, I suspect. ntnon (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
1: I knew someone would ask - I don't have the link and there are so many sub Projects in Music it is difficult finding it (I have looked) but perhaps someone familiar with things over there can point it out. However, it was really just a few tables with title, topic, ISBN, notes and a list of Project members with it.
2: I'd say create a separate section for magazines and then where people add their name they can also add the issues they have. They should feel perfectly welcome to list the magazines in their own space and link to it. If people wanted to have a table breaking each magazine down by issue (which might be useful then I suspect a different page would be required. (Emperor (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

This is probably what Emperor is talking about: Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music/Sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed - so how does this suit everyone? Anything they'd want to include? (Emperor (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC))

Batman: Anarky

With the upcoming return of Anarky to DC publications, I am currently nominating Batman: Anarky for GA status. As there are no Trade paperbacks currently listed as Good Articles, and the closest approximating this would be the GA rated article on the Transformers comic book, I had little in the way of a guide. If anyone more familiar with what a good article on a graphic novel or trade paperback collection needs, please consider contributing progressive edits to secure the GA nomination.--Cast (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Although you might not find any trade paperbacks you might find some reasonably good quality storylines which have been collected into a trade paperback (although I am unsure if any have made it past a B without checking). (Emperor (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC))
Looking through various storyline articles, I'm finding that the vast majority are not yet graded at B-class, and those few that are use a format which would not be suitable for an trade paperback anthology collection. Still, I'll continue to look through a few, on the off-hand chance that I might gain something from them. As there are other books of this nature, perhaps there should be style guide for these collections. --Cast (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Quite possibly but such things can also be based on precedent so you are also breaking new ground here.
My main thought is that there is no need for two sets of footnotes - footnotes can contain references as well as clarifications on points in the text. There are cases where they can come in useful (and I've noted one for future use) but this doesn't seem to be one of them. (Emperor (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

Watchmen is an FA (yes, it started as a miniseries, but it'll give you a basic idea of what to do). However keep in mind there will be far fewer sources available for this story, so it will be more condensed. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, this isn't a great guide due to the differences between the subjects, but thank you. I've looked over the article and learned what I could from it.--Cast (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

On another note, does anyone feel it would be possible to get this article nominated to FA status? I think that, given the absence of a section for reception – as this was a very minor release – it would be lucky to get through GA status. However, I'm seriously considering pushing the article Anarky (comic book) to FA status. Again, this is all a major push for the December 17th date on which Anarky is supposed to guest star in an issue of Robin. At that stage, a new audience will be introduced to the character, and I want all three articles to be as well produced as possible for that stage. If at all possible, I'd like the three of them to be a Featured Topic. This may be possible even if Batman: Anarky is only a good article, but I'd like to know if anyone thinks I should move on quickly to third article. Time is flying. --Cast (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Great news!

It really is! :) And you'd better hurry if you want to take part... BOZ (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hurry... :) BOZ (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to add any nominations, you've got about two hours left from now! :) BOZ (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Punisher

...has been massively rewritten; have a look! :) 67.173.11.90 (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do, my prose is pretty awful but I've fixed the in-universe problems. Also the personaility section needs a rewrite but I've had enough for the moment, so if someone wants to take a stab at that, make general clean-up.. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
And now Daredevil. 67.173.11.90 (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim Lee

Is there a reason why Jim Lee doesn't have an infobox picture...? ntnon (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well apart from the obvious answer ;) no one has flagged the need for an image on the talk page, which automatically generates a list of image requests in the category, which people can then match available images against. I've updated the talk page headers now so we'll see what happens. (Emperor (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

Issue citation tags removed

On numerous occasions now, User:Mr Jay89 has removed citation tags on multiple comics articles without providing a citation, and I am getting tired of reverting them. 67.173.11.90 (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Left a note on his talk page... - J Greb (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

X-Men Dimensions

A user has removed all mentions of these from the various X-Men articles. I had a quick Google and only found a discussion on CBR asking for sources for the books mentioned on here.

Was this all just a big fat con? (Emperor (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC))

Not finding on Amazon... definitely a case of "more info needed"... like an ISBN. - J Greb (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks very odd. Never heard of them, MileHigh appears not to have heard of them, and the only close approximation I can easily locate is the "Next Dimension" videogame. Seems like a con, certainly. ntnon (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Are these the same things that I added a bunch of unanswered cite tags for? :) 67.173.11.90 (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed and I see another user (DylanWirta) tried removing them too. Something odd has been going on - not sure if it is a meta-fictional thing, a subtle hoax (not so in your face as all the porn fan fiction that was inserted, excuse the pun) or something else. As some of the text referred to interviews with the author, etc. I have to assume it isn't someone jumping the gun for something that is still in the pipeline. Odd. (Emperor (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

removal of image

Please visit Ramba (comics) and weigh in. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've warned User:222.154.160.14 not to violate WP:3RR; the IP should be temporarily blocked if they revert again rather than discussing the issue on the article's talk page. Beyond that, my only comment is that a full page of comic art is probably not called for in any circumstance. Postdlf (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Amalgam Categorization

jc37 and I have been having a conversation (see User_talk:Nutiketaiel#Legion_of_Galactic_Guardians_2099) and would like some input. Essentially, jc37 removed the Legion cat from the Legion of Galactic Guardians 2099 article, citing a prior consensus regarding Amalgam comics article categorization. We are trying to determine

  1. Does identifying the component DC and Marvel characters/concepts that make up an amalgam character/concept constitute Original Research?
  2. If is is established that the Legion of Super-Heroes is one of the component parts of the Legion of Galactic Guardians (either because the answer to question 1 is "no," or it is "yes" and there is adequate citation to establish this fact), would it be appropriate to add the article to the Legion cat as an alternate version of the team, or would it be included only as a note in the Legion article?

Any thoughts? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The long and the short of it?
Pointing to the components of the Amalgam characters, and this includes the teams, is problematic. Very, very few of them actually had an in story recounting of which Marvel and DC characters were amalgamated. And the only sources that exist for the rest are fansite speculations, which are considered unreliable. That just leaves either not including the components or making the statement "It appears that X and Y were used as the basis for Z." Since option 2 is presenting a drawn conclusion, which is OR, it's a no-go.
As for the categories, two general things: First, the "alternate versions" and "pastiches" shouldn't be included. Second, a category shouldn't be added if it isn't supported by the contents of the article. So, putting aside the "alt" situation, since the article isn't going to make mention of the Legion or the Guardians of the Galaxy without a reliable source, there is nothing to support catting the article to the Legion. - J Greb (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess that makes sense. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Confused

Does anyone else see interwiki cats redlinked at the top of the page?

And further, anyone have any idea why that is? - jc37 04:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I don't see them. You're obviously hallucinating. Doczilla STOMP! 04:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, they're present when I look at the September 3 version of the page, but not in the current version. Doczilla STOMP! 04:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
See the technical WP:VP. Apparently there is an issue... - jc37 05:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Watchmen passes Featured Article Review

I just wanted to notify every that Watchmen has passed the Featured Article Review process, and has been kept as a Featured Article. In the process the article has been completely rewritten. For those looking for a model for comics miniseries and graphic novel articles, the current version of the Watchmen article is your template to work from. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. :) BOZ (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessments still needed

OK, the deadline for 0.7 nominations has come and gone (although I believe it's not too late to get auto-nominated articles removed) but the Editorial Team still has some time to work before the 0.7 release is complete. I've been maintaining the list of articles bot-selected for the project (keeping in mind that Willy Vandersteen and Silver Age of Comic Books were also manually nominated and accepted).

There are still a number of articles that have been rated as B-class but have not been reviewed for that class. If you have the time to devote to helping whittle down that list (or have gotten to any of these without noting it), please lend a hand and have a look at them: DC Comics, Justice League, Popeye, Superhero, Donald Duck, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Joker (comics), Mad (magazine), Two-Face, The Smurfs, Robin (comics), Catwoman, Marvel Universe, Punisher, William Hogarth, Sin City (film), Penguin (comics), Mr. Freeze, Lois Lane, Snoopy, Kryptonite, Lucky Luke, Gotham City, Kevin Smith, Superman Returns, Batman: The Animated Series, Ghost Rider (comics), DC Universe, David Lynch, Riddler, Jimmy Olsen, Dr. Seuss, Ultimate Marvel, Maus, Cerebus the Aardvark, Poison Ivy (comics), EC Comics, Rogue (comics), Comic-Con International, Speech balloon, Civil War (comics), Hugo Pratt, Comics Code Authority, Jason Todd, Spirit (comics), Bane (comics), Batmobile, Dick Grayson, Batman (TV series), From Hell, Tarzan, Perry White, Teen Titans, Ms. Marvel, Clayface, Uncle Ben, Winsor McCay, The Ren and Stimpy Show, Onslaught (comics), King Features Syndicate, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Harry Osborn, Atom (comics), Krypton (comics), Bizarro, Metropolis (comics), Franklin Richards, Brainiac (comics), Teen Titans (TV series), Bionicle, Superman III, Lana Lang, James Gordon (comics), Clark Kent, Beavis and Butt-head, Kitty Pryde, Carnage (comics), S.H.I.E.L.D., X-Men (TV series), Daredevil (film), and Spider-Man (1994 TV series). BOZ (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've one a few (and hopefully crossed out the right ones) and will try and do the Batman/Superman supporting characters over the weekend. Nothing amazing stood out - they all need work to get to a B (mainly more references - this is pretty obvious as number already had the {{refimprove}} tags on them and a few were flagged as original research). The main problems seem to be the parodies/homage section on the JLA and "Personality" section on Punisher (both are going to cause any article problems without a lot of work and vigilance). Onslaught (comics) is odd - there isn't a fine line between trimming the fat and gutting something and that article is well into the gutted zone, I can't even justify a C and really it does nothing to demonstrate why it is of a high importance (it obviously needed work but a sharp carving knife seemed like the preferred metaphorical implement - not a chainsaw, and some hand grenades). (Emperor (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC))
What personality section on the punisher? :-) - I integrated the only sourced comment and ditched the rest as original research. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again, Emperor! I was actually checking out your reviews just now. :) I'm going to update the list... dump those out into the "C" column so the "B needing review" stands out better. Thanks again for all your hard work! BOZ (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You can add Homestar Runner to that list, which was recently downgraded from a GA to an unassessed B. BOZ (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

List of comics that were never published

This page either needs a lot of work or deleting.

Work:

  • Many, many more citations, or CNs at least.
  • Reordering. By Publisher then by date (it was meant to be publishered) seems the most obvious, but there may be other orders.
  • I also notice that includes comics that were published but pulped or withdrawn... new section or new page possibly.

Deletion (Reasons):

  • Not enough citations.
  • Possibility to get out of control. Do we list every thought a writer had for future issues? Writers are replaced, change their mind, editors reject stories, etc, etc. Ideas are submitted but never get past that. Ideas change do we list a series that was planned as 6 issues by ended up being 3 double sized issues, etc. There are many, many titles cancelled with issues planned.

I lean towards deletion, but I'd prefer input before starting the process. Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you give us a couple of days - I am proposing that items should only be included that *if* they were printed and/or there is evidence that the comic was finished and ready to printed but pull before release. This would eliminate the "joe Blow had an idea and...". --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Take all the time that you need... unless anyone else has objections Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Galactus

I've cleaned up this article to remove the in-universe perspective. Some further eyes and clean-up would be very nice... --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Great job. Here are some refs you might want to incorporate.[21][22][23] Google books has more too. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
good find, I'm hitting the sack for the evening so if nobody gets to it first, I'll add them in the morning. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Right those are added (along with a couple of other sources). We really need someone to write the lead, if someone could take a stab that would be great. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Cite thingy

What is the proper wiki-code for citing comics? I want to update all the references in the Ultron article to have the titles of the comics, the authors, the artists etc rather than just the issue number. It's not one of the pre-defined ones in the cite button, so a pointer would be useful. Many thanks --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Cite comic}} should cover 'em... - J Greb (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Comics creators/comic book creators

I mentioned a while back that an editor had created Category:Comic book creators and was adding various people to it despite the fact that we have Category:Comics creators and people should only be added to this if it unclear whether they are an artist or writer until it can be sorted out - otherwise move it down to the more specific country/area category. I have asked the editor twice now on their talk page but got no reply.

Now I see the result of the CfD related to indie comics has resulted in the "Indie comics creators" being changed to Category:Comics creators. So we now have some weird categorisation: Alan Moore is in both Category:Comics creators and Category:Comic book creators, when Category:English comics writers is surely the only one we really need.

So, although I am loath to remove the Comic book creators category without finding out what the thinking was behind it, I will be trying to tidy some of the "mess" up (as you can't sit around waiting for some to reply to you forever). I did think it worth throwing this issue open because, while it seems obvious to me, it may be I am missing something. (Emperor (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)_

I think that other than categories directly related to the "comic book format" (such as Category:Comic book limited series), there is pretty much a general consensus that all the "comic book" cats be renamed/merged to "comics". - jc37 16:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems that the solution is to merge "comic book creators" into "comics creators," which should in turn be limited only to placing articles in subcategories thereof rather than containing articles directly. Postdlf (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Thing is that articles have only just been added to Category:Comic book creators and they were all already properly categorised (as they are all higher profile comic creators) I don't see one that would be uncategorised if the categories were removed (it should only be used when all else fails - which usually means something is wrong with the article if it can't explain what they do). (Emperor (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

In a similar vein, I proposed awhile back on the Category:Underground cartoonists talk page that we should split or rename that category to something like "Alternative cartoonists" since most of the creators in that category are not "true" underground cartoonists. Again, no reply to my suggestion.... Stoshmaster (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Like the recent indie comics creators category that got upmerged I am unsure how we come up with criteria for including people in underground/alternative cartoonists (it is another "know it when I see it" categories) and, at best, should probably be a list. That said it may be there are solid references for this that we can use but otherwise I am unsure about it whatever the name. (Emperor (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

I've nominated the category for merging at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 29. - jc37 10:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Batman R.I.P.

I still think there's too much plot on that page... unfortunately, as I'm not reading it I don't feel comfortable editting it. Anyone want a go? Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

From experience, I feel it's really unwise to have plot summaries of storylines when they are ongoing. Focus on the out-of-universe info. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, there seems to be an element of "This might be important so we'd better add it" in there... Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed as discussed with other ongoing titles, people seem to throw in everything in case it is important later on with the idea that it can all be trimmed back when things are clearer. Unfortunately ongoing titles get all the attention and people move on and never get around to trimming back the plot. It is better to focus on out-of-universe material as you can always return to the plot when you have a better overview of the story. Batman RIP is now almost over and so it probably isn't a big issue but is something worth bearing in mind for future articles like this. (Emperor (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC))
Mutant Zero is another article to watch - that's going to need to be merged somewhere (and I'm guessing Typhoid Mary ;-) ) once the character's identity is revealed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
There is quite a deal of speculation cropping up over a number of characters. It looks like the current Red Queen will turn out to be Madelyne Pryor#25th Year Since Debut but the article has often gone beyond the information laid out in the comic (and there may still be a twist or two there - who knows (the Red Queen could turn out to be an alternate Jean Grey, as she was Red Queen before pretending to be Pryor, or vice versa or neither). (Emperor (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC))
Worth noting that I've already removed speculation that Pryor had returned as Mutant Zero from the article Talk:Madelyne Pryor#Mutant Zero, so there is a lot of speculation around and none of it supported by fact. (Emperor (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

Doctor Druid

I've never heard about this character before today so is he a superhero, supervillain, or both? The article doesn't quite clarify this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe he's a hero. An over all "good guy", but a character that was always written as being a very reluctant superhero. He had the potential to be the Ancient One's successor but it was never really what he wanted. He didn't really want to be a hero or superhuman adventurer, he mostly just wanted to "find himself" I guess is the best way to put it. If I'm not mistaken, he was pressured by Strange into leading a Defenders team until he faked his own death to get out of it, since he didn't really wanna do it to begin with. From a "realistic" perspective, Doctor Druid is probably a somewhat more realistic, hence flawed, version of Doctor Strange.Odin's Beard (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Monster-hunter prior to Marvel's focus on superheroes post FF#1; repurposed as a superhero afterwards, such as through membership (and leadership?) of the Avengers. I think there were multiple plot points about him being manipulated to act as a supervillain. Because he pre-dated FF#1 but was incorporated into the Marvel Universe afterwards, I've seen sources describe him as the earliest Marvel Silver Age superhero based on publication date. Postdlf (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I see. Then should he be categorized as a superhero and antihero? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
If you'll examine the edit history for List of fictional anti-heroes, you'll see that the word anti-hero is controversial. It invokes POV. I wouldn't use the word unless the source material itself used the word. Doczilla STOMP! 07:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not really sure where the confusion is coming from - the lead says he was Marvel's first Silver Age superhero, the article describes his monster hunting and superhero "career" and his is categorised as a Marvel Comics superhero/supervillain. I don't think he has ever been what we'd call an antihero. If anyone can point out what is problematic we can try and address it. (Emperor (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC))

The only problematic thing appears to be that he is in Category:Marvel Comics supervillains. Would it be alright to remove it until a source is found? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Its there in there article and explained above by Postdlf - he becomes a supervillain for a short time but only because he was under mind control. It is enough to qualify him strictly speaking but it does make me wonder if we need to have a stricter definition, but then again would that be subjective? Nearly every superhero must have had a turn as a bad guy so should they be a supervillain of their own volition? But then you get the Nature vs Nurture issue. (Emperor (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC))
I still think it should be removed. We don't want people to get the wrong idea. Actually, is this guy's case the same as Sunfire's? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Not really no - Sunfire was made an offer to become one of the Four Horseman and accepted. (Emperor (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC))
Quietly mentions that perhaps this could be a reason to not categorise by "superhero" or "supervillain" at all, since that "status" may change at times, leading to potential confusions such as the one above... - jc37 08:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is really a problem. As mentioned to Sesshomaru on our talk pages and a point I raised above, we should be able to come up with criteria for inclusion> I'd suggest a baseline of "A character has made the choice to be a hero or villain freely and not due to coercion (mind control, threatening of loved ones, drugged rampage, etc.)" but leave the final choice to talk page consensus as you can never hope to cover all the angles but this would help address most of the confusion (and is pretty much commonsense) - so Doctor Druid wouldn't count. (Emperor (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC))
I think we can pretty much agree on that. Emperor, would you mind adding descriptions to those categories so I can take off that one from Doctor Druid? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Star Wars comic books

In doing the above "List of ... publications" page for Dark Horse (and I guess this applies to Marvel pages as well) I came across this page.

Basically for what I need it to do (List information on various titles), it's useless. Now, the page doesn't have to be useful for me or the List of Dark Horse publications page, but I'm wondering if anyone would care to look at it not from that POV, and see if it works as a page itself. There was some discussion a year ago Talk:List of Star Wars comic books#Chronology on the Titles vs Chronology issue and I think that it's possible that this could be a ComicsProject vs StarWarsProject thing, each needing it to do different things for them. But if you get a chance take a look and see what you think. Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a broader problem because we have tended to let projects run such articles because there are often a lot of them and they are enthusiastic. What it can lead to is a big mess.
What is interesting are the examples thrown in at the end of the discussion there::
The former has been moved to Star Trek comic books and isn't a list (my only quibble is that it should be at Star Trek (comics) and the Transformers article isn't a list either (it should be at Transformers (comics)). What we really need is Star Wars (comics) which pretty much does what those articles do (and others on similar media spin-offs) - break it down by real world publication and give the general details and link on to relevant sub-articles. I am sure the list is useful to the fans but it is of zero use to anyone actually interested in out-of-universe material and really wouldn't be worth rewriting. I say start a completely new article Star Wars (comics) and then break it down into the major titles.
Even if they are run by enthusiasts of the series they obviously have to conform to the conventions laid out by the specific project that oversees the relevant media (films, novels, comics, cartoons, etc.).
Another one I have felt is problematic is Buffyverse comics, they have a new article on each trade paperback, and each one-shot, etc. and if you check them out (listed at Buffy the Vampire Slayer comics, which should be Buffy the Vampire Slayer (comics)) you'll find the trades listed in chronological order and the majority are thin - an infobox and sentence or two of plot, some discussion of how it fits with the chronology and if it is canon (pretty much nothing that isn't covered in the table on the main page. Basically failing WP:N and WP:FICT but also WP:WAF). (Emperor (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC))
I'm happy to support the changes you're talking about above and when I get time help you make them (or make them myself if you don't have time) but as you're probably aware, I'm busy on another page ATM. Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I've done some minor changes to some of the sub-pages of the Transformers and Star Trek articles to bring them in line with WP:NCC and will look into moving the two main articles tomorrow. I'll keep an eye out for the start of the Star Wars (comics) article and chip in what I can - I assume if we give it shape and structure the fans will fill in the details. (Emperor (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

I don't see the point in having an article titled "Star Wars (comics)" since the series aren't necessarily adaptions, and in fact supplement the larger franchise. They're a component of the franchise detailed at Star Wars. Not to mention there's only one comic series named Star Wars (the Marvel one) out of so many other projects that have been published. Why not "Star Wars comics series" or "Star Wars in comic books?" WesleyDodds (talk) 06:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, first off, while Marvel did have a comic called Star Wars, I'm pretty sure that Dark Horse did too (a series than became Star Wars: Republic somewhere in the 40s.
Secondly, if we look at Conan (comics) it's about the expanded universe and adaptation comics set about and around Conan, a similar situation to the one we're proposing for Star Wars. The similarity doesn't end there - Marvel & Dark Horse both had a comic called Star Wars and one called Conan. Of course, if there's a problem with that naming scheme we can discuss it. Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think it's the best approach, because words are put in parentheses for disambiguation purposes. These aren't different subjects; one is a subset of the other. A more desciptive title would be more helpful. Another suggestion: "Star Wars comic book adaptations". WesleyDodds (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Except that they aren't necessarily adaptations. Most of them are based on the Star Wars Universe. I don't see the problem with "Star Wars (comics)" because most franchises make sure the spin-offs are properly branded - as far as I can tell all of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer comics are "Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Something" making Buffy the Vampire Slayer (comics) the correct one and looking over it the majority of the Star Trek and Star Wars comics are named in a similar fashion - Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan: Last Stand on Ord Mantell is actually "Star Wars: Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan: Last Stand on Ord Mantell", Tales of the Jedi is actually "Star Wars: Tales of the Jedi", etc. (it is just like with X-Men: Manifest Destiny we just shorten it down to Manifest Destiny). So while I don't necessarily have a problem with "Star Wars comics" but "Star Wars (comics)" is valid. (Emperor (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

Suggested titles, pros and cons. (Please add new suggestions.)

All the problems Wesley lists. Duggy 1138 (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Very few of the comics are adaptations. Duggy 1138 (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
They are usually "based on" but I don't think we need overly complicated names when we don't have to. (Emperor (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC))
Doesn't cover one-shots. Duggy 1138 (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Sounds wrong to me. Duggy 1138 (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
A discussion of the topic, not a pure list. Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
You could always restructure the article to become a list. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's certainly a thought, restructuring pages that we want to be more than a list into merely a list. Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Where possible we should always aim for a full article as opposed to a list - I don't object to people listing the comics too but the thing List of Transformers comics isn't a list (and neither is List of Star Trek comics) and I'd rather not turn back the clock on them, as well as aiming for the various spin-off merchandise articles to be full articles where possible. (Emperor (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC))
We have been working to eliminate "comic books" from article and category names and I'd rather not go down this road. I could live with "Star Wars comics" but (as I argue above) I don't think this is needed as I argue above. (Emperor (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

Chris Cooper

Quick question: In Darkhold the writer is given as Chris Cooper and the article is at Christopher Cooper, but everywhere I found that mentioned his full name suggest it is "Christian Cooper" (more on talk page). A quick fix might be to move it to Chris Cooper (comics). (Emperor (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

Seems sensible. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Batman: Anarky

Just a notification to get the ball rolling here. Batman: Anarky is the first trade paperback to achieve GA status. FA articles, like the Watchmen article, can act as a model for on limited series or graphic novels, and The Transformers article can at as a model for ongoing series. Likewise, editors might consider Batman: Anarky for future articles on collections that are not themselves notable, but which carries work on a notable character, a miscellaneous set of notable stories, or on the work of a notable author, which then grants the collection notability by extension. --Cast (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

While I understand the general guideline that navboxes should only be placed on pages which are a part of the navbox, on the other hand, there are pages which would seem to be associated with the topic of the nabox, but aren't included in the navbox simply for space reasons (for example, we don't include every supporting character or villain or whatever).

As such, I think we should clarify that such pages should be allowed to have such navboxes at the bottom, as appropriate, in order to facilitate navigation (the purpose of the navboxes).

What does everyone else think? - jc37 04:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Not unreasonable - I suppose the concern underlying the guideline is that people could go and jam the navbox into every article they can think of. I would like some flexibility but introducing it could be opening a Pandora's Box of troubles. I'm not sure what criteria we could come up with to avoid abuse. (Emperor (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC))
I agree. I'm looking at this diff, which, according to the current guidelines, is an appropriate removal, but on the other hand, the article would seem to definitely be Spider-Man related.
And I think with a little collaboration we should be able to come up with some sort of guideline : ) - jc37 06:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The answer would be to add them to the navbox. (Emperor (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC))
Catch-22: All of the navboxes have been have been having problems with bloat from:
  1. Characters/things/topics that are not central to the topic (Quick examples: Rhino and Juggernaut on the Hulk template)
  2. Character of questionable notability (Quick examples: The "foes" section of the Batman template or the Spider-dopple)
These thins are routinely culled out of the 'boxes. Once they're gone, the 'box no longer really belongs on the article. Worse, if a template is added to an article, it can be used as justification for adding the article to the 'box.
And the cycle keeps repeating itself. - J Greb (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I understand the concern, I just am hesitant to hinder navigation for the reader due to foreseeable problems with edits by "enthusiastic" editors.
Perhaps if it's made clear that since we're allowing the boxes to be placed on pages which "would" be in the navbox, but aren't due to space reasons, that on the converse, those same pages still shouldn't be on the navbox, for those specific reasons? - jc37 07:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Dark Horse reprints.

We need a name for a list of comics published by Dark Horse but previously published by other companies. Emp suggested List of comics distributed by Dark Horse Comics, but we're sure there's probably a better name. Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A category should suffice. For example, music album article list the various record label as categories if the release was reissued on a different label. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, even a category needs a name. Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Publications reprinted by Dark Horse Comics, perhaps? WesleyDodds (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Or the clue is in the title: "Category:Dark Horse Comics reprints" and "List of Dark Horse Comics reprints." That covers manga/manhua they distributed (and translate) and older comic series from other companies that they collect/republish and makes the distinction with their own original titles. (Emperor (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC))
I'm not sure that any of those preclude the reprints of thier own material... I mean isn't Buffy The Vampire Slayer Season 8 Volume 1 a publication reprinted by Dark Horse? Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
we can never be so specific in titles as to cover all the angles which is why I suggested (on the list talk page) we would need a lead that specifies that trade paperbacks of their original series are listed on their specific pages. (Emperor (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

Character infobox images

We have good guidelines for character infobox images about them full body shots, straight on if possible, etc. but what about upside down? (Emperor (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

Suggest splitting that one into two articles: one for the comic series, and one for the character. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why - the character has only ever appeared in the title so the two are the same - we have merged back in eponymous titles with better cases for separate articles. (Emperor (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC))
Yes, it's not really helpful to create character articles for those who don't appear ourside of a single series. The Marvel nemesis characters for example have only appeared in six comics total and because of IPR issues are unlikely to be ever seen again, so it made no sense for them to have their own articles. Simon Dark might become notable and require his own article but I don't see the need yet. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


Depends on the circumstance Emperor... I could see it with "acrobatic" characters since it also gives a "flavor" of the character. But if the character is rotated out more than 90° and the pose doesn't fit the character, a new image closer to the ideal should be found.
And to repeat something I mentioned in regard to Darwin (comics) - pulling the character up to a "standing" position shouldn't be done by us rotating the image. A new image, one that depicts the character upright, should be found and uploaded with a complete FUR. - J Greb (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes - that. It is a bad picture and is more confusing than helpful - I'd suggest killing it rather than wait for a new one. (Emperor (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

Futurama Comics

I'm sure that the "let's list every issue" thing will annoy many of you, but even ignoring that... don't the "Plot Summaries" read more like "Company Solicitations"? Copying ad copy into Wikipedia isn't good, right? Can anyone confirm that is what is going on here? Duggy 1138 (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Its another runaway article being worked on by fans from another media with no eye to Comics Project guidelines - the listing of each issue clearly comes from the listing of each TV episode. It is the kind of thing that should be on some kind of specialist wiki.
There are various issues:
  • No issue by issue breakdowns unless there is some good reason I can't think of
  • No tables for plot summaries, following WP:WTUT (also The Boys (comics))
  • Clearly other problems with things like WP:WAF
Obviously if you think it is copy violation the Google it, as it should be removed asap. (Emperor (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC))
Just grabbed a copy of Previews I have lying around, and yes, the blurb for #39 is word for word the entry in the article. I'm going to assume that applies to all of them and remove the "plot summaries" Duggy 1138 (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We had a big discussion over at Template talk:Punisher and I don't mind toned down colours like that on {{Avengers}} (and {{Hulk}} makes sense as green) but I am still unsure about such footers like {{Iron Man}} and I found the real king of colouring with {{Doctor Strange}}.

As mentioned before I think we need some guidelines for these:

  • Propose a template before starting it - there seems to be a recent profusion of very thin templates as well as the Batman ones we deleted which were massively over-detailed as well as not being needed.
  • Keep the colours toned down and I'd prefer if the main text field was kept white, that is assuming there is a good reason for it beside someone thinks it looks nice (although with some examples I am unsure how anyone thought the colours were a good idea.

Thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC))

Agree with Emperor. We should err on the side of judiciousness and readability. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
In general I would prefer if we avoided overriding the defaults where at all possible unless at least one of the following two conditions are fulfilled:
  1. There is a clear, obvious and irrefutable colour key (such as in {{taxobox}});
  2. There is a solid precedent for a different kind of consistency, such as in the templates looked after by WP:MILHIST (which use a special template to override the project's templates consistently).
Emperor is right in that {{Doctor Strange}}'s current styling is an affront to God and man. The simple way to resolve this is to state on the project's guidelines that template colours are not something to be played with at will, and that a mere affinity with a certain colour scheme by the character or subject in question does not mean that their templates should reflect it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Short thoughts...
At a certain level I agree wtih Chris — the fundamental reason for color coding should serve a unifying prupose. And "It's Iron Man's colors" is a really loose interpritationa of that.
The only situations I can see as a unifying purpose are:
  • WikiProject Comics navboxes, but we'd have to be casefill with that bumping agains TV, Film, and Video Games.
  • Characters (1 color for all), Teams (same), creators (same). I don't think this is a good idea.
  • Hero, Villain, DC, Marvel , Dark Horse, etc. Again, I don'th think this is a good idea since we droped this formatting from the infoboxes.
  • Topics that run across multiple 'boxes, but again, we would be bumping into other projects.

And yup... the good Doctor's 'box hurts.

- J Greb (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the "tricking out" of the footers is becoming ridiculous. Keep them uniform-looking. There's really no good reason why the template should be color-coordinated with the character. And the Dr. Strange one . . . dear God . . . WesleyDodds (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hothead Paisan

Hi. The Hothead Paisan article was recently tagged as a candidate for speedy deletion on notability grounds, and it could definitely use a few more references. Would anyone here be interested in helping improve the article? I'd rather not see it wind up at AfD. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick thoughts:
  • You can't use the collected edition as a reference - if there is information you want to use from say the introduction then add that in as a footnote to support specific statements.
  • Start looking for better sources here. There seem to be three specific articles on it as well as other mentions in wider studies. It should be possible to craft a good "Reception" section from that.
Also look out for interviews (so you can get the creators' angle on things) and more reviews and you should be fine. It also looks like the comic created controversy when copies were seized (Bad Attitudes on Trail page 5) so you could dig out news reports on that. (Emperor (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC))
Thanks for the advice, Emperor. I don't have any experience sourcing the notability of comics, and I had no idea where to start. Your help is much appreciated. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Some of those articles will require some kind of academic access but if there is anything you need post here and the LBGT Project and someone should be able to find what you need. It may also be worth dropping the author a line seeing if they have a list of their press coverage. (Emperor (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC))
I have academic access - if people let me know about specific papers - I can check them out (if I have access to those particular journals). --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Future / Bottom

It appears that article talk pages rated as Future-class/Bottom-class end up in Category:Incorrectly assessed comics articles. Is this not the preferred importance class for articles regarding planned publications which have not yet been published? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't the importance it is the class (change the importance and it stays the same, change the class and it goes). I believe "class=future" is depreciated in favour of "future=yes" so you can also assign a class to the article. (Emperor (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC))
Aha! Thanks! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

http://uncannyxmen.net/

This site is used a lot as a sources - what do people make of it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a pretty comprehensive site on the topic but I don't think it offers much more than can't be gleaned from the original sources. So I'd recommend adding it as a link for further reading (which is pretty much how I've seen it used on most articles) but there may be some variability so if there are any questions about usage then it can be thrashed out on a case-by-case basis (I'd not want to rule everything in or out). (Emperor (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC))

Notability of Ain't It Cool News

I've been having a bit of trouble with the editors of the Ain't It Cool News, the page doesn't specify why the subject is notable, yet the editors keep saying that it's very influential and popular (not a justification of notability btw). I realize that the page isn't tagged with the Wikiproject banner, but I figured since it talks about a comics website, this would be a good place to ask for help. If this is notable, can someone help me find some reliable third-party sources, and if it isn't I'd like to have some support in starting a deletion discussion. Thanks! --Kraftlos (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that something being popular & influential would make it notable. I'm surprised they can't fine a large number of citations of the notability of the page considering the way filmmakers have sucked up to Harry Knowles to get good reviews on the page.Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Jeez, have you even tried? I've got 9 news results on Google News just recently. Multiple hits on search inside the book on Amazon. This can't be hard to source. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not a page I'm that interested in working on, so no, I haven't tried. I meant that I was surprised that the other contributors he talks about haven't tried.Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not particularly familiar with the subject, that's why I'm asking for help. The google search only seems to be bringing up references to this "fanboys" movie, only a couple of those hits appear to be reliable sources. And yes, I have tried. If I could have easily confirmed it's notability, I would have tagged the page in the first place. --Kraftlos (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
[24] has Belfast Telegraph, FOXNews, USAToday, New York Times, Denver Post, CNN, Christian Science Monitor, Miami Herald, Malaysia Star, Los Angeles Times, etc, etc... It's a site well known and often referenced by the news media. It's a site that's well known and feared by movie producers. It is notable. The real problem with the page is it isn't cited. Put citations needed on everything that needs citations and that should clear up the problem.Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

List of current comic publications.

I've come across the following pages:

By their nature, these pages need constant updating, and it doesn't seem most of them get it. A couple of them have orphaned page notes, clean-up warnings, etc.

I've also found these redirects:

Obviously similar pages, with similar problems. Every page is different, of course, but I think that a consistent attitude and style where possible should be used.

So what do with think? Delete? Merge into complete publication list? Merge into complete list with some sort of indication that they are ongoing? Keep as separate lists as they are? Merge into a single "Current Comics" list covering all companies?

Any other thoughts? Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have this vague recollection that the "current" publications lists were going to be merged into the "regular" publications lists. And merely have dates of publication noted. (Which, if in table format, allows the "current" publications to be noted.) - jc37 09:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like the way to go to me. As I say, those pages aren't getting the updates they need, making them, basically, useless. Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed - I brought this up a while back and the plan is to split off the titles lists to their own separate pages and merge in any "current" publication lists. As you say they are not getting the updates they need and I am unsure if an encyclopaedia is the place to be monitoring this kind of thing "live." My targets for splitting include Image Comics, IDW Publishing, Dark Horse Comics and Devil's Due Publishing. Unfortunately, there hasn't been much of a response to my split proposal at Image Comics so things slowed down a bit, but I'll take that to mean no one objects. Perhaps the simplest thing is to move the "current" lists removing the "current" and then drop the main articles lists in. If this seems like a generally good idea I'll just do the lot later. (Emperor (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC))
Previous discussion. (Emperor (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

Sounds good. As the person who started the tabulation of the List of DC Comics publications page, and one of the people who did a lot of work on it, I may be bias, but I think that the DC page and its table is a good example what we should be aiming for. Obviously each company has its own needs that and there will need to be differences in the tables (for example, I think on the Vertigo page there was an interest in listing the writers and maybe artists, something that would be pretty much pointless on the DCU page.) I do recall people thoughts on the DC tables previously, but nothing really came of it. So I suggest we look at it (and any alternatives) now as part of this process so we create/fix the new pages with the agreed upon format rather than have 5 separate discussions on 5 separate pages later. A couple of the ideas we developed on the DC page that I think need to be discussed:

  • Link only to articles about the actual comic, not to the character or team.
  • Where possible relying on the Indicia rather than the cover logo.

Any other thoughts? Duggy 1138 (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

OK thoughts:
  • For the smaller companies main writers and artists seem a good idea
  • I don't see the problem with linking to teams/characters when there isn't a series article (it is better than nothing and often with the smaller companies the series often equivalent to the characters/teams)
  • Indicia wins over everything
I think that is about it. (Emperor (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

Creators column

  • Even bigger ones where there isn't an ongoing series with regular changes. Vertigo, for example, a couple of titles (Swamp Thing, Hellraiser) might need "various" or a note, but mostly they can have a writer/artist. But as I say, it's probably a case of whatever works for each article. Although working out some guidelines first wouldn't be bad (Separate columns for each, guess artists listed?, teams mentioned in relation to issues) Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • For space reasons, I'm not a big fan of this. Most of the tables are tight as it is, adding another wide column will wind up further compressing things and creating taller rows. - J Greb (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I feel this is important, especially for companies that tend to do limited series. If there a lot a "Various" is fine. it is just I can see people nosing around for a title they vaguely know the name of that was written by a specific author and just having the title might not be the clinching factor in finding the one you are looking for. That said the creator's page should list the relevant titles they have worked on so if people are looking for something by author they'd start there (the problem is "should" doesn't mean they do - that said I may have argued myself out of supporting this). (Emperor (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC))
      • OK, my thinking at this point is we set the tables up without creator columns, unless the consensus here changes, and leave it to later editors on individual pages to change if they wish. Sound fair? Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
        • With regard to Emperor's point - I can see creators (writers and pencillers) list being relevant where the title is covered, just as a bibliography is a good idea in a bio. But in the over all "Title published by..." it can get messy fast. I'd prefer the default for those lists to not have the creators so that adding them becomes a case by case issue. - J Greb (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. If anyone wants to add them in we can kick the idea around (and they can sandbox it if need be). We might want to make sure the relevant information is listed on the creators article. (Emperor (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

Linking to Character

  • I mean I can see the case for linking every thing, and where like in smaller companies, or even in bigger ones, where a character appears only in a comic with his name on it, I can accept it if there isn't a comic article. But "often" isn't good enough a criteria and you get problems like Nightwing. Nightwing and Dick Grayson would be the obvious links, but neither is a really good one for the title, I'd accept Dick Grayson#Nightwing series, which is my point. Mindless linking Nightwing or Dick Grayson isn't helpful, having a guideline that says we need to link to the series (even if it is a section) will get past that. The other problem I've found is licensed properties. Usually there is no comic book article and even if there is people just make the lazy, obvious link and don't go looking. Star Wars vs say List of Star Wars comic books (not a good example, I know) Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The bottom line should be "Link to the article/section that deals with the title, period." Nightwing is a problem, but the general; logic would have a section on the comic at Nightwing covering the pub history for the 2 volumes and general plot overviews. For more detailed plot the reader would be directed to the FCB at Dick Grayson. - J Greb (talk) 10:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
      • That's great for Nightwing, but there are other characters, say Lobo who don't have a section. Should we create one, leave it unlinked or just like to the article about the character and leave it like that? Duggy 1138 (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Personal opinion - Yes, the article should have something reffing the self-titled series. Emperor's suggestion is a fair 1/2 measure. A "<Foo> (comic book)" redirecting to the character/team provides a place to start an article or a ready made pointer to a new section.
          And a side note... I'm not too thrilled about the potential for creating red links with this. It may be more work to back add the links if articles go up for the series, but we shouldn't be triggering "article needed" for minor series. - J Greb (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I think linking is better than not. What we might want to look into are creating redirect links (which themselves can be categorised) which makes it easier to target specific articles and when the actual article name isn't obvious like Star Wars then (as it isn't a bad idea to create a redirect following WP:NCC, e.g. Star Wars (comics). It may not be perfect in all cases but if it really falls down that indicates we have a bigger problem than just not being able to find the right link - it means there is missing information. If a licensed property has no section for spin-off media then it needs to be started (and I have done quite a bit of this) again then you can set up a redirect which points to the right section. (Emperor (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

Indicia vs Cover

  • Indicia is the way to go. There's too much variation and confusion on covers, plus the indicia is more official. We did institute a method of covering major differences: mostly in the "Note" Column, and with a format for "see ..." when the cover, but only in limited cases (See New Years Evil on the DC list) Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Subpages

  • On the DC list we separated out Imprints and things close to imprints (DC Focus, Tangent) but left anything that was main-company DC mixed in the the DC Universe. Marvel lists seem to split off Spider-man and X-Men stuff. This is obviously only an issue with the bigger pages, but which is a better system, or is a combination a good idea? Duggy 1138 (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Stuff that moves from company to company have been listed (Say Prize's Young Love moving to DC) on the two pages only listing the issues printed by that company. But what about the movement of an entire studio/line/imprint? Should there be a "List of Wildstorm publications at Image" and "List of Wildstorm... at DC" articles, separate sections, a column or note, or just mixed together? Duggy 1138 (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I was wondering about this as Image in particular has a lot of imprints and some have moved company (like Wildstorm). I think the best et is to have a separate section for things like "Top Cow publications" with an eye to either splitting it off or jumping a stage and splitting Top Cow Productions#Tiles off to "List of Top Cow publications." I still think List of Wildstorm titles is problematic on this front as it has some of the old sections but also jams everything together into a table. I also don't feel this is necessary: List of Wildstorm reprint collections and the collections are listed in the relevant articles and I don't see anyone really checking out such an article if they were looking for the trade belonging to a title. (Emperor (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC))
What say we split the list at Wildstorm into "Image" and "DC" sections and see what happens then (if it's big enough for 2 pages, so be it, if not leave it like that, if it falls apart when we do that then we revert it back...
Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure it'd work as most of the big titles are published by both. I'd rather split them along the 'imprint' lines like the Wildstorm Universe, Cliffhanger, Homage, licensed titles, etc. We could always add a publisher field although I'm not sure how much of a big deal that would be to people, as e.g The Authority explains it (or should). (Emperor (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

Pages to be looked at

These are a sampling of the pages in the "List of ... publications" and what I think needs to be done to them. I'm fine to do the bulk of this, but I'd rather run it by the group before I do too much so I don't commit to actions that will get reverted because I've gone off on the wrong track... so any input would be great. Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Too small a list to have own page, should stay as is. Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Big list on page to be split off. Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Created List of Dark Horse Comics publications and already have issues to discuss at Talk:List of Dark Horse Comics publications, so any conversation on this one can go there. Duggy 1138 (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Added List of Dark Horse Comics imprint publicationsDuggy 1138 (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
List of Current needs to be renamed and list on company page merged into it. Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Now have List of Archie Comics publications & List of Archie Comics imprint publications. Both need some sorting, etc. Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Needs some fixing of missing information. Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Big list on company page, needs to be moved to list page. Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This has now been done don't be shy about casting an eye over it. (Emperor (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC))
OK, most of the company page is still the "Published with..." section. What, exactly, does this mean? Is it crossover, special deals, etc. Should they be on a List of Devil's Due Publishing publications published with other companies (although a better name is sure to exist) or even put of the pages of the various companies (or their publications lists). Or perhaps even a Comics copublished by two or more companies article?Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
DC list is pretty much right as it stands. Current list to be "merged". Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The article is being weighed down by the list and I have proposed a split. Best bet would be to move the current list and then drop the main articles titles into it. (Emperor (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC))
Yeah, this one was on my list too, not sure why I didn't add it here. Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
We now have List of Image Comics publications feel free to pitch in. (Emperor (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC))
I'm happy with this one being on the company page at the moment... certainly too much to put on the List of Image Comics publications. May be worth spliting off at a later date, there's not much too the page other than it so it may be holding the page back or stopping it being a stub.Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd quite like to split that to List of Top Cow Productions publications, if they are long enough there isn't a problem with having imprint lists (as with Vertigo and Wildstorm). (Emperor (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC))
Next on my to do list after Image Comis. Again move the list to "List of IDW Publishing publications" and then split out the list and drop it into the page. (Emperor (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC))
Sounds good. Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
We now have: List of IDW Publishing publications (Emperor (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC))
Looks big enough. If I split it and Top Cow (and one or two of the other lists) off, can we pad out the original articles a little.Duggy 1138 (talk)
Yes a lot of them could do with expanding. I'll go through them and tag the ones that really need work. (Emperor (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

Dicussion

Looking at a few of these a couple of thing come to mind:
  1. A "Series" or "Volume" column is unneeded. The cover dates and issue numbers should suffice.
  2. I'd like to see one or two "External links" or "External indexes" columns. A good chunk of these titles are indexed at the Grand Comics Database and the Comic Book DB. Ideally links to both can be provided.
- J Greb (talk) 10:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. I can see the argument for removing the column and making it part of the title, but getting rid of it altogether? I'm not really in favour of that.
  2. Interesting idea. Not sure how it would work, but worth thinking about. Duggy 1138 (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I can see the reasoning in the first one but it does help reduce guess work, there can often be one-shots or a graphic novel and it would help flag the actual series. I don't think we need links to indexes as the article will/should have all the relevant links and information. I do think we need to source redlinks but I'd like to leave that open for the editors - usually when it is announced that will be an interview, conference report, etc. and it'd be easier to footnote it rather than have an extra column for it. (Emperor (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC))
The database links do serve as sourcing, at least with the published series. And I'd prefer to see them in the table rather than wind up with a ref/footnote section that is as long as the table. - J Greb (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The only concern is the one that people run into over IMDB/TV.com as you'd not want to be seen favouring one over the other (that said we could use both the GCDB and comic book DB, where they exist, and I could knock up something that would spit out a compact link based on just the ID). I suppose it ultimately comes down to the question of whether we should be adding sourcing to the list for published comics that we have articles for (as the sourcing will be on the articles, you'd hope). I suppose we should never rely on other articles to do the sourcing for another article as anything could happen there (it might not be sourced, it might get merged, vandalised, refocused, deleted, etc.) soooooooo again I might be arguing myself around to your point. One thing is that I have been linking to the publisher's database entries at the bottom of the lists page and if they cover the specific comic then the information will be in there (and with three you can almost always find two to cross-check against) which then begs the question on whether that is sufficient or do we need to source each item? I am flexible on this - it will be a lot of work but it would help beef up the lists which could be seen as being a little thin on sources. (Emperor (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC))
I've added a couple more - Image, IDW and Devil's Due were top of my list. Dark Horse is troubling as without the list it is pretty empty but I suspect the list is also holding the article back from expanding to its proper size (as one of the most important second tier comic publishers in the US it deserves a comprehensive article). All four have a current titles list which should be moved to "List of X publications" and the lists should be split off to be make the lists relatively comprehensive. See also Top Cow, which I mention above and might need its own article or to become a section of the Image one. (Emperor (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC))
Also note Archie Comics has a discussion on splitting the article up, including creating a publication page, we can kickstart the process by splitting out the titles so they can get a better idea of the pages size and shape. Obviously if you have any thoughts on the split then there is a discussion at Talk:Archie Comics#Split?. (Emperor (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC))
Sounds good. The previous discussion here you linked to mentioned developing a standard openning paragraph. The one on the DC page has been worked on and improved over time but I've never been completely happy with it. Once again, of course, it may be a good starting point if nothing else. Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Sounds an idea - we can kick it around a bit and make a general one that can be adapted. We can then add specific elements like the parent companies, the imprints, and any relevant bits of history. (Emperor (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC))
I think it is worth flagging these:
They are both up for merging and the latter has been for a long time. They both seem to fall afoul of WP:DATED. If we can merge/redirect them then we clear the category out (and presumably we will then have dealt with all of these lists) and we can delete the category. (Emperor (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC))
Also this might give you ideas:
Although it might be the ideas it gives me are to split the thing (at the very least). (Emperor (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC))

Comics in education

Normally, we should not have any pages in the category comics, only in subcategories, apart from the article "comics". However, I can not find a good category for Comics in education, a new stub. Any idea where it belongs or what new category could be useful? Fram (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the article be deleted and merged into Comics#Comics_in_Higher_Education. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Comics in education is not the same thing as comics in higher education. Doczilla STOMP! 19:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Why? You'll find plenty of sources to write an article on this, and the stub as it stands isn't even about higher education. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
damn, you beat me to it! Yes, it's not about the study of comics but the use of comics as an educational tool - which is a legitimate subject for an article. There is a whole raft of areas that can be covered - how studies have shown comics are actually better than text books for recollection and retention, their use by the government to train soldiers etc etc. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
So expand the article, then. Right now, there's almost nothing in it, and it looks like it just needs to be a sub-section of the main Comics page, since it is just a tiny piece about another use of the medium. If so much material exists for a legitimate article, use some and prove me wrong. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
No problem but no today as I stayed up all night watching the elections, so I too knackered. I'll put together the academic literature over the next couple of days. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone for the original question? Categories? Fram (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Comics? Education? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
;-) Correct, of course. I would prefer the comics category to be empty, and the education category claims the same (but does not quite achieve it is as throroughly as we do). I'll move the article to "educational materials", but will have to leave it in the main comics cat for now. Fram (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


I think that the subject could warrant its own article, but not as it stands now. It depends on how the article evolves. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that it should be find in the main comics category until such time as the article is comprehensive enough to warrant its own category. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Everyone now happy that the article demonstrate sufficient merit for further expansion? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the merge temlates. It is clearly noteworthy on its own; I was wrong. Nutiketaiel (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, you still get an invite to the Featured article party ;-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll look forward to it.  :-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Might be a while, turns out a friend has a complete collection of modern masters - since they run to about 140pg each and are chock full of creators explaining story,design and other choices, I might have my hands full for a bit! --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

POW Entertainment

What year was this company established? I assumed it was 2001 since the context of the article said so, but now I am not so sure. One site says 2005 [25], so did the infobox before I edited it [26]. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And FairuseBot is back up...

And tagged for Oct 31st were:

Any and all help would be appreciated. - J Greb (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to get up on some of these as soon as I can... :) 71.194.32.252 (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
It's gotten even more since then! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I know... and here's the lists for:
Nov 1
Nov 2
Nov 2
- J Greb (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
And now for...
Nov 4
- J Greb (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
And now for...
Nov 5
- J Greb (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Same user has tagged Image:Ultimateelectro.jpg and likely others. I'll try to get helping on this as soon as I can (not tonight), because it looks like they are getting deleted. :o 71.194.32.252 (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_36&oldid=1194174809"