Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

The various articles that related to the Teen Titans (TV Series) characters could use some revising. Currently the "semi-articles" on the TV versions of the characters require you to have some knowledge of the "original" comic versions of the characters. This should be revised, however, as many of the younger Wikipedians will only be familiar with the TV version, not the comics version. --Tim4christ17 20:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fans/historians of any or all, I hope you'll contribute to these latest three bios. (Just coincidence they're all "M"). -- Tenebrae 15:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

DiPreta just added. Anyone who saw his reprinted work in Marvel's b/w '70s horror mags will appreciate him. Turns out he was also the longtime successor artist on the comic strips Joe Palooka and Rex Morgan, M.D. -- Tenebrae 18:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone think Gazer (comics) should be moved to Gazer, which is only a redirect? --DrBat 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Gazer should be a disambig page I think. Why is it redirecting to Beholder? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

From Beholder:

• In the Ultima computer role-playing games, there exists a beholder-like monster called a gazer; when slain, it explodes into a cloud of bees (possibly a pun on "bee holder").
• In the Tibia (computer game) as a magical creature. There are also Elder Beholders and Gazers.

...

• The Macintosh computer game series Geneforge includes a creature called the Gazer, which is a beholder. A variant of the Gazer is the Eyebeast.

Though none of those are beholders in the strictest sense, which confuses the whole reason why "Gazer" redirects there. --Newt ΨΦ 19:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

So yeah, move Gazer (comics) to Gazer and put a 'For the creatures named Gazer, see Beholder' at the top and call it a day. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it. --Newt ΨΦ 19:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I just tried moving it, but it says a page with that title (Gazer) already exists (by whicg I presume it's referring to the Beholder page). Dr Archeville 21:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You need an admin, which means you need a consensus for the move. Start a discussion on the talk page and I'll keep an eye on it. Hiding Talk 22:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Or you need a rouge admin who is convinced by the reasoning, I suppose. I've performed the move, but if it turns out this isn't satisfactory, any user can revert it just by moving the article about the comic character back to Gazer (comics) and changing the redirect left behind at Gazer. I can't imagine anyone complaining, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, damn those admins who try and engage and work with people. I have to be honest, my toes are still smarting from where you jumped all over them. Hiding Talk 10:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have put a smiley on the end. I was attempting a light hearted stab at the pair of us. Hiding Talk 11:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

All glory to Hypnotoad! Er, I mean, Man in Black ;-) Dr Archeville 19:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User Tenebrae has reverted my Fear edits by deleting the table I added below:

Issue	Date	Title	Writer	Pencils	Notes
#22	Jun 1974	This Vampire Must Die!	Steve Gerber	Rich Buckler	backup story: "Willie Brown is Out to Get Me!"
#23	Aug 1974	Alone Against Arcturus!	Steve Gerber	P. Craig Russell	backup story: "The Last Stop" reprint from World of Fantasy #10
#24	Oct 1974	Return to Terror!	Steve Gerber	Craig Russell	backup story: "The Two-Faced Man" reprint from World of Suspense #1
#25	Dec 1974	And What of a Vampire's Blood...?	Doug Moench, Steve Gerber	Frank Robbins	backup story: "The Faceless Ones"
#26	Feb 1975	A Stillborn Genesis!	Doug Moench	Frank Robbins	final backup story: "A World Gone Mad!"
#27	Apr 1975	Night of the Vampire-Stalker	Doug Moench	Frank Robbins
#28	Jun 1975	The Doorway Screaming Into Hell!	Doug Moench	Frank Robbins
#29	Aug 1975
#30	Oct 1975	The Vampires of Mason Manor!	Bill Mantlo	George Evans
#31	Dec 1975	The End of a Vampire!	Bill Mantlo	Frank Robbins

I did not detail the first 21 issues because I do not own them. We would have just had a lot of blank cells. Hopefully, someone else would have come along and added this info.

If I understand Tenebrae's justification correctly, most other entries on comic book titles do not have information on particular issues. Rather than innovate, articles should be kept as is. If I were going to preserve this information, he suggests adding it to the Morbius page. I do not agree that this would be appropriate, as I am not talking about the character, but am reporting on creative team, back-up strips, etc, in various issue of Fear.

To sum up, I do not understand how Adventure into Fear is a better article by having less detail.--StAkAr Karnak 01:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to add such a table. Especially when considering things like List of The Amazing Spider-Man comics... --Fritz S. (Talk) 12:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There is such a thing as too much detail and this seems to cross the line. What you are proposing is a issue by issue breakdown. You seem to imply that as soon as somebody comes along with the first 21 issues that those could or should be included. Where does it stop? Batman has over 400 issues. Superman over 600. No, I don't think this is a good idea. CovenantD 12:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's way more detail than is needed within the main article, and with only 31 issues, a couple choice examples would serve a similar purpose without overwhelming the page. (I also don't think we need a List of Spidey comics) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I love when an editor uses troubling articles as precedents for something they want to do. Nothing against any of those editors; they just tend to be articles I might not have noticed otherwise that I proceed to edit. --Chris Griswold 01:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised at the opposition to these tables; I think this is the kind of in-depth factual reporting about comic book titles that we need more of. I think CovenantD's concern about 600 issues being documented for Superman is only valid if someone tries to document them in the main article on Superman; there's obviously no harm if the tables are in peripheral list articles, and such information will only help us further reference the character articles and write them out-of-universe, by explaining what was depicted in what issue by what creators. The barebones information shown above in the Fear table is easily available for most titles going back to the Golden Age on the Comic Book Database. Postdlf 15:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

My worry, if we're going to lean towards having them, and I don't see why not beyond this caveat, is stopping someone adding a little box for plot description and then describing the whole issue in 5000 words. If we do lean to having them, then I would hope we agree that we need to make it clear that's not going to be a goal. If people want to add plot summaries, and there is a consensus on that, I think we've got to think about limiting it to two lines or so. Hiding Talk 16:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly reasonable; there's never call for giving a play-by-play description. Postdlf 16:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree that it is okay to add such a table if: 1) It does not exceed, say, 50 issues (then it would get its own article), 2) we don't alter it to include plot summaries? If we can agree on a policy, perhaps guidelines can be added to the Wikiproject.--StAkAr Karnak 23:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to add title/writer/artist/etc. checklists, this opens up a Pandora's box. Couldn't we just easily justify a Fantastic Four checklist for its 500+ issues and hundreds of spinoff-title issues? How encyclopedic is an arbitrary 50-issue cutoff? You can find both FF and Adventure into Fear checklists equally easily at GCD, etc.

Do we really want to a) use up an astronomical amount of Wikipedia bandwidth for checklists readily available elsewhere, and b) wouldn't it more a more productive use of editors' times to fix up the many existing articles in need of it, and add bios of the many important creators still not added?

But mostly, do we really want to have 1000-issue FF and Action Comics checklists? And what happens if there's a checklist for a comic with 30 issues, and it comes back (like Amazing Fantasy). Do we just do the first 50 issues? How useful, encyclopedically, is an incomplete list like that? --Tenebrae 13:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The 50 issue suggestion was in regard to how long a table should be within a main article before transferring the table into a spinoff entry. The suggestion was made out of editors' concerns that the main article would be exceedingly long.

The advantage in including tabled issue info here is that it can be integrated in Wiki format (giving direct links to creators' entries). This is not possible at the Grand Comics Database. Besides, if I want to know anything, I come to Wikipedia first, as opposed to the GCD.--StAkAr Karnak 14:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It will be hard to put a limit to this kind of thing. European comic magazines are mostly not comparable to US ones (a few pages of many different stories instead of one long story of one hero in one issue), but the same kind of infobox can be created as well and would in a way be interesting. However, this has been done for many major European comic magazines, and is very, very, very long. This is the page for one year of one magazine (Spirou (magazine) still exists, now at over 3,500 issues). When you browse that site, you'll notice that it is huge. Do we want to and need to add all this to Wikipedia? I agree that if we want to include these things, we better have some good guidelines and templates, or with will be one huge mess (this is not intended as a comment on the original list, which wasn't messy). Fram 14:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree to no such thing. My original statement that this is too much detail stands. I oppose any such attempt to start adding tables of this nature to any article. CovenantD 16:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Support - As long as article length is regulated, I do not understand why CovenantD is opposed to adding this sort of detail to Wikipedia. Aesthetics? Although I cannot read the Spirou information cited above, the research impresses me. It probably should've been broken up into smaller pages.--StAkAr Karnak 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you can't see my point about size and/or POV issues. That aside, aren't the comments from several different editors above enough to show that there is a significant amount of opposition to this already? I think the Wikipedia:Snowball clause might have some relevance before this "proposal" goes any further. CovenantD 19:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. This isn't a good idea. Other sites do this better than Wikipedia can, encyclopedias don't traditionally include this kind of detail, and, well, it'll get awful for every single comic that lasted for six issues or more. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This to request that StAkAr Karnak please discontinue from multiple votes. Putting "Support" in boldface after having already posted twice previously indicating his support for his own idea really isn't very becoming or in keeping with the spirit of consensus. -- Tenebrae 20:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The bold support was an attempt to start a formal vote following the above discussion.--StAkAr Karnak 21:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone seen Marvel animated universe? I had never heard that these series were supposed to be connected in some way; I don't believe Marvel ever represented them that way. This appears to be the sort of "Us, too!" thing that fans of the Big Two like to do. Because DC has a pretty cohesive animated universe, Marvel just has to as well. This just feels like OR to me. --Chris Griswold 04:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think that page is 100 percent correct. I think most were just guest appearances (and they didn't connect the shows). I watched alot of the cartoon series (when they first aired), and I don't remember them ever connecting or being crossovers. Alot of that article is opinion... I believe. Fantastic 4, Hulk and Iron Man I can understand as somewhat crossovers... since all three were in syndication on the same channel (correct me if I'm wrong..). Also, for lots of the guest appearances... the voices were different if I remember right.

So to make a long post short...

Animated Marvel crossovers = guest appearances, nothing less and nothing more. RobJ1981 05:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I just made two simple but time- and keystroke-saving templates: {{Marvel Universe}} and {{DC Universe}}. I like when editors have used the phrase "Marvel Universe" to link to both the Marvel Comics and Marvel Universe articles; it's cute but it takes a little extra work. These templates make such a double link much faster to execute. --Chris Griswold 05:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone recently renamed all the Comics Greatest World articles; for example, Grace (Comics Greatest World) is now Grace (Dark Horse Comics). I don't want to make anyone mad or step on any toes, but I think Comics Greatest World is a better disambiguation than Dark Horse Comics for articles about the CGW Imprint. What I mean is if Marvel Comics had a character named Samaritan, the Astro City character's article would be called Samaritan (DC Comics) because that would be misleading, it would be called Samaritan (Astro City) a less ambiguous name, right? Maybe it's just me. Any comments? Kant2k6 06:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think DC is a good comparison, because using DC Comics as the disambiguator for an Astro City character article would wrongly imply that the character's stories are set within the main DC comics universe. There is no such problem with Dark Horse, and according to the CGW article, the characters outlasted the imprint and were eventually published directly under the Dark Horse name anyway. Postdlf 06:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

True some, but not many, of the characters did outlast the CGW imprint and were printed as Dark Horse Heroes, but only by about a year (with the exception of Ghost who lasted longer). And most discussions of the characters, at least most discussions I’ve be privy to, call the entire run Comics Greatest World. Plus, at least a couple of characters, Mecha for sure and I think Grace, have other Dark Horse Comics characters with the same name. (The other Mecha had his own title in the 80s). Kant2k6 07:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Kant2k2 your links were fixed because they didn't fit project specifications. You don't use the imprint name, you use the publisher's name. Comics Greatest World was an imprint of the publisher Dark Horse Comics. No one realized what you were up to because no one from the project had ever bothered to look at the pages you were building. Now they are. Where possible Comics Greatest World has been replaced with (comics), if not it was replaced with (Dark Horse Comics). Please update the links on your front page according to updates that have been made, and adjust those in your future page builds accordingly. --Basique 11:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to offend you User:Basique. I thought this was a discussion page were if I disagreed with a standard I could question it and let the various project editors voice their opinion. But apparently the standards are the missing 11th threw 15th commandments set in stone by God. I of course will yield to the majority opinion, I just thought I was aloud to disagree with it. You know, like you did with all the section heading you changed on the Titan article that I had to change back to fit project specifications. Kant2k6 13:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Kant2k6, no one said you couldn't discuss it. But in this instance, you acted boldly, made changes, and they were reverted. Now's the time to explain why you feel that you should rename the articles 'Character (Publisher)' or 'Character (Imprint)' :) Having been where you are before, it's nothing personal. We just like to homogenize. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't act boldly, the articles were originally named 'Character (Imprint)' and Basique renamed them 'Character (Publisher)'. In addition to that he renamed article sections from standard names to non-standard names (i.e. changing Bibliography to Chronology) and deleted the Reference section out of several articles that featured quotes. The boldest I got was getting mad at/annoyed by him for implying I shouldn't discuss usefulness of Imprint rather than Publisher name in a case were the publisher has no single shared universe and in fact has characters with the same names outside the imprint. Kant2k6 22:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Kant2k6 I think Ipstenu answered most of your questions, and I'll answer a few others. You named the pages wrong they were corrected. Admittedly I got carried away in changing Bibliography to Chronology, because it's a term i'm more comfortable with, and I apologize for that. Your Titan article was listed on the To Do list for cleanup by other members of the Project, so sooner or later those pages would have been corrected. Correcting them sooner means you have less work to do later. You had a Reference section with no actual external references except for your text listing of the actual issues you were quoting dialogue from. As an example this is one of your original references↓

*[1]^ Richardson, Mike. "Prologue Sequence" to Will To Power 1. June 1994. Dark Horse Comics.

These were deleted and replaced with actual links to the Comics Greatest World site and another reference site. I see you've recently put them back, and removed the links. You might want to rethink that. And I cut down those huge swatches of dialogue quotes for a reason, the bulk of your article was quoted dialogue with no actual cites except for your resource list of the issues they were taken from, there was almost no description of plot or anything else except in the form of quoted contextual dialogue. This was the first three lines of your origin↓

Origin

Frank Wells was the son of a US Marine Sergeant. Sgt. Wells was physically and mentally abusive to both Frank and his mother. At a young age, Frank’s super-strength manifested and he began protecting his mother from his father’s abuse.

[He] told all his friends down at the base that I was special. Until one day...he found out how right he was![1]

This was justly fixed, you were wrong. --Basique 00:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I might have been wrong part of the time but you were wrong more. The following is the changes you made to the Titan article. In the hero box, you changed the comic_color from #80ffff (Dark Horse Comics) to #8080ff (DC Comics). You deleted the double subheading system under Bibliography do a single list which you had out of order and in the case of Will to Power 9 you doubled the entry. You deleted the References section which the WikiProject guidlines call for, and I quote

"All wikipedia articles should give references were possible. It is appreciated that with fictional characters the works in question are usually the source of reference, however, specific issue numbers should still be cited, and any other sources, [...] should be listed. For examples of how to do this and the style to follow, please see Wikipedia: Cite sources." (Taken from Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars).

You removed the heading on Publication history and placed its contents in the introduction, and changed the headings Bibliography, Awards (I'll admit I was useing the term "awards" loosely here), and External links to Chronology, Trivia, and Resources (all contrary to the Project standards set in the article example (see link above). And in the Resources you put a link to a site that sells comics Titan appears in (and according to Wikipedia guidelines you're not suppossed to do that), and the other of the two sites I already had listed in the External links section you just changed the on screen words from 'Titan at International Comics directory' to 'Titan at International Comics' (P.S. its not the Comics Greatest World site, its a fan site with lots of different Companies and Imprints). So which of us deveated more from the WikiProject's guidelines me (for naming the page wrong) or you (for all the above). Kant2k6 04:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Kant2k2 so your essential arguement is that I was "more wronger"? And you state this without really addressing any of the specific issues I outlined and quoted above, especially the reams of dialogue quotes you used as filler? Actually I fixed the alliance color myself after choosing the wrong one, check the history that was me logged in and logged out editing the page. I tell you what Kant2k2, i'm done discussing this with you. If anyone else from the project wants to try working with Kant2k2 you can start here Titan (Dark Horse Comics). --Basique 14:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I meant to discuss the quotes but forgot. I will conced I may have used more than I should but I'm a Literature major and thats kinda how we do things. Sorry. If everyone thinks there are to many, I or another editor can remove some. I checked the Titan history, an IP address corrected the colors on the hero box, based on other edits by the address I'll assume it was User:Basique. But the corrected colors had Dark Horse Comics for the alliance color and still had DC Comics for the comics color. I may have gotten a little angry over this, sorry. But my point in the last post wasn't that Basique was "more wronger" (a phrase I didn't use) it was that his agrument against me was based on the fact that I didn't name the articles according to the project guidelines, but most of the changes he made to the Titan article took it away from the guidelines further than I originally had them. That said I to am finished arguing this. For a serious discussion on changes to the Comics Greatest World articles post on either the Comics Greatest World talk page or the specific article's talk page.

Anyone wishing to continue the discussion on article naming convensions please feel free to do so. This was not meant to be an arguement between myself and Basique and I am sorry it degressed into one. Kant2k6 15:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

With all the recent "outing" of popular characters in the past few years Spiderman, Daredevil, Captain America, in addition to the central theme of Civil War, does anyone feel that the addition of an identity section would add to the Hero-Box. Something stating whether an idenity is secret, known to the public, etc. This would be similar to the Handbooks to the Marvel Universe I believe. --sharp962 12:13, 7/15/06 EST/.

No, for the same reason the status variable to the SHB may be on the way out. See Template_talk:Superherobox#Status_variable for discussion, but it centers around the idea that fictional characters exist in a perpetual present so that all developments in the life of the character are true of the character at any given real world time. Peter Parker is both a secret identity (for readers of early comics) and public identity (for current ones). --Newt ΨΦ 16:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just moved many merges out of "discussion" and into "needs to be done." The list can be found here. CovenantD 17:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work as usual. I'd like to commend CovenantD for his maintenance of the Notice Board. I'm happy to see that people are contributing to it; I like being able to vote on the merges and deletions that are listed, and I see better consensuses forming in this vote discussions. --Chris Griswold 23:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a good example of a page with both 616 and Ultimate versions of a character. I would be glad to help with the merges, but would want to do it right (i.e. should there be two SHB's, etc.).Silver lode 04:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I reckon that the right way to do it is the way I've seen it done before - have a SHB only for the 616 version, and then give a section entitled "Alternate Versions" with Ultimate, AoA, etc. List the changes and differences in the alternate versions, but don't include an all new SHB for it. Gamesmaster 09:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Jamdav86 13:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Started it out. Hope to have some help expanding it. Needs plenty of work on it.

One-Above-All

Would appreciate it.--ThanosMadTitan23 17:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at the Star Wars-related comics articles?

I just found Knights of the Old Republic 9: Flashpoint, Part 3 and was horrified. An entire article about a single issue due in August. What the fudge times ten. --Chris Griswold 22:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the contributions of the editor that created that.[1] Houston, I think we have a problem. Oh well, I had nothing really important to do for the next 12 hours. Where to start with the merge tags? CovenantD 23:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

AAAAHHHHH!!!! Category:Star Wars comics. Better make that the next week. CovenantD 00:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Dang, that category is messy and too big. I can understand one long page for each series (containing issue summaries), but NOT that mess. I can probably help as well. Let me know what is needed: merging, deleting, etc. RobJ1981 01:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a relief. What I've been doing is simply tagging each individual issue for merge into the article on the comic book series. That includes the trade paperbacks, which also seem to have their own article. It might take some looking around to figure out which to merge into. I hope everybody will consider weighing in with an opinion on these. CovenantD 02:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think if a series is important and/or has alot of issues, it should possibly get just one page: from there... issue summaries, the basic plot of the series, etc.

For 1 issue specials (annuals, 1-shots, etc) and/or shorter series: some pages for the more important things, otherwise... just delete.

I'm no Star Wars comic expert, I'm hoping there is some here...that can better sort through the important and less important things. Also.. I should note: the subcategory for category: Star Wars Comics, doesn't seem important and I don't see why it was made that way in the first place. RobJ1981 02:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A couple of Comics Project editors are now working with the Star Wars Project editors to get this cleaned up. The creator of the majority of these articles has already started to merge them in light of these discussions. I think it all should be cleaned up pretty quick. CovenantD 00:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. May the force be with you. --Chris Griswold 07:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Is it really getting cleaned up? I looked at the category and it's still huge and lists the pages for single issues of Star Wars comics still. RobJ1981 03:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a dispute on whether or not spoiler tags are appropriate for Wikipedia. Some editors wish to remove spoiler tags while other editors wish to keep them and/or update their guidelines and appearance. A request for comment has been started at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC with a structured discussion page on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC. All editors are invited to share their input on any or all of the issues being discussed. -- Ned Scott 03:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed it as a request, but I don't think it needs a page. The Amalgam page itself has a pretty decent list on it, that's good enough (especially since Amalgam was only around for a few years and isn't even active right now). What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 12:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, if anything is needed, I'd think it could be appended to the Amalgam Comics article. --Newt ΨΦ 13:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I put it there so that all the useless single-character articles like SuperSoldier could be merged into it. --Jamdav86 18:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that makes sense. Amalgam is inactive (from what I know), so all articles on their characters could technically be moved onto one page, with the character pages merged (then deleted). RobJ1981 23:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Is it safe to merge all the Amalgam character articles into a list article? There really isn't much information on any one character for Amalgam. One list article seems like it would be alot better. I posted this on the Amalgam comics: talk page (but it's doubtful that will get lots of replies, since it doesn't get many posts. I created the list page (but it's far from complete, but it's a start), and hopefully people agree to it...otherwise we will have to try something else. RobJ1981 21:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please please please do. I am happy to know this is going on. --Chris Griswold 06:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So, in the end... all Amalgam character pages will just be on this one (and the character pages will be deleted)? If that's the case, there is still much more to do. Chris, are you free to help out? I have the character list basically done, and some information on a few characters so far. I was thinking of just copy and pasting sometimes, but on some of the Amalgam character pages...there is alot of information. I will need alot of help sorting out which is useful, and which isn't. RobJ1981 18:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's do it. --Chris Griswold 23:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As I already said on the Amalgam talk page, I think it would make much more sense to merge the characters into articles about the indivual books (per WP:FICT), than in the main Amalgam article... --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

24 books = 24 wiki pages. That seems like too many for a series that didn't last long. I think the list and the Amalgam comics page should be more than enough to tell about the characters and the books. RobJ1981 19:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you think it can all be covered in that one article, that's fine with me. --Fritz S. (Talk) 19:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The 24 series, to me, are essentially one 24-issue series. Amalgam is general is just a lot of "suppose these characters were the same thing!!!!" and clever little twists on things that fans of those characters or bureacratic organizations would find amusing. It's just generally not that deep. --Chris Griswold 23:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Would a list of super villain teams be needed? There is more than enough villian teams out there in the comics world. I was thinking of making one, since I didn't see one... but I saw lists of Marvel teams, and DC teams as well. But that's both hero and villian...not one or the other. RobJ1981 17:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Category:Villain groups. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 19:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This one List of criminal organizations in comics is just for the old fashioned world conquering criminal organizations, there is no current list for regular villain teams so it shouldn't be a problem. --Basique 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. The Supervillain chronology also lists some teams but it is very much still a work in progress and just mixes them together with individual villains. I'd be glad to help with any information I can contribute. Kant2k6 15:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well I created the page today: List of supervillain teams and groups. It's a start, but far from complete. RobJ1981 21:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

We currently have a category called Comics terminology[2] and one called Comic book terminology[3]. Is there any good reason to keep both of these categories? Iron Ghost 00:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

All comic books are comics, but not all comics are comic books. --Chris Griswold 04:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I understand that, but I was sugesting that as the sub-category is so much bigger than the category itself, that the stuff on comic books be moved into the main category. Iron Ghost 17:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The current scheme has organizational value that would be lost if Cbt items were put into Ct. Some individual items might be more appropriate in Ct rather than Cbt - if you notice any of them, you should move them. j-beda 17:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems like alot of clutter of related things and things that really don't need to be there. I'm in reference to the whole long "Other DC and Marvel crossovers" list (I can understand listing some of it, but certainly not all of it) and the whole section of the trading card sets that list each and every card in all sets. RobJ1981 05:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I notice there is no article for Comic Book Crossovers and that the comics section on the Fictional crossover article is a bit short. I was hoping, firstly, to generate some support for creating such an article and secondly, to get some consensus at to what actually counts as a crossover.

Does a crossover have to take place across more than one title, or do "special events" taking place in a single title (such as Crisis on Infinite Earths and Contest of Champions) count as well? I'm sure we all want to avoid a list of every time Superman appears in a Batman comic. Thoughts?

--Iron Ghost 21:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say list the major events, but as for Superman and Batman popping up in each other's comics, just mention that it occurs. --InShaneee 00:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind naming conventions so that it would be either Comic book crossover or Crossover (comics). Or would it? --Newt ΨΦ 02:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think Crossover (comics) is probably best. Iron Ghost 10:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

To my mind, major events like the Crisis should be mentioned. It's hard to remember any more, but weren't there Crisis tie-ins in other titles? It seems like that's been the case in all major events since then. I think that it would be fair to mention smaller crossovers as well, such those that are spread out over all the Batman or Spider-Man titles. Even two title crossovers would be fair game, in my opinion, such as Flash/Green Lantern, Supergirl/Ressurection Man, Silver Surfer/Hulk, etc. As long as it's a named story arc between at least two titles, I think it could be mentioned. Guest appearances, however, should not be included. --GentlemanGhost 21:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the boundaries are between projects? Do Wikiproject Comics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffyverse work together to handle the Buffy comics like this one Remaining Sunlight (Buffy comic)? I wouldn't have even known these existed if not for the Dark Horse Comics page. I've been assuming that someone in the project did, and that they all belong to the Buffy folks. --Basique 21:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No-one owns them, but at a guess it's possible no-one's really looked at them as yet. I know there are people sorting out Star Wars comics articles, so it's probable they'll get to these at some point. Where projects overlap we follow the wiki method of seeking a consensus approach. Hiding Talk 21:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the quick reply Hiding. No intention of making more work for you guys, just a heads up. --Basique 21:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point you all to the dispute going on at the X-Men article talk page. Me and Covenant seem to be unable to persuade the anomynous user that his actions are not in line with wiki policy. Of course, anyone who disagrees with that notion is welcome too. Kusonaga 12:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The article having been approved by 0.5 FA Review, I'd like to bring my recent concerns about the article to a larger audience (since nobody seems to be watching the article itself lately). I think there are some significant omissions that deserve more attention. –Unint 22:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Can everyone here please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Avengers (comics) please? Thanks in advance. --Jamdav86 15:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)