Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Why was the page moved to "Titans (comics)", since in almost all of their incarnations (including their current one) they're known as the Teen Titans? --DrBat 23:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasnt involved in the move, but I imagine it was because, although "Teen Titans" is by far the most common title for the team, they have gone without the "Teen" for a large proportion of their appearances as well as for significant stretches of time at various points through the years. IIRC the sequence has been chronologically "Teen Titans" - "New Teen Titans" - "New Titans" - "Teen Titans" - "Titans" and then back to "Teen Titans" again, with "Team Titans" fitting in the middle somewhere. The "New Titans" period was between 1988 and 1994 and the "Titans" one was between 1999 and 2002 which means that for a little less than a quarter of their 42 year existence the "Teen" has been missing. If you look at it from the perspective of a proportion of the number of actual "Titans" comics published I'd guess that the percentage is even higher given Team Titans and the fact that two of the longest running series so far have been New Titans (81 issues) and Titans (50 issues). On the other hand "Teen Titans" is not only their current title its also definitely the best known name for the team, especially after the animated series, so I can see your point too. Hueysheridan 05:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone has been adding this bit of made-up minutiae from the Marvel Handbook all over the superhero character descriptions. This seems way overboard in terms of fancruft and of no real encyclopedic value to anyone outside comics. It's not particularly factual -- comics writers don't ask themselves, "How much does this weigh, how much does that weight?" Adding these figures also begs the question of, how much is too much, in terms of stats? Are we going to list every made-up height, weight, eye color, etc., like some encyclopedia DMV?

For consistency, if nothing else, we need to get a guideline consensus. If we're going to include how much made-up weight a character can lift, then we should also include their level of durability, speed, intelligence, etc. I don't believe we should. But if the conensus is to include all this minutiae, let's not draw an arbitrary line: Why is strength more notable than durability or speed? --Tenebrae 15:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this should be the in the guidelines. The numbers are arbitrary, based on an editor's guess at the time, so they should not be included, since it's not necessary to understand the character. If someone wants to address the extent of a character's abilities, they should cite specific examples of things that the character has done or have been done to the character. --Chris Griswold 15:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I also don't think an abstract statistic should be given for strength; these figures were arbitrarily made up for OHOTMU and the role-playing game resources, and so unless Thor is constantly saying "Forsooth, I can lifteth in excess of 100 tons," it's the most trivial of trivia. Providing specific examples can also show how writers simply choose whatever limits work for the purpose of the story ("In Captain America #250, the Captain snaps steel chains with little effort, to intimidate a gang of thugs. However, in #363, he is unable to free himself of being chained to a post and is forced to watch Bucky IX burn alive.") If such examples cannot be given, then descriptives like "superhuman strength" are the most that should be said. Postdlf 15:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a little refinement on "superhuman strength" wouldn't been too harmful. Not to the degree of the rpgs, but a distinction between Superman/Thor/Hulk levels (effectively unlimited) and the Captain America/Spider-man could be instructive to the casual reader if a suitable turn of phrase could be found. --Jason Kirk 16:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see a reason for this, because the casual reader, if all articles merely state "superhuman strength," could see no difference between the Hulk and Spidey, and there is an obvious difference. However, I agree with the majority opinion expressed here that these arbitrary numerical values not be listed. --Newt ΨΦ 17:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't need to be added, period. RobJ1981 17:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Wiki guidelines direct that we keep keep this disucssion open up a few days, and probably get an admin to formalize any Comics Project style change — I can't figure the exact procedure; I think it's more or less informal — but it looks like we're developing a quick consensus here.

"Forsooth, I can lifteth in excess of 100 tons" — OMG LOL!!! --Tenebrae

pointing out how strong superheroes and villains are in relation to each other IS important both to the casual reader and dedicated fan. I remember as a child, being very surprised when I found out how strong Spider-Man was in the comics, because he didn't look that strong in the cartoons. Wikipedia is supposed to report on facts that are of interest to its readers, and for superheroes, superpowers are definitely a factor of major interest. Whether Marvel itself sticks to its own decisions in the OHOTMU or not is not our problem, we just report what they say in their official publications. I do agree that listing exact tonnage for every character is unnecessary, but for ones like The Hulk, who depend so much on Strenght, it should certainly be done. -Wilfredo Martinez 17:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has addressed the basic point that the source of most (if not all) of these stats are competing products such as OHOTMU or Who's Who in the DC Universe and as such reprinting the material here is not fair use and qualifies as copyright violation. I dont know where else such "facts" could come from, which makes it pretty definitive that the material should be excluded, at least as I understand the situation. Hueysheridan 21:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Reprinting the terms exactly would be copyvio, but paraphrasing them would not. A point that applies to ANY comics reference we make, in fact. -Wilfredo Martinez 01:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? thats not how I understood the situation from previous discussions here. I thought the "information" itself is copyvio - it is original intellectual property that has no source other than the competing product. It seems pretty clear to me that reproducing such material on Wikipedia harms the economic viability of such competing products and so isnt "Fair Use".

Its not like such info represent provable facts that exist separate from their source, like say a fact reported in Britannica which Wikipedia can rephrase and publish, nor is it like plot information which we can (briefly) summarise here because Wikipedia and comics are adequately different methods of presenting info and are thus not in competition with each other. But OHOTMU, Who's Who etc. are types of Encylopedia's, and given that such original (and copyright) material as those stats are some of the only competitive advantages those publications have over Wikipedia arguing "Fair Use" seems a bit of a reach to me. Hueysheridan 02:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Huey's got it right. You can paraphrase or rephrase facts about fiction. However, paraphrasing or rephrasing fictional facts is just rephrasing fiction, intellectual property belonging to whomever wrote it originally. --Newt ΨΦ 03:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If what you say were correct, then it would be impossible to quote any Encyclopedia on any subject. I find it hard to believe that stating how much a character can lift -which is a detail so simple it is hard in itself to paraprhase, which in turn makes it hard to copyright- would count as copyvio. If necessary, examples CAN be given from the comics (such as the time Thor lifted a 747) complete with issue number. Though I seriously doubt Marvel will ever protest about it, for the reason I mentioned. -Wilfredo Martinez 03:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

We are maybe talking about different things here. My point is that info like strength stats are not facts - they are pieces of fictional information that really only exist in the Handbook or whatever index you find them in. As I said in my last post, thats very different from real facts which are independently verifiable and exist outside of their source. As they are fictional "facts" this type of information is thus subject to copyright protection and so "fair use" criteria have to be fulfilled before they can be reprinted here and, in my opinion at least, fair use isnt applicable in this case because the OHOTMU etc. are competing products.

Of course you could write "Thor once lifted a 747 in Thor #whatever", thats a simple independently verifiable fact and very different from a fake statistic. Its really a different issue entirely, but as others here have already commented further up on this thread, trivia like that is hardly instructive given the inconsistency of such portrayals. Hueysheridan 03:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The copyright question is paramount regardless of any other debate. Since there is some question at all, we can't continue this conversation without an admin weighing in. I've asked this on the Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use... page for input. Let's pause on the debate until this is resolved. -Markeer 16:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Tricky. You can't copyright facts of course but this is somewhat different. I don't know of any case law. I'd guess it would dpend on how transformative the work was.Geni 17:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion here and have a page here, and have a previous consensus that we avoid all OHOTMU/WWITDCU stats/pictures completely. --Jamdav86 17:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point — and judging from what it says there at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars, it sounds as if the issue has been decided and this debate is unncessary. Under "Powers and abilities::

This section should not be excessive, or copyvio the statistics presented in the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, DC's Who's Who or similar products. These stats are rarely held to in the comics anyway.

--Tenebrae 17:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This should be in the guidelines. --Chris Griswold 18:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance#The use of in-universe statistics.

I thought so... So why was this even a discussion? I hate Tenebrae!!!!!!1--Chris Griswold 18:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well...yeah...didn't see that. Sorry. But most of the rest of us haven't also, and honestly, I'm not not sure what the link is saying. It seems to read that we're not supposed to include the stats, except when we are. Would others go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance#The use of in-universe statistics and see if you can suss out exactly what it's saying, and whether it dovetails wtih Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars? -- Tenebrae 14:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it says don't use them, basically, as they're meaningless. However, if the OHOTMU says one thing, and The Guardian says another, both stats in question can be mentioned for critical comparison. It also states that the stat can be used when it is shown as incorrect in a comic book (e.g. "OHOTMU states that so-and-so can lift 5 tons but in So-and-so #Number, he lifts a tank"). This seems biased, though. Couldn't you say "The OHOTMU states that so-and-so can lift such-and-such pounds and they never lift more than that in the comic"? --Newt ΨΦ 22:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As an admin and lawyer, I believe the above statements that "facts" within fiction are actually copyrightable expression is correct. I posted a case on the WP:COPY talk page a while ago, one in which the Seinfeld Aptitute Test, a book of trivia questions about the show, was found to be a copyright infringement because by copying "facts" from the show (really just describing incidents and dialogue) it substantially copied creative expression and did not sufficiently transform it to constitute fair use.

"Unlike the facts in a phone book, which do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, each ‘fact’ tested by The SAT is in reality fictitious expression created by Seinfeld's authors. The SAT does not quiz such true facts as the identity of the actors in Seinfeld, the number of days it takes to shoot an episode, the biographies of the actors, the location of the Seinfeld set, etc. Rather, The SAT tests whether the reader knows that the character Jerry places a Pez dispenser on Elaine's leg during a piano recital, that Kramer enjoys going to the airport because he's hypnotized by the baggage carousels, and that Jerry, opining on how to identify a virgin, said ‘It's not like spotting a toupee.’ Because these characters and events spring from the imagination of Seinfeld's authors, The SAT plainly copies copyrightable, creative expression." Castle Rock Entertainment v. Carol Publ'g Group, 150 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 1998) (emphasis added).

Though our intention is to provide information rather than entertainment (as in the case), by making an encyclopedia article about a fictitious subject and using fiction that only exists in another encyclopedia article (such as OHOTMU, Who's Who, etc.), we haven't transformed the expression in the slightest, and so can't justify fair use of it. Postdlf 16:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Seinfeld case is interesting and I agree with the point that you take from it, that fictional "facts" are copyright. However there is another aspect to the case which you dont acknowledge, one which has ominous implications for a lot of our work here. By my interpretation of the judgement, the decision seems to be saying that descriptions of fictional events such as ("Jerry places a Pez dispenser on Elaine's leg during a piano recital" are also a breach of copyright "Because these characters and events spring from the imagination of Seinfeld's authors". As I interpret it this decision would make statements like "Thor once lifted a 747 in Thor #whatever" an infringement and statements like that, which are consistent with current Wikiproj guidelines as long as they are brief, are ubiquitious and I would argue necessary in encyclopedia articles which cover fictional characters.

I suppose if you interpret the Seinfeld decision very narrowly you could say that citing issue numbers and phrasing the citation in such as way that it is clear that you are referring to a real event extricates such statements from infringement, but that seems facetious logic to me as I doubt the Judge's decision would have been different had the SAT included episode numbers in it's questions. Personally I think that, because of this apparent restriction on the expression of actual real facts, the judgement is badly flawed and is a very worrying precedent. Hueysheridan 17:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it was a good decision and consistent with general principles of copyright. It only should worry us to the extent that we are failing to write out-of-universe articles and instead writing in-universe summaries of fiction. When we comment on fiction by describing it objectively, from a factual, real world perspective, that context and explanation transforms it so as to justify a fair use (otherwise critics, reviewers, and cultural scholars of all kinds would be sued all the time). We just can't post "articles" that are nothing but paraphrased summaries of fiction, or that summarize more fiction than is arguably necessary to create a scholarly description of that work or subject of fiction. Postdlf 17:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be making the argument which I wrote above, that the real word phrasing of the information makes it fair use. Do you think that the Carol Publishing Group would have won the case had they cited episode numbers and airdates with each piece of trivia? i.e. in "In episode 2.12 (first shown on 13 March 1996) Jerry is shown placing a Pez dispenser on Elaine's leg during a piano recital". Its an interesting argument though I fear we have strayed considerably off topic. Hueysheridan 18:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Real world phrasing helps make it fair use, but that won't always be enough; otherwise, one could still paraphrase an entire book simply by chopping the summary up by page or paragraph number. Make sure you also have the real world context too, i.e., why is this bit of fiction important to describe in this article? I think the above fair use issue is relevant to this because, although simply copying a OHOTMU strength stat by itself is going to be too insubstantial to constitute copyright infringement, the more such bits that an article has copied from OHOTMU, the more it's just created a derivative of the OHOTMU fiction. And such abstract statements of "fact" are worthless anyway to an article, because it lacks a real-world grounding of how such a "fact" is important to the character and how that "fact" was depicted. Postdlf 20:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So, to sum up, we can't say "Mister X can lift 25 tons" b/c that's copying from (for example) the OHOTMU (a competing product) and has never actually been said in the comics themselves, but we can say "Mister X possesses superhuman strength, as shown when he effortlessly juggled three elephants in Amazing Mister X #42"...?

Could we say "Mister X appears to have a maximum weight limit of 100 tons, as he was shown to be straining a great deal while dragging a tractor trailer loaded with 100 tons of Unbelievium in Amazing Mr. X #43"? Or would that be considered Original Research? --Dr Archeville 20:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I would limit it to "Mister X possesses superhuman strength, which allowed him to effortlessly juggle three elephants in Amazing Mister X #42". For example, "Hulk possesses superhuman strength, as shown when he held up a mountain in Secret Wars. --Jamdav86 13:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on several story arcs of popular comics, and using the comic series templates, but is there ore should there be one for important story arcs? Bradtcordeiro 21:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I recently recreated Phyla-Vell's page (which was deleted before for having a copyvio biography). Would anyone mind filling it up? --DrBat 17:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just reading the Superman article today and it struck me that his comic book history is given far too much space and prominence. Certainly the emphasis on comic book history is appropriate and necessary in most comic book characters pages, but characters like Supes, Batman, Spider-Man and an arguable number of others, have long outgrown their comic book origins to become multi-media phenomenons. At the moment the articles are very bitty - each character's history is broken up into separate media sections which fail to adequately depict how the different interpretations may have influenced the concept's development. Shouldnt a general history section be the most prominent history section for each of these characters? one which would summarise all the major events in the characters multimedia history in the proper context with one another. For instance, Superman's history would mention Action Comics #1 and subsequent comics which introduced key Superman concepts, then mention how his first media adaptation was the radio serial which also introduced important concepts, then mention the first physical depiction of the character at the 1940 Worlds Fair and then on to a mention of the movie serials etc. Though I understand and share an attachment to the trivia of these character's comic book histories I think that we should acknowledge that comics are no longer the only influence on their development (if they ever were). Their comic book history could then be briefly summarised on the main page and expanded on in a spin-off page as is usually the practice with the details of other media adaptations. Hueysheridan 18:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there really any point bothering with this? The articles don't seem to change much in their nomination time, and the clock runs over for a fortnight before anyone bothers to change it, if at all.

Can we have a straw poll of who is willing to change the nominated articles? If there is less than 15, then, unless the small group were really avid in changing the article, I'd have to declare it dead. Thoughts? --Jamdav86 20:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it may be that there just aren't enough wikipedians with the specialist knowledge to advance a article like Maus but I believe the idea of having a collab is fundamentally sound. The Manga article improved markedly while it was the collab.

I suggest changing it now (as it's been well over a month). Anyone who wishes to continue working on Maus can do so. --Iron Ghost 22:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the comics collab should keep going. The problem with Maus is, as mentioned, it requires some specialist knowledge, which we're lacking at the moment. Gamesmaster 10:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

How about changing it to collab of the month? --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It is collab of the month. The main problem is that no-one seems to be bothered to change it. Therefore, I will state this now: there is no one person that changes it every month, so if it runs out and you notice, I urge you to change the collab notices. Do not stand around and ask "Why isn't anyone doing it?", DO IT YOURSELF PLEASE. --Jamdav86 10:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right, sorry, I thought it was collab of the fortnight... But if there really isn't that much contribution to it, I agree that we might as well stop them. --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to stop the collaborations, but I've noticed that the articles chosen are already large ones, about topics of a broad nature, which we can't add much too unless its specific details. I understand the need to improve some of these pages (I recall Alan Moore, Manga, DC Comics), especially if we want to make them featured articles, but the collab of the month would be better suited to expand certain notable topics. Maus is a better example of what I'm proposing, but I'm also thinking about stuff like Dark Horse Comics, Scout (comic), Dreadstar, Malibu Comics, Mike Grell, Starslayer, The Incal, David Michelinie... These are just examples of stuff that's in between stubhood and medium-sized article, or between medium-sized and fairly complete. --Pc13 12:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What benefit is there to abandoning the idea? even Maus has benefitted from the process, though not as much as some had hoped evidently. I think its just a matter of the article's which are picked, and the (largely unpredictable) vagaries of individual editors' interest/knowledge in those subjects. Just because each article has not been brought to FA level is no reason to abandon the concept. Hueysheridan 13:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, we have another go at this. I put up a new collab. Could I please urge the community to nominate, vote, and edit the collabs please? I added the deadline to the template as it may enhance the sense of urgency. --Jamdav86 13:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have contributed to the current (and the previous ) collab of the month, so I like the principle. To give it slightly more visibility, I've added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Task template, so it is now automatically visible on the Portal:Comics. The disadvantage is that it is now featured twice at the top of this page (and perhaps oters I'm unaware of), so if anyone thinks this was a bad idea or has a better solution, be my guest! Fram 14:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

First off, thanks for doing the changes and updating the nominations. I still try to contribute to the collaborations as much as I can. Still, this may be a bit slow-going, as many of the nominations were left on the board for months and months. For instance, the current collab is Franco-Belgian comics, which actually has improved remarkably since it was originally nominated. Also, Watchmen was nominated, but actually made Featured Article within a month of its nomination (!), so it should probably be taken off the board. I think many of the nominations on the board now have changed substantially, and the rest have one or two votes. Not to discourage you, I think the Collaboration is worth keeping, but the whole process has been stagnated for a while. The Collab may need to be active for a while again to pick up steam. --SevereTireDamage 14:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll look to nominate one or two comics articles that can do with massive improvements. Mind you, they will probably be about Franco-Belgian, Dutch or Flemish comics as well :-) Fram 15:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I just cleaned out many of the old nominations, so there are only four now. Perhaps next month, we should go back to the "3 votes per month, or prune" rule. --SevereTireDamage 11:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured article nominations

• X-Men
• Comics
• Spider-Man
• History of the British comic
• Superhero
• Alan Moore
• Manga
• Maus

Here are the past collaborations. Can the project please put them up for featured article nomination, then cross the off and sign them. Thanks. --Jamdav86 14:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hold on. Not all of those are ready for Featured Article, most haven't even been marked as Good Articles yet (basically all of them but Alan Moore). Maus isn't quite there yet either. Also, the proper process is taking them to Wikipedia:Peer review before putting them up for FA. Not to mention Alan Moore has failed FA three times already, and besides Comics, it is closest to FA-status. --SevereTireDamage 14:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then obviously the collaboration hasn't worked. The point of the collaboration is to get the nominated articles up to Featured Article status. Therefore these are featured article standard, and all that needs to happen is for the articles to go through the proper channels to recognise them. However, apparently they aren't featured article status even after all the Wikiproject's members have looked, edited and improved them, so it's a waste of time bothering to continue the collab. --Jamdav86 20:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

All of the project's members? I've never delved into a collab, to be honest. Also, just because collabs don't make the article into a featured article is no reason not to continue with the collab. An improvement is still an improvement. That improvement may not be enough to be a feature article, but it is an improvement. Kusonaga 22:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, Alan Moore and Superhero are the only pages on the list that look worthy of nomination to featured article. If you want History of the British Comic, and Comics to qualify, then get rid of the redlinks. --Basique 19:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kusonaga, why get so hung up on the FA thing? As long as the collaboration generally improves articles then I say we stick with it. Hueysheridan 19:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was this changed? I fail to see the benefit from removing the notable relatives part of the box.D1Puck1T 20:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I believe the reasoning was that it was getting too convoluted. --DrBat 02:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that after Ultimate Nightcrawler was merged with consensus, it re-emerged and is back as its own page again. I fear this is going to be a trend with all the other Ultimate versions of characters that were voted to be merged and that people put time and effort into merging them and making the main pages better. I think if we are gonna put the effort into setting up guidelines and voting for consensus we should probably back up what we say should happen. Any ideas of what we could do to prevent them all from re-proliferating wikipedia? Or should we just let them all come back? --Silver lode 21:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely should not let them all come back. It's User:Miharakamikazi who created the article originally and doesn't seem to want to let it go, despite consensus. I rv'd it back to the redirect and dropped him a note. --Newt ΨΦ 21:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that you've drawn attention to Nightcrawler (comics), it's in need of some serious rewrite to get it in conformity with Wikipedia:Writing about fiction; most of it is written in-universe and is organized by in-universe chronology. Postdlf 23:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This article says that the Night Nurse appearing now is a new character. I thought she was the same character from the older comics? Has it ever been stated that these are two separate people? --DrBat 00:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, they seem to have nothing in common besides their name, profession, and that they're both created by Marvel Comics. It's not quite enough to call the current Night Nurse "II". The original comic should probably be mentioned in the lead and have its own section, though. --SevereTireDamage 11:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just created an article for Quicken Forbidden, a series published by Cryptic Press and AiT/PlanetLar. In order to flesh it out and make it not a stub, I am tempted to supply issue summaries (there are only 13 issues) and/or a list of minor characters. But I do not want there to be too much fancruft or fluff. I'd like some advice as to what to do with this article, please, and if anyone has anything to add to the main content, please do. Thank you. LordAmeth 12:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Both of those sections would be good, but in the case of issue summaries and minor characters, you need to keep in mind that they should be condensed. When the issue summaries become too long, they are often seen as a 'competing product', as in that the minute detail of the issue itself is also represented, giving it a little copyright trouble. Do it, but keep it bare bones is my advice. Kusonaga 12:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi to you all, I recently joined the Portal: comics, and I did a major edit to the Eshu (comics). I would like for someone here to have a look at the article, tell me what's missing and how to improve that, so I can complete it and devote my self to other comic book articles.--Captain ginyu 17:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi and welcome! to improve the article, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars and see what is missing from the article. Happy editing! --Jamdav86 13:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome. The move you made from Master (comics) to Eshu (comics) I'm about to revert, because we go by code-names, and not their real names in most cases (some characters are known more by their real names though and thus, their article is named after their real name). When naming an article, it's always so that it can be most easily found. Therefore, it will need to be moved back to Master, and not Eshu (because few people will know the Master's real name).

• The superhero/villain box is set up so that when nothing is added, it won't show up. Therefore, unless it's in the powers section, do not add none to any of the sections (such as affiliation).
• It's usual to add the volume number before the issue number, so: Blabla (vol. 57) #9 instead of Blabla #9 (vol. 57)
• Write in the literary present tense, not the past tense. In-universe writing is to be avoided, because in essence, Blabla (vol. 57) #9 is still current, even though we're on Blabla (vol. 89) #11. The character might be dead, crippled etc. in one story, while being fine in the other. Both exist however. Therefore, it's not: "Barbara Gordon was crippled in the Killing Joke, and moved on to become the weelchair bound hero Oracle." but "Barbara Gordon is crippled in the Killing Joke, and then becomes the weelchair bound hero Oracle."
• References are good (and make sure to cite just about everything), but do not copy word for word (or even take pieces here and there and just change words). That's considered a copyright violation, and is not allowed.
• I think that was it, mostly. Kusonaga 14:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Does someone have a copy of Dark Knight Returns they can dig out and scan? We need an image of the shrine with Jason Todd's uniform in the Batcave for the Jason Todd article, and the most logical place to get it would be its first appearance.

As for the image we have now, it's really low-quality and unsourced. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I just uploaded Image:Robin shrine.jpg, is it okay? --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Perfect. Thank you very much. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

--—Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 21:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)