• Is Category:Green Lanterns a bad idea? I don't keep up with supers anymore, but is Kyle Raynor considered a member of the corp? From what I remember, Hal went bad and wiped the corp out, and then Raynor was the only GL. Hiding Talk 22:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hal died, became the Spectre, redeemed himself (and now one of the characters from Gotham Central is the Spectre). Kyle got god-like powers and became Ion, burned them out reviving the Guardians and Green Lantern Corps, and now has his god-like powers again. Hal rejoined the Corps as a mook, and the new Corps is led by Guy Gardner(!).

Now, the update aside, why not just use List of Green Lanterns for this? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I thought Guy Gardner was dead, to be honest. But yes, a list seems the best way, especially as we already have one. Hiding Talk 22:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. He ended up with some alien powers for a while, though, until the GLC was reformed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware of category:Green Lanterns. Though, I think that it should be renamed Category:Green Lantern Corps members. Alan Scott, and others associated with the name can be listed under Category:Green Lantern. Categories can coincide with lists, they just shouldn't be used instead of lists in cases where citations/references are needed. - jc37 01:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with simply Category:Green Lanterns so it can include Alan Scott, Jade (comics) and Sinestro. I would also suggest maybe a Category:Green Lantern pastiches to incorporate a lot of the characters in Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate energy. :) 12:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor points:

1. Sinestro was a member of the GLC. That's part of the characters history so either category would fit.
2. Arguments can be made that Jade was a member of the GLC as well since she opperated with a ring, and more or less with the name during the story arcs where attempts were made to re-start the GLC.

That leaves only Alan Scott with out a good reason to be included in the GLC category. Even here though there is inference in story that he was considered an honorary member.

One last thing, which may be moot since the category is already up, but IMO a list would be infinitely preferable to a category. Over the past 45+ years there have been scores of characters introduced ad members of the GLC. Some, such as Salakk, Katma Tui, and Tomar Re have enough history to warrant an article, but others have only appeared either in so few places or in so minor a roll that an article would be little more than a stub. Their inclusion in a list would allow for minor information without implying an article exists, or is needed. A category, if they are on the page, implies that there is an article of substance connected.

Thanks for listening — J Greb 15:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

As a side note... It is interesting that this team category managed to side-step the CfD axe by being a subcategory of Category:DC Comics characters who can fly. Does anyone see this as the wrong way to use the Category system? — J Greb 15:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I am missing something, but this doesn't appear to be intentional misdirection? Also, please remember that the category system is not a "tree"-based system. - jc37 01:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The creator of the sub-category may well have been well intentioned. However, I can't see how the category system can be anything but tree based. Is it not the case that all of the items (articles and other categories) that appear on a category page are supposed to fit in that category? If that is how the category is supposed to work, then any sub-category effectively "trees" from it.

In this case "Green Lantern" becomes a sub-category of "DC Comics characters who can fly". And a misleading one at that. Yes, the articles involved are all "Green Lanterns", but because they are lumped there, the lack the category tag for the parent category. This has the potential to create problems. It also means the same logic cold be used to group "Hawkman character" (9 articles), "Captain Marvel" (6 characters), and "Superman characters" (16 characters)

Thanks for listening — J Greb 01:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

See:Wikipedia:Categorization#Categories do not form a tree, for more about information. - jc37 12:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That makes a dgree of sense. It does leave me wondering though if the "Green Lantern" Category should be depopulated back to "DC Comics characters who can fly" and then deleted. Based on the same logic for the CfD of the other team categories. — J Greb 00:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

From the Spider-Man Entry:

Ability to stick to solid surfaces, superhuman strength, clairvoyant "spider-sense", night vision, toxic stingers that extend from forearms, accelerated healing, superhuman speed, reflexes and agility, ability to produce both organic and synthetic spider-webbing.

It looks as if someone has added powers that Spider-Man gained in a recent story. (Possibly "The Other?") Many of these new powers, such as toxic stingers, will probably be written out, abandoned by the writers, or forgotten within a year or two, just as Superman eventually lost his electric blue powers.

Should articles about a character that's been around for decades be modified to reflect something happening in a current storyline, when it is highly likely that these changes will have no permanance?--Drvanthorp 17:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

We have no way to tell if it's permanent or not. It may be written out in 3 months or 20 years or not at all. It's not up to us to judge. If it is written out we can update it, but until then, no. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 17:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

We should at least cite these new powers to make them apparent to the casual browser, sort of, in Spiderman whatever the character developed the ability to extend toxic stingers from his forearm. The writer, whoever, notes in this interview that it's "a cool extension of his powers dude". Spiderman has developed new powers before, notably when he had six arms, but these new powers in the past have been temporary. Or something like that. Hiding Talk 18:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

From Spider-Man's powers and equipment: "In addition to his original powers, Spider-Man gains the following abilities after he fights the Queen in "Disassembled" (The Spectacular Spider-Man vol. 2 #15-20, 2004), and also after apparently dying at the hands of the vampire Morlun and being reborn ("Spider-Man: The Other," 2005)."

From Spider-Man: "In storylines published in 2005 and 2006, he develops additional spiderlike features including biological webshooters, and toxic stingers that extend from his forearms, night vision, he also developed even greater strength, speed and agility."

The text quoted above by Drvanthorp was from the SHB, which is meant to be brief.

The post-Disassembled/The Other powers are somewhat different than The Six Arms Saga -- that was only a 3-issue storyline.

Rogue (comics) also goes into an extended explanation of the evolution of her powers--she had Ms. Marvel's powers for so long that it's kind of weird that she doesn't anymore... --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 20:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, I kinda thought that was from the superbox thing, but I'd already written the post and didn't want to delete it. And Rogue has lost Carol Danvers' powers? I guess she's also stopped all that angst at having stolen the powers that used to occur every tenth issue. I guess if we address this stuff in the article, there's good arguments for and against. Was the six arms thing only three issues? I guess reading it in the British reprints made it feel longer, we used to get 8 pages a time, I think. I guess if we don't add new powers in, people are going to keep adding it, and we haven't really settled on what to do with powers in the box. Whatever the consensus decides, I'll support it. It might be a POV thing not to add them, thinking about it. Hiding Talk 14:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite know where to put this information, but I'm working on a site collecting comic book covers using a variety of aggregator APIs. For every series, I'm linking to Wikipedia for more information on the comic book. (For every single issue, I'm linking to a Google search for that issue.) You can see the results at CoverBrowser.com. My question is maybe someone has an idea how the collection at Cover Browser can possibly be of aid to this WikiProject or how else I can help out (other than editing comic articles, or adding new ones like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicente_Segrelles)? -Philwiki 15:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Titans East is full of speculative nonsense, mostly sourced to Wizard, and could use some cleanup (not least real-world order; the animated Titans East came before the Titans Tomorrow Titans East and before the not-even-yet-appearing Titans East). Be warned, though, it's a killer spoiler if you follow Teen Titans at all, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

(Gotta love that fancruft! 9-}) Icarus 23 06:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That article is a mess and just riddled with speculation, and the talk page mentions a ton of errors based on the use of specfulation, "DC Nation", and Wizard.

Oh, and there's a Kid Crusader article about a character that has never seen print, based, apparently, only on someone knowing someone at Wizard. I'm not entirely sure what to do with this mess. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Before I go blundering into things I've got a few questions:

1. Are there any guidelines existent for the layout of and information to be included on these pages?
2. Is the a sound reason why a list page would imply the list would be maintained with an in continuity POV?

Thanks for listening — J Greb 14:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Lists, like any other article, should have no POV and be written from an out of universe perspective. Other than that, um, the nearest I can come up with at the featured lists page is List of Liverpool F.C. players, does that give any pointers as to how to start? I would think that the best thing to do is start, and eventually consensus will work out what works and what doesn't. Hiding Talk 14:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Just using that football list as an example, team lists could consist of columns identifying the character and denoting the issue the character first appeared as a member of the team (real world perspective: not all comics actually tell a story where a member clearly joins; sometimes they show up already as a member) as well as the years they were a member (because denoting particular issues they were members in could get messy once you take into account appearances in other titles). WesleyDodds 02:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This CFD could benefit from more attention from project members. Thanks. Postdlf 15:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
• User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
• User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
• User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I decided to make my 15,000th edit here. I have had a great time being a part of this project. Of all the the nerd (I mean that positively) projects, this is by far the best and the most encyclopedic. I am very glad to be a part of it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓)

WOW! 15000-- that's a lot! Congrats! --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 21:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, such nerdy pleasures we enjoy, eh? Congrats. Doczilla 21:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Only about 12,500 more to go until I can do this. - Mike | Trick or Treat 00:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Good God — that made me curious to see my own number. I've made 11,582. I thought I had a life...! Anyway, CG, keep up the fine work. --Tenebrae 00:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Great to have you here CG. BTW, how do I check how many edits I have? -- Jelly Soup 00:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic news, Chris! You're a real tribute to the project and the 'Pedia. Here's to the next 15,000! --InShaneee 00:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you guys know how many you did?--SidiLemine 13:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Go here: Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits --Tenebrae 13:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I also found [1], more practical for us newbies with < 3000 contribs!--SidiLemine 13:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's crazy we've been editing roughly the same amount of time and I have less than 1/7th of your edits. You dove in headfirst, I'm still wading in the shallow end. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 17:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm burning out. The edit counter is here. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Doczilla has recently edited nearly every superhero article there is and added "Fictional" to the section titles. For example, if a character says "Character history" he will add in "Fictional character history". This is really not needed and irrevelant as the fact that they are fictional usually is stated elsewhere in the article. I attempted to revert most of them but I don't have the time to weed through them all. If anyone agrees and would help, I'd appreciate it.--CyberGhostface 19:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You reverted most of them? Please read the reasons below and then fix that. If you feel the need to undo "most" of someone's work, you could find out the reasons before going to the trouble of undoing them all. Even if you'd been 100% right, you might want to make sure -- or point out to the other person where they've erred and give them the opportunity to fix it themselves. Doczilla 20:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather we didn't have these separate sections at all. It should be integrated into the character's publication history, with each aspect of a character's depiction described in the context of when it was published and by whom it was created. Postdlf 19:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree. That is how it is done in the best books and articles on the subject. That would be a much more sophisticated and scholarly way of writing these articles. But the fan boys have grown so accustomed to reading Marvel Universe Handbook entries that you will probably never get them to go along with it.--75.46.145.86 02:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The word fictional isn't needed at all. They are comics, it's a given they are fiction and not true. RobJ1981 20:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Postdlf here. I don't see the need for a separate character history section just begging to be filled with in-universe detailed plot summary. --Newt_ΨΦ 20:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In some cases it's easier and clearer to separate the Publication history from the Character history (say, if there have been reboots or reimaginings), sometimes it's not. In either case, I agree with the main point--it's redundant to say "Fictional character" instead of "Character." Real people don't have character histories, they have biographies. While the "Fictional character"/"Character" distinction is sometimes useful in contexts where you might be talking about other types of character (typographical, people with eccentric personalities, see dab page...) such as category or article titles, within an article about a fictional character, it's pointless. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

But reboots and retcons don't actually erase the character's prior publication history; readers and writers just pretend that it does. The original stories should still be documented as having been published first and as having been the original depictions of the character. The reboot should also be properly contextualized by when and how it was published and depicted, not by when within the fiction it tried to insert its stories. In Superman, for example, the "character history" is properly organized by a real world timeline. You weren't suggesting that every time a character is rebooted, we wipe their article clean and just use the information published from the reboot onward, were you? Postdlf 20:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not meaning to single anyone out here, but Doczilla is simply following the consensus policy delineated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars. Being as it's consensus, anyone can argue for changing it, on the talk page of that policy. Honestly, though, until that policy changes, it's really not cool to criticize someone who took the trouble to read the exemplar page and follow it.--Tenebrae 20:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I think Doczilla has been doing a ton of great work lately. He has become very good at quickly making very good edits across a number of articles. He keeps his cool when dealing with difficult situations, and he follows the work he does through to the end. He brings problems to the attention of people on this talk page, and he is obviously paying attention to the WP:CMC guidelines and exemplars. Good work, Doczilla. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely no offence intended to Doczilla, who's a great editor. : ) I do wonder about the usefulness of repeating "fictional" every few lines, though. Perhaps we should take this to the exemplar talk page. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 20:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a very good idea. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just supporting the previously achieved consensus. Many of them, I should point out, did not say "Character biography" or "Character history" but instead merely said "Biography" or "History". "History" in particular is inappropriate because the character has real-world history, not just a fictional biography. I take no offense. Most of you who brought this up are just expressing an opinion about redundancy. (Well, okay, I did take some offense from one person who felt the need to say in his/her/its edit summary that my edit was "definitely not cool" instead of expressing a logical point about it, mere days after being cautioned about civility.) Doczilla 20:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. And thanks for the kind words some of you added there. It's greatly appreciated. Doczilla 20:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Doczilla's been helping me a lot with patrolling the articles for the different players in the Ultimate "Clone Saga". And yeah, Doczilla is just enforcing consensus. --Newt_ΨΦ 20:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

(In response to Postdlf): Just to clarify, no, I meant more like the division between the "Character biography" section of Spider-Man (which deals with mainly fictional things, like the origin story and major storylines--plus creators to an extent, though probably not enough) vs. the "Publication history" history, which deals with the real-world creation of the character (Stan, Jack, Steve, and Joe all claiming that they had a hand in it), sales, multiple titles, etc. I don't think it would be inappropriate to separate the "pre-crisis" and "post-crisis" versions of Superman's -- but I wouldn't advocate scrapping the old and only treating the new as "official". --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 21:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for any trouble I caused with this. I'll try posting on the exemplar page tomorrow if I can.--CyberGhostface 23:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking personally, there's no need to be sorry since no trouble was caused. This encyclopedia only improves if it keep moving forward, like Woody Allen's famous shark, and that means everything gets discussed and adapted to changing times.

My two cents' worth: Someone else, I forget where, noted that in the history of comics, there have been many, many characters who were/are not fictional, so a distinction and a subhead intensier probabably isn't a bad idea. -- Tenebrae

I started a proposal on this subject on the exemplars talk page. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 19:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a fairly new member to the comics project, and I just wanted to get to know how things are around here and the interests of the editors. Are your interests generally in comic books such as Batman, Spiderman, Marvel, etc. or more in the area of newspaper comic strips like Calvin and Hobbes, Peanuts, Dilbert, and FoxTrot? I'm generally into the newspaper strips and that's why I'm here. From what I can tell the project is about both, but I thought it would be interesting to knid of poll the interests of the contributors here. - Mike | Trick or Treat 00:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Personally, I cross the spectrum, from editorial cartoons to Krazy Kat and Cerebus, but yes, generally this is american comic book centric, if I can say that without getting thwacked. There are a couple of Golden age afficiandos, there used to be a comic strip wikiproject but that died a death, alsthough there are a few newspaper strip fans out there. Hiding Talk 00:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Tell a lie, Wikipedia:WikiProject Comic strips fell off my watchlist and at the same time got back to life. Hiding Talk 00:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Do the votes from the old Peanuts collab nom count for this nom? See the nomination for more info. - Mike | Trick or Treat 01:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. No need for the distinction, either. --Jamdav86 10:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I know I talked about this just about a week or two ago, but I'm still wondering about the resolution on fair use images. I found a couple examples of what I'm talking about in the SHBs of Spider-Man and Iron Man. Both of the images there at least link to what appear to me to be high resolution images and I'm wondering really if these are fair use more than anything. I'm not trying to get them deleted, just getting a better feel for what's accepted. Thanks! --Newt_ΨΦ 15:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this issue too, and I'm leaning towards concluding that they shouldn't be any larger than they'd appear in the article, probably no more than 200px wide. There just isn't any justification for having them be larger on the servers and on the image description page than our in-context article use calls for. The cover scans that appear lower in the Iron Man article, for example, are totally legible at only 160px, a size at which the image has no intrinsic commercial value. I think if fair use images generally were kept to that size, we'd also have a lot fewer copyright-paranoid trolls trying to impose their tortured, narrow views of fair use on Wikipedia. Postdlf 15:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it's always good to know that image cleanup work is appreciated.

To respond to Psyphics, yes, that's too large, and yes, it is a problem. Generally, such images shouldn't be much (if any) larger than they are in the article itself; if you can't reduce such an image yourself, please tag it with {{fairusereduce}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and tagged those two and Hulk (comics) SHB image (which, incidentally, the uploader claimed is public domain) with {{fairusereduce}}. Reducing these images is something I may be able to help with when I'm at home, but I'll need to figure out more of the uploading process in order to do so. --Newt_ΨΦ 16:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, make sure that images are properly sourced to their original publication; I keep finding images sourced to "Joe's fansite" when I'm pretty sure Joe just ripped it off someone else. Such images are subject to speedy deletion after a week.

Likewise for images of comic artists; WP:FUC #1 has recently been given teeth in the form of {{replaceable fair use}}. There's no need to use fair-use images to illustrate articles of living, non-reclusive people, especially since comic artists hit conventions and other public gatherings all the time. Promotional images are almost never necessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been reading up on this and it looks like "web resolution" -- that is, the size where the image on the screen is the same size as it is on paper -- is acceptable. Newer monitors have a resolution of about 96ppi, which means that a 6.65"x10" comic page or cover should be about 640x960px. However, to be safe, older monitors have a screen resolution of 72ppi (and a lot of people consider that web resolution, although it isn't really anymore), so around 480x720px might be preferable as long as everything is still legible.

For panels, it should be about the same size it is on paper.

Images these sizes can't be printed at original size and still look good, though they can be printed scaled-down--which is important for a potential print edition. It's also important to take into account things like visual impairments or future monitors with even higher resolutions, so I don't recommend going smaller. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 16:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

(Oh yeah... 160px might show the main subject of the image, but it loses details like signatures, cover copy, background figures, and so on. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 16:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

This is not a big deal. We shouldn't be reprinting an image just to be reprinting the image; we need to reprint it at only the resolution we need for the article in which it appears. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Still, 300px wide should be the minimum for images that were originally larger. That's the largest cutomizable thumbnail size that Wikipedia allows. I recommend 72 dpi as a rough guideline, because below that, lettering becomes hard to read. And I'm mainly just saying, don't stress about images that are within the 72-96dpi range, because they can't be printed or replace the original in any way. Focus more on larger ones. At about 150dpi, printing becomes possible, and that's what we need to worry about. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 16:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

300px at the largest dimension should be the maximum. Anything significantly larger than that should be reduced. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest 96 DPI as a standard, as this is the general screen resolution on most people's computers. The 72 DPI standard is slightly antiquated.

Also, for those who have programs that allow it, there's generally a web optimization feature that balances file size/legibility. If you ahve this, I'd suggest using it, as the load time can be quite significant.

On another note, could someone point me to the right articles for this case? I have a number of images I own of the ILLUMINATUS! character that were published. I would like to place them on the character pages, but as copyright owner will I be doing something odd with the GNU standards? I'm still learning that field of law. BTW. Bob Wilson and Bob Shea's estate own the characters themselves, but I own the particular likenesses we used, just to be clear. Icarus 23 17:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question, and I dunno the answer. If you owned the characters outright (say, you were Todd McFarlane uploading pictures of Spawn), you'd just release the image under a compatible license (GFDL or one of the CC licenses) and that'd be that. I don't know how your images are handled; I'd hit Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to find out. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As a derivative work (an illustration of a copyrighted character), you'd need a fair use rationale for what the work was derived from in addition to a license granted by you under the GFDL to use what counts as your original expression. Where I've posted my own photographs of copyrighted sculptures, I've just added a GFDL tag and a fair use tag to the image description page corresponding to those two levels of copyright. As your illustrations are derivative of a character only described in text, however, you may have an argument that your picture was a significant enough departure from the original so that it's not really a "copy," and you own the picture free and clear of any prior copyrights, but I'd recommend against taking such a complicated and uncertain position. Postdlf 17:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure if this was part of your question or not, but any other licenses you've granted over your image would not be affected by releasing it under the GFDL, and you would still retain copyright over your image. Compliance with the GFDL simply becomes one way by which anyone can make use of your image, not the only way if you choose others. Postdlf 17:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In some cases, below 72ppi is way too small. This whole issue came to my attention when Image:Spider-Man Death-of-Gwen-Stacy.jpg was tagged as too large. When I was resizing it, (to 477w) it became pretty clear that the lettering would be hard to read (especially the all-important "SNAP!") if it was any smaller, and at 300w (45ppi) it's nearly illegible. More recent comics are lettered with smaller letters too. So yeah, if all the relevant detail can be retained at 300px, great, but otherwise go a little bigger.

While we should always respect the concerns of the copyright holders, we shouldn't go overboard with copyright paranoia to the point of making a substandard encyclopedia. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 17:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Granted. If it's larger in the article for good reason, by all means use a larger size, but my point is that it shouldn't be larger than in the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

While I realise that many people have bigger and better, I think 800 x 600 is still the internet standard. I don't think we need to push for smaller than that, however. Larger is what scroll bars are for. : ) - jc37 20:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

So are you (HK and Jc) saying that the Hulk, Spider-Man, and Iron Man SHBs are fine as is? --Newt_ΨΦ 20:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the "how big the download should be" discussion, not "how large should it be on the page". Often there will be a rather tiny picture on a page, which I click on to get the "full size" (reading text, etc.) I don't think a comics cover should be larger than the standard size in the herobox (250px, I believe) in an article, and should probably be smaller in most cases. - jc37 20:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Newt, yes. They're all smaller on screen than the printed comics. They can't be printed. They were released for promotional use (perhaps we need a comic version of {{Promotional}}?), so the publisher expects that they will be circulated. While those particular images don't need to be quite so big for the SHBs (250px would be fine if used specifically for that), an image like Image:ToS39.jpg would lose a lot if it were shrunk down. An image like the Iron Man SHB one would be useful for illustrating the style of Adi Granov, and again would lose something if it were reduced.

Also, the new "standard" for screen resolution is actually 1024x768, though designing for 800x600 is still a good idea in most cases. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 20:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

2¢ -- 800x600 is the lowest resolution generally used on a monitor. An image that size is, effectively, a wallpaper. I don't think we need a wallpaper, or near wallpaper sized image linked to the articles.

Further, if the "standard" for artical image sizess used with this project are 250p (infobox) and 150p-200p (spot image), it does not make sense for the uploaded image to be much larger than that (+25p-50p).

As a side note from working with another image heavy, community data collection project: Images in the 250p range generally go unchallanged. It also depends on the scale — a 250p image of a comic bookc cover shouldn't cause problems, a 250p san of a 3", or smaller, pannel just might. — J Greb 20:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As someone who regularly works on computers for the "neighborhood", you'd be surprised what people use. Still quite a few 640x480 monitors out there : ) - but yes, most everyone seems to use 600 x 800 or 768 x 1024. (I imagine that some people buy large print playing cards or books for the same reasons that they might set their monitors to the lower settings.) That said, I agree with J Greb, that it could depend on the size of the original as well. However, I still would like to see download sizes possible to be a little larger than 250, for those times that you wish to "read the small print", and click on the image for the larger view. - jc37 21:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, a 3" panel at 96ppi is only 288px wide, and at 72ppi it's only 216px. So I think that approximate range is safe. Basically "On screen, equal or smaller in size compared to the original, and legible." --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 21:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think they should be the size they are in the article unless there are issues over legibility of text where that would be important. I don't think we need to make text readable if it's not germane. Hiding Talk 21:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

'K, after a lot of people beating me over the head with it, I think I finally understand what they're talking about :P Like AMIB said above, how about 300px max for images with no relevant text, and just as big as necessary to be readable (and not with TV-FBI image enhancement software and a magnifying glass, I mean comfortably) when there is? A future mini-project is going to be finding and shrinking covers, so if anyone has objections... --HKMarks(T/C) 01:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

300px maximum, except in the case of text (as noted above), sounds absolutely fine with me. - jc37 02:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Um... just for clarity's sake... What are you considering "relevant text"? Personal preference here, but if the images are being used to illustrate characters, teams, and/or events, the text is irrelevant. Further, at 300p, the title logos on most, if not all, covers are legible, and at 175p I'd still say most are usable. — J Greb 02:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Vital scenes of with dialogue, usually, something like Image:Brainmallah2.PNG or Image:ToS39.jpg where shrinking to the point of illegibility would do nothing but make people wonder what the fine print says (and in the case of the first, make it basically pointless to have the image anyway). 300px is a good number because that's the max size that Wikipedia allows thumbnail images to be. So, if someone sets their thumbnails to be 300px or 160px or whatever, they will display that way. --HKMarks(T/C) 03:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Helen, you mention above that we need a comics version of the promotional template, have you seen {{promocomic}}? Hiding Talk 07:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I never saw that before. Can that be added to the drop-down box? I just added it to the list of comic templates? --HKMarks(T/C) 18:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Drop down list? Hiding Talk 17:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

On the image upload page. There is a drop down list for "Licensing". Currently it has the Cover, Panel, and Panels listed among others. The "promocover" would be a needed addition. — J Greb 17:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I'll try and chase someone on how that gets altered because that's beyond me too. Hiding Talk 08:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've asked the question at WP:VPT#Upload Image license drop down box since I can't find where to add it in the css files. People should probably keep an eye on the thread as it may be that we have to justify adding it given the clamp down on promotional images. Hiding Talk 09:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a big deal since the current problem with most promotional image is that they could be replaced with free ones, which isn't the case for (almost) all promotional comic art. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, someone just came along and added it. I could have added it myself but I thought those sort of issues needed discussion. Sometimes you never know when to be bold and when to seek consensus! Hiding Talk 18:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the Comicsproj template, in line with other projects and how they use theirs. Basically, people can now use the template to tag articles in the rating system, but also to tag them for any concerns. Here's the usage instructions, any thoughts on extra fields welcome. Hiding Talk 22:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Project banner

The {{Comicsproj}} project banner template should be added (not subst:ed) to the talk page of every article within the scope of the project. While the template does not require any additional parameters, it has a number of optional ones that add various extra features to the banner. The full syntax is as follows:

{{Comicsproj
|class= 
|importance=
|attention= 
|cleanup=
|fiction=
|image=
|infobox=
|portal= 
|collaboration-candidate= 
|past-collaboration= 
|peer-review= 
|old-peer-review= 
|rfc=
}}

General parameters:

• class – a rating of the article's quality; see the assessment department for more details.
• importance – a rating of the article's importance; see the assessment department for more details.
• attention – "yes" if the article requires immediate attention; this should be used sparingly.
• cleanup – "yes" if the article requires general cleaning up. Please detail what aspects of the article require clean-up on the article's talk page, otherwise the tag can be removed without redress to the problems.
• fiction – "yes" if the article needs rewriting to maintain an out of universe approach per Wikipedia:Writing about fiction.
• image – "yes" if the article requires an image, which should be added per guidance.
• infobox – "yes" if the article needs an infobox added or updated.
• portal – if the article is used in the featured article queue of the Comics Portal, the subpage number of its entry.
• collaboration-candidate – "yes" if the article is currently a candidate for the project's Collaboration of the Month.
• past-collaboration – if the article was previously a Collaboration of the Month, the dash-separated dates of the collaboration period; must be left blank otherwise.
• peer-review – "yes" if the article is currently listed on the project's peer review department.
• old-peer-review – "yes" if the article was previously listed on the project's peer review department.
• rfc - "yes" if there is an issue regarding the article which is being discussed upon the talk page and further comments are required.

To avoid needlessly cluttering up talk pages, it is usually appropriate to remove any unused parameters from the template. Hiding Talk 22:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Hiding Talk 22:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The current Ant-Man page is just a redirect to Henry Pym with the link to the current Ant-Man Eric O'Grady near the bottom of a very large article. There have now been three sepparte and distinctive charcters to use the name. Shouldn't this page be detailing the history of the Ant-Man identity?

I don't know enough about the overall history of the name or I'd do this myself Stephen Day 00:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It could be that in the future, but for now it can be a disambig. --Jamdav86 11:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Too much redirects... check Ant-Man (comics). —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 16:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved : ) —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 16:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been doing some work clarifying the legal status of these characters, per information cited on the Category:Nedor Comics superheroes (sorry, I couldn't figure out how to make the full link work...) Talk page. Just thought I'd mention it here for anyone interested. 24.176.0.225 01:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Since two of these have survived AfD for whatever reason, I figure we might as well bring them into line as best we can with policy and guidance. To that end, I know Chris pared down Runaways story arcs a while back, and Onomatopoeia just did the same for Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs). My question is what the best/consensus for organization of these articles is. I remember Chris editing the Runaways arc article to remove headings, instead opting for putting the arc title in quotes and putting them all in paragraph form. Onomatopoeia's edit to the Ultimate Spider-Man arcs page is a bulleted list. Is there a consensus on how these articles should be organized? If not, can we form one? I didn't see it in the editorial guidelines. Also, Ultimate X-Men (story arcs) appears to be a half-and-half paragraph (with headings) and bulleted list (and the last entry, for Cable, is a page long synopsis of one comic book). I'd edit that last one myself, but I'm at work and I can only get away with so much editing here. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 15:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think both are legit, but I think a full text is more pleasing and better (WP:WIAGA) to read than a bulleted list. A bulleted list is much easier to maintain though, IMHO, because people become more concise. Just make sure to add infos about publishing dates, artists, real-world references (in Ultimate Spider-Man, the movies and the video game) when available. Onomatopoeia 15:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I came across The Pitt today, and it's a one shot. There is also The Draft (comics) made by the same editor. Do these one-shots need pages here? And in general, do one-shots really need articles? In my opinion, they don't. I can understand a list of one-shots, describing them... or something similar, but certainly not single articles on 1 issue comics (unless it's very important, which is pretty rare I believe). The pages for Pitt and Draft are lengthly, and they are just one shots. Wikipedia isn't a fan's guide to every little note, some cleanup of one shots needs to happen here. These two articles aren't the only examples, just the most recent I've seen. I believe there was some Civil War articles that were one-shots recently, I'm not sure if they were merged or not. RobJ1981 17:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Within the history of Marvel's New Universe, The Pitt was a turning point as big as Crisis on Infinite Earths. It was Marvel's effort to revise and rescue their New Universe line of comics. It redefined that fictional universe. Ordinarily, I'd say that one-shots should be incorporated into other articles, but not items with that significance. Doesn't Countdown to Infinite Crisis have its own article? I would, however, suggest merging The Pitt and The Draft (comics) into an article on The Black Event. Doczilla 17:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Countdown does indeed have it's own article, I just checked. It doesn't seem to be too lengthy, and could be just merged into the Crisis article. One-shot lead-ins/tie-ins to events are important, but I don't think they are that important for a single article. RobJ1981 17:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you do feel it's necessary to get rid of one-shot articles, I'd take it one at a time instead of trying to paint them all with the same brush. If a one-shot can be merged into a different article, then that would be a good idea. But if a one-shot article can't easily be merged, then maybe it can remain on its own (or, if you absolutely must, you can put it up for AfD to see what others think). - Lex 19:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The Pitt should be merged into the New Universe article. I like the Pitt because I live in Pittsburgh, and it has a map of what part of the city is destroyed. Incidentally, I tagged this article for the Pittsburgh WikiProject I started. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Phantom Zone villains - I was utterly shocked when I discovered this doesn't exist. (There is even an issue of DC Comics Presents - the last issue (#97), I believe - dedicated to it.) Anyone up for helping create it? - jc37 22:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure Phantom Zone doesn't cover the topic sufficiently? It seems to list many peope who were imprisoned in it. --HKMarks(T/C) 22:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Not even close. Particularly the from the Silver Age. I guess I'll dig out some comics and start making a proto-list of characters, and issues. Help, of course, would be great : ) - jc37 02:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, consider putting it on the PZ page anyway, and incorporating it into the text. There's a glut of lists and stubs, and too many little articles all spread out means none get the attention they deserve. Good luck! :) --HKMarks(T/C) 04:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The PZ article leaves many out. I remember misty drawings of groups of villains, usually all male, in the Zone, almost none of whom are named in the article. A list makes sense. I agree that it should be part of the PZ article. The article's not so long that a separate list is required. Doczilla 05:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess it works but 201.239.238.20 (talk · contribs) has been putting "[[mutant (fiction)|Human Mutant]]" into the species field of all Marvel Comics mutants' SHBs. Just figured I'd bring it to the attention of the project. I don't personally have a problem with it, though I wish they hadn't put "Human Mutant" both in caps. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 00:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be the intent of the line, so it shouldn't be a problem. As for the capitalization or order (would have prefer ed "Mutant human" myself...), that would fall under "minor edit" I would think. — J Greb 00:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The intent of the line was to combine an alien race template with the SHB template. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 13:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this okay though? Shouldn't this person have gotten permission before doing this (not to say he/she didnt')? Isn't it a committee who decides what goes in the heroboxes? Tullyman

The "committee" decides what fields are in the boxes, and but other than that I think it's just a case of being bold. Since we've been killing the subcategories of Category:Marvel Comics characters lately this doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. Anon users making major changes like that should be encouraged to register, though. --HKMarks(T/C) 01:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Pssst, what do you guys like better, "Human mutant" or "Mutant human"? I prefer the first cos' Mutant is treated as a noun in Marvel. --HKMarks(T/C) 01:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

So's "Human" so 6 of 1 on that count. I prefer "Mutant" first mostly because it tracks better to a casual glance: "Species: Mutant..." — J Greb 01:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Species: mutant" is wrong. Their species is human, even if they are homo sapiens superior (usually, but not always, abbreviated as homo superior) in Marvel Comics. Every species has mutants. One mutation does not cause someone to change species. I had some mice with a calico mutation. It's not an otherwise-unheard-of mutation. They were still mice, though. When prenatal exposure to radiation caused some children in Hiroshima to be born with extra limbs in 1946, they were still human. Doczilla 03:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hence the debate of if "Human mutant" or "Mutant human" is preferable with respect to comic book characters. — J Greb 03:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Mutant human" because the first becomes adjective, the second becomes noun in that order. Doczilla 04:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think all of the articles affected have to do with Marvel characters. Remember, early Image characters were pretty much just a mash-up of popular Marvel characters. Cyberforce is all cyborg mutants. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but cyborg mutant whats? Dogs? Pterydactyls? Nope. Humans, right? Doczilla 06:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

True; I just want to point out that although the assumption might be Marvel mutants, it is not so limited. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There is something strange going on with infobox's caption on this page. I've tried to edit to fix the problem -- good thing I have sense enough to preview before saving. I'm not good with code and I can't figure out what is wrong. Could somebody help? Stephen Day 02:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Looks like someone tried to make the image the same was a spot image is done. — J Greb 03:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I just listed Category:Marvel Comics mutants with superhuman strength for merging back into its parent categories, Category:Marvel Comics characters with superhuman strength and Category:Marvel Comics mutants; see CFD here. I wonder though if Category:Marvel Comics characters with superhuman strength and Category:DC Comics characters with superhuman strength should not also be merged back into their respective parents, for similar reasons as I expressed in the CFD. I think a fictional superstrength category is more useful if you can juxtapose how different companies have depicted the power (compare the Hulk with Superman), and "the category has a lot of entries" is not a good reason for subcategorizing; the size of the category only tells you when it's time to act upon a good reason for subcategorizing. I believe this is the only superpower category that has been subdivided. Postdlf 21:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

With good reason. I would venture to say that the two most common "superhuman powers" are: Strength, and some sort of Invulnerability. This is obviously because "fight scenes" are rather common in superhero comics, and you need the heroes (and villains) to be able to "dish it out" as well as "take it". I don't believe that we have an "invulnerability" category. If we did, it would likely be rather HUGE. And category size is a good reason for sub-categorisation, for "ease of use" reasons, for example. - jc37 22:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The subcategories for this have gotten a little out of control; I just listed Category:Great Lakes Avengers villains for deletion after finding it among the utter wreck at the bottom of Doctor Doom. It's also a stretch to call Doctor Doom a "Moon Knight villain" or a "Punisher villain" (were Acts of Vengeance guest-spots really all that character-defining?) We need to limit inclusion only to those villains who were particularly defined by their adversarial relationship with a particular hero/group; for Doctor Doom, for example, that only leaves the Fantastic Four. Otherwise, it's bloated into Category:Supervillains by heroes they fought at least once. Thrilling. Postdlf 21:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn right. Doczilla 21:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the answer would be to listify them all. (Several of them already have lists.) - jc37 23:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Some people who don't like "Fictional character biography" keep changing it back to "Character biography" which (1) isn't what the comics exemplar calls for and (2) doesn't meet the Wikipedia Manual of Style that a character biography summary must be clearly identified as fiction. The word "character" does not have to mean fictional. That's why we say fictional character instead of just "character" in article after article. If you don't like it because you think it's redundant, that's fine, but bring it up on the exemplars talk page (as discussed earlier on this page) and the Manual of Style talk page instead of wasting your own time making those changes and creating work for other people (in which case you should show the courtesy to go back and clean up your own changes instead of leaving it for others to do). This issue is a matter of consensus and Wikipedia policy, not just individual taste, so anyone who wants to address it needs to do so at the higher level. Doczilla 21:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed some back and forth on this. Perhaps it might be tidier to simply state in the opening sentence that a character is fictional, and then having stated that simply term the next section "Origin and Biography". It is simpler and still encapsulates what is needed.

Asgardian 03:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Opening sentence about the character being fictional doesn't suffice in order to fulfill what the Manual of Style says about how a character's biography section must itself be clearly identified as fictional. Doczilla 05:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the next section after intro is "Publication history," so by the time an article reaches the bio section, it's down a ways. I'm thinking that encyclopedias should err on the side of making things super-clear. Doesn't hurt anything. --Tenebrae 05:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As it stands Peanuts has the most votes, but a few are over a year old. I don't really know the procedure here, but I'd suggest if you want a comic-related article to be the collab, go to WP:CMCC and cast your vote. I'd say give it till the end of the day and whoever the winner is gets to be it. Best to stay on top of these things. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 23:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be the top candidate now, with the most recent votes, so I think it's fair to make it this month's collab. - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 02:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Pardon the somewhat attention-grabbing headline.

Given that we've just had a very large problem with copyvio on the Marvel articles, and given that we're not supposed to have articles focusing on an in-universe perspective anyway, I want to propose something radical and dramatic.

We should delete or move to a WikiCity every article on characters in the Marvel Universe, and start over. We should write new articles that take as their primary focuses publication and creation history, relations to major moves in publication (i.e. characters like Cable and Venom and the 90s Marvel bust), good, thorough sections on their appearances in multiple media, etc. In other words, real encyclopedia articles, not fan encyclopedia articles/expanded Marvel Universe Handbook entries. We make it clear that the articles will not be fictional biographies, and we aggressively maintain them as such.

Yes, this is drastic. But it serves two purposes. First, it demonstrates more than a zero tolerance for copyvio, but a zero tolerance for crappy work. Second, it's probably the only actual way to dramatically improve many of these articles. Phil Sandifer 19:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's an idea, but the copyright aspect was actually very small. As far as I can see, and I've just been through the whole list, there was one article which was a copyright violation. The whole issue was based on the site claiming some sort of infringement due to the images he had uploaded being uploaded to Wikipedia. That's not, to my knowledge, a copyright infringement because the site holds no copyright on the images and is using them on a fair use basis. Hiding Talk 19:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• You might be interested in my CSD suggestion awhile ago for any article about a fictional subject that was completely lacking in real world references. It didn't go very well, probably because I stupidly used the term "fancruft" to describe it. Postdlf 19:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• I can get behind that. Is it worth raising it again, without using the objectional term? Six months is a long time to let water pass. There's also an approach that's been adopted for TV episodes that we could consider? Hiding Talk 19:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• • And because I ultimately want something harsher than that, and not as widespread. I've seen only a handful of articles that have no real world citations whatsoever, and I wouldn't want to scrag every in-universe article at once. But I think hitting one area is a good idea, in a large part to see how it works. And I think this provides a good excuse to try Marvel for the experiment. Phil Sandifer 19:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm certainly more in support than against. Wouldn't we have to set up a Marvel wikicity to move them all to first though? I think the majority of us mostly agree that articles aren't supposed to be fictional biographies, but, yeah, let's see where the ground lies. Come on, keep talking, you've nearly sold me. Hiding Talk 19:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, that part appears easy, in that it's already been done: http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Phil Sandifer 19:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Okay, compatible license, so now what? How do we copy across the page history and all of that? If we delete the page we can't link back to it, so we need to sort the history out somehow. Is the database open again to history dumps? Last time I looked it wasn't, and I've forgotten where that was now. Anyway, I'll leave you with them thoughts for now, real life calls. Hiding Talk 19:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
          • If this happens, it's going to get very ugly around here. I'm for it in principle, and in application if enough people get behind it, but in a project whose members abhor loss of detailed fictional content, there will be claims of despotism and harassment. Enforcing this level of control on a wiki would seem to be like herding cats. --Newt_ΨΦ 20:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
          • We definitely would lose the histories. Perhaps we don't want to do an out and out delete, but rather blank to template with a note to re-add any out-of-universe content and work from there? Phil Sandifer 20:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm also concerned that while it makes sense in principle, as a practical matter it could erupt into one big ugly mess for everyone involved in the comics articles. Most people who edit comics articles don't visit this talk page, you know. Doczilla 20:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I'm aware - hence the experimental nature of the move. I don't think there's a wide awareness of what an article on a fictional character should look like. This seems to me like a good and forceful way to raise awareness. It could well be a mess, but on the other hand, if it works, it could form the basis of a really positive change for Wikipedia's coverage of fictional topics in general. Phil Sandifer 20:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. This is an incredibly daring idea that, in practice, will lead to a massive clusterfuck. I'm with Psyphics; I'm for it in principle, but I can't ever see it being practical. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think what we should do instead of wholesale deletion/blanking is just push for a more aggressive enforcement of Wikipedia:Writing about fiction, through the use of Template:In-universe, and by trimming and/or removing entirely in-universe sections of articles, rather than letting them stand in place until someone gets around to an out-of-universe rewrite. We could create Template:Comics-in-universe for comics-related articles that are written in universe, to subcategorize them for targeted attention by this project. Postdlf 20:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Done; we just need to apply the template now, which will drop all problem articles in Category:Wikipedia comics articles needing their fiction made clear. Postdlf 20:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia comics articles needing their fiction made clear"? That category title is not clear. Don't push this category before other agree to it. And did you even read what the In-universe template's page says about its own self-reference problem?Doczilla 00:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It's just a subcategory of the already established Category:Wikipedia articles needing their fiction made clear, which already housed any comics articles that were tagged with Template:In-universe; so all I have "pushed" on you is the sorting out of comics content within an already established process and policy, so we can better identify relevant problem articles (unless you like sifting through hundreds of Star Wars stubs). I don't get your point about the template having a self-reference "problem"; it is a self-reference—i.e., a reference to Wikipedia—because it's a cleanup tag. Template:POV, for example, also states on its page in the same way that it's a self-reference. Postdlf 04:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it just a subcategory of another oddly named category, in which case it does make sense for the subcategory's name to be in line with the parent category. Doczilla 06:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Not an entirely bad proposal. I think that part of the problem is that so many fanboys have been exposed to so many "Official Handbook" style articles for so long, they have lost all awareness of why that style of writing is inapropriate for a source that presumes to be scholarly. --Drvanthorp 05:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm against wholesale deletions for a number of reasons. Wikipedia is an information source, and not limited to a particular size or subject matter. It's a work in progress, and deleting and starting over will simply waste the hard work of hundreds of past contributors. That said we need to be serious about merging minor character articles, cleaning them up, improving the articles and adding out-of-universe information. Focus on improving and consolidating pages, not on removing them. What looks like pointless cruft now to one person might be important to someone else later.

Also remember that we've taken responsibility for more than just characters here. This project is also about creators, publishers, techniques, teams, titles, and history. Many of those pages need cleanup far more than the vast majority of the character articles. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 06:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this needs to be added to the "pending tasks" list at the top of the page. A list of entries that need major renovation could be posted. A group of knowledgable people could plow through the list and edit the pages. I read a criticism of Wikepedia the other day. The author of the criticism did an analysis of a specific page, and discovered that early versions had been internatlly consistant and well organized, but later versions tended to get muddled as random contributions were added. I think that some articles could bennefit from a periodic full re-edititing by a single individual with a specific vision of what the article should be.--Drvanthorp 16:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Listing it with our "pending tasks" might be better than tagging every single one of those articles with a category. It occurred to me that once we categorize it, the link in the parent category will inspire a whole lot of people who don't know comics to start messing with "our" articles. Putting in our "pending tasks" keeps this in the family, so to speak. Doczilla 17:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

How do we nominate this as a "project of the month"?--Drvanthorp 04:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've noticed that more character articles lately have the heading "Fictional character biography" instead of just "Character biography" -- I suppose because not all characters are purely fictional. It definitely makes sense to say "Fictional history" instead of "history". Although repeating "Fictional" might seem redundant when each character article's first sentence should already use that word, it's easy to overlook that when pictures, information boxes, etc. separate that opening sentence from the bio. As one little step toward making fiction clear, should we have all character articles include the word Fictional in the heading of the character biography/history sections? Doczilla 07:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand the starting over idea now. Let's move everything to a comics guide WikiBook and start fresh, keeping what we need from the original articles. Everyone can still edit the articles in the Wikibook, which is perhaps more suited to the types of articles many editors, particularly unregistered ones, think belong on this encyclopedia. I just feel overrun by junk article that would not be considered junk on a WikiBook. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The prospect of harassment claims on this plan worries me. If we do it, it might energize me again, motivate me to do some real edits. However, I don't know that this is the best way to go, especially since so few of the WP:CMC contributors come here. If we do it, we need to offer some warning on the tag. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 19:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Marvel stuff can be theoretically transwikid over to http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page although I'm not clear on the practicalities, there's a process that needs to be gone through to comply with the GFDL and it has to be checked that everything is set up at either end to allow that. If all that side checks out, the mechanics of the thing isn't too hard, there are a number of ways to go with it, we could set up some sort of transwiki debating page, or we could tag and give fair warning, or we could just do it. I get the sense a few people are starting to burn out here, and that's not a good thing. I think what we need to do is get our heads together a little and work out a way of uniting and focussing our efforts. Maybe we should set up some task forces like WP:MILITARY have. to tackle specific areas? Hiding Talk 19:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am burning out, but I don't want to. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've set up a system for assessing comics articles, as per the guidance given by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. I've set up a page copied from what I suspect is a template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Article Classification to detail the process, but briefly, to assess an article, paste one of the following onto the article's talk page in place of the WIkiProject banner: {{Comicsproj}}.

• {{Comicsproj|class=FA}} - to rate an article at FA-Class
• {{Comicsproj|class=A}} - to rate an article at A-Class
• {{Comicsproj|class=GA}} - to rate an article at GA-Class
• {{Comicsproj|class=B}} - to rate an article at B-Class
• {{Comicsproj|class=Start}} - to rate an article at Start-Class
• {{Comicsproj|class=Stub}} - to rate an article at Stub-Class
• {{Comicsproj}} - to leave the article un-assessed.

A bot should then sort out the articles and make up the stats and the logs for us, if I have it set up right per the instructions at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot. I think we're one of the last WikiProjects to get this set up, so maybe we need to work harder on this. Also, anyone really hot with templates might be able to take a look at {{WPMILHIST}}. I figure we could set up {{comicsproj}} along similar lines to allow using that to tag articles for categorising in certain sub-cats of Category:WikiProject Comics cleanup. Hiding Talk 00:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Great to see you've created this Hiding! I was wondering why the comics project hadn't already gotten involved with assesments. - Mike | Trick or Treat 00:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Cheers Mike. I think we just never got round to it. It might be worth holding of assessing for the minute, it looks like the bot runs at 03:00 UTC, so if we let it run with what is already tagged, we can check all the pages get set up right and that'll mean less headache if they aren't. Hiding Talk 00:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, will do. - Mike | Trick or Treat 00:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been almost a week, should we start assessing yet? I'm free to do a bunch each day, as long as others help out. RobJ1981 00:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

People can start, yes, but I think it might also be wise to get discussion going on how we're tagging so that we get a consensus on what gets tagged as what. Hiding Talk 13:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a cat class for comics categories? I didn't see it listed, so I wasn't sure. If there isn't one, one must be made. There is many comics categories that should be assessed as cat class, seeing as how other projects use cat class as well. RobJ1981 03:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive my ignorance... but what is a cat class? — J Greb 04:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Cat class is the shortened name for category class, which is the class put on the category talk pages to organize them. RobJ1981 19:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The categories are automatically added when you assess the article in the manner detailed. Please don't put the articles in categories manually, this will disrupt the process. A full explanation of the process can be found in the page linked to above, Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Article Classification. Hiding Talk 20:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that Mac Gargan is going to be Venom for the foreseeable future, should that be reflected in his SHB image, or should he still have the Scorpion outfit for the main image?
Furthermore, should the page be moved to something like Marc Gargan, since Scorpion (comics) doesn't really apply anymore? --DrBat 18:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I realy don't mean to throw a wrench into this conversation at this time but I feel I have to as there is a complicating factor I'm not sure you are aware of. Marvel isn't the only company to have a character or series named Scorpion with an article on Wikipedia, there is also Scorpion (Atlas Comics). Given this, shouldn't Scorpion (comics) be moved to Scorpion (Marvel Comics) and Scorpion (comics) become a disambig page? Stephen Day 00:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually... it would be better to get the Atlas article listed at Scorpion (disambiguation) first. Interestingly there is another comics related "article" listed there as well. — J Greb 00:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC) (And how the heck did we get back up here? ;) )

Its an entirely new topic to the conversation. This seemed like the most appropriate place. ;)

I'll do what you suggested now. Stephen Day 02:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And I just noticed you beat me to it. :D Stephen Day 02:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If the article gets a name change, I could see supporting the image change you made before posing the question here. However, since it hasn't been, I'd vote for changing the image back and using the Venom one as a thumb to illustrate the appropriate section of the article. — J Greb 18:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The two images have been switched back and forth for a while now (I uploaded the Scorpion one, but not the Venom one, btw). --DrBat 18:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't saying you uploaded the image, but that you had swapped the Scorpion one out of the SHB for the Venom on prior to posting the query here. The history page for the article has you doing that at 11:41 (UTC) today. Looking at the same history file for the SHB image:

• 11:41 (UTC) 11/29/2006 → To Venom by DrBrat
• 07:07 (UTC) 11/22/2006 → To Scorpion by 216.170.147.215
• 01:07 (UTC) 11/10/2006 → To Venom by DrBrat
• 11:46 (UTC) 09/25/2006 → To Scorpion by 172.214.75.201

The original conversion to the Venom image looks to have been done more than a year ago.

It looks like the image didn't catch someone as "wrong" until recently. — J Greb 19:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say move it to "Mac Gargan," and make "Scorpion (comics)" a dab page. I don't really have an opinion on what image to use. --HKMarks(T/C) 18:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is similar to what happened with Captain Marvel. The SHB pic kept being switched between the classic look and the current look. It was pointed out that our guidelines suggest using the most universally recognized costume for a characters. To me, that would suggest having a picture of the Scorpion costume for the SHB and using that Venom pic in the article. And as long as the article is called "Scorpion" it just makes sense to have a Scorpion pic. - Lex 02:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with using the most definitive image of the character, which is not necessarily the most recent. Considering that the Scorpion character has been in use for over 40 years, it's rather inappropriate to use a depiction that represents such a small fraction of that history. Postdlf 04:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not the same as a simple costume change ala Iron-Spidey. He's now Venom, as opposed to the Scorpion, and he's going to be Venom for the foreseeable future.--DrBat 22:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Then shuffel the the information to generate the appropriate articles, either by proposal or by action.

I would suggest, since most links already point to Scorpion (comics), that a new article be created for Gargan w/ the Venom image in the SHB. The appropriate material be copied to there. And then the original article be restructured to cover in brief both Gargan and Black with appropriate links and the appearances in other media, as per pages like Robin (comics).

Otherwise, the Venom image is extremely inappropriate for and article titled "Scorpion." — J Greb 23:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Multiple people have been Venom now. We need a Venom disambig article, much like Nightwing and Robin (comics). And now, because Mac Gargan has more than one villain identity, we need a Mac Gargan article to cover his super adventures as both Scorpion and Venom a la Dick Grayson. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Could a few other editors check how I've expanded Scorpion (comics)? First try at this... Thanks — J Greb 04:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone has made Marvel Movie Universe and Marvel Movie Universe Timeline articles. At present these seem to be original research/unverifiable speculation.

In any case, they are nonsensical: are the X-Men films really firmly dateable to 2000, 2003 and 2006? Particularly amusingly, the Marvel Movie Universe article itself notes the problems with continuity between the films, without noting that the most simple explanation is of course to assume they aren't set in the same universe. Now, it's entirely possible there may be crossovers in future.

but yeah. anyway. Are these actually salvageable? Cos I don't want to send them to AFD unless i'm sure. Morwen - Talk 12:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they're junk. AFD away. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Marvel Movie Universe#Talk needs a {{fact}} in order for this article to stay, otherwise it's blatant WP:OR. However, with a citation/reference, it "could" possibly be salvageable.
• Marvel Movie Universe Timeline - rather blatant WP:OR. - jc37 12:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Kill them. Period. Doczilla 17:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Has the existance of Wikipedia stopped people from looking for hosts for their fan pages?--Drvanthorp 05:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I've recently been nominating a number of non-notable webcomics for deletion. An argument that comes up fairly often is "The comic is hosted on Comic Genesis so it meets WP:WEB #3." I wanted to get some feedback from the community here. Is hosting on Comic Genesis (was Keenspot) non-trivial? Should a comic be considered notable simply because it's hosted there?

Personally, I'd say no. Take a look at Red Haired Blue Eyed Heroine as an example. It has a grand total of 3 google hits and its barely a few months old. Wouldn't this be a solid counter-example to the notion that simply being hosted there is sufficient? --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 21:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comic Genesis may be owned by the same company as Keenspot, but it's not the same site. http://www.Keenspot.com only lists about 50 notable comics, while as you observe correctly, CG lists hundreds of non-notable ones. We even have different articles for them, take a look. Drawing a parallel, AOL is owned by the same company that owns Time (magazine) - a subject with a page on AOL means nothing, while a subject with reasonable sized article in Time, is generally quite notable. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The Time/AOL analogy isn't so apt, though - AOL user web pages are self-published and have no editorial control, and Time magazine articles are written by a third party and have good editorial oversight. WP:WEB actually covers this - Comics Genesis is indiscriminate enough such that even if Keenspot were notable, it wouldn't pass WP:WEB. The relevant sentence is Footnote 7: Such distributions should be nontrivial. Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial. ColourBurst 22:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would concur; just because something is hosted on Keenspot or Comic Genesis does not--should not--qualify an article for notability, as per Brad's and ColourBurst's points. (Sidenote: Such a defense, namely that its host determines notability, is suspiciously similar to the Pokemon Defense.) Ourai ^т _с 22:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I cerainley don't think that simply because it's hosted on a certain site it's noteworthy. I don't know how the site works itself, but I'm fairly sure that it doesn't require the comic to be well known to be allowed hosting. Torte 23:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

From their website: Signing up is easy (in a relative sense). Have a sample webcomic for us to review when you do, and do please read the following documents, as once accepted you will be bound by them:

It doesn't say anything about traffic or media or even sending them a link to your website. Basically, you send them a sample comic, and if they like it, they'll agree to give you hosting and a domain provided that you host their banner. I think it's more of a personal preference required for acceptance into CG than anything else.

From their sign-up page, it looks like your comic doesn't even have to have been hosted before- it could be brand spanking new, and if they liked it, it would get hosting. So, I give CG a resounding no as a marker for WP:WEB. --Wafulz 23:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comics hosted on Keenspot and Comics Genesis (the free webhost formerly known as Keenspace with over 6,000 webcomics) do not meet WP:WEB #3 as neither of these are generally well known publishers and they're not necessarily independent. This is not a problem with the guideline, as these webcomics should not, by virtue of their web host, automatically meet our content guidelines and policies as wikipedia is not an internet directory, and we require that articles on websites discuss their achievements and historical significance. While there may be some tiny fraction of notable comics on these sites, not all the comics on these sites are notable. Simply being hosted on one of these sites is not a notable achievement. The same is true of even more notable webcomics publishers and collectives such as Modern Tales, Serializer, Dumbrella, etc. -- Dragonfiend 04:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember my webcomic days... there were a few hosts, and in most cases, the only criteria for signing up was "don't be a sprite comic." I don't know the current state but I doubt it's changed much. --HKMarks(T/C) 05:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

By a strict reading of WP:WEB #3 and footnotes #7, I'm unsure this is true (trying to be the devil's advocate here to make sure the debate is represented by both sides). The footnote:

Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais had a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial. Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial.

I believe footnote 7 depends on two things: triviality of content hosted and notability of hoster. What I'm not sure about is if having content hosted on a webcomics publisher would be considered trivial if they had requirements to be hosted. However, the equivalent in publishing is that publishing under a notable publisher doesn't guarantee that a book is notable (it'll greatly increase the chance of this, but is not guaranteed), and I wouldn't consider publishing under even a notable publisher automatic notability (there are differences of course being that the book market is enormous, but the same arguments should apply). ColourBurst 06:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that footnote makes it pretty clear that such sites as Keenspot do not meet this requirement. For example, "Content that is distributed by ... online sites [like Keenspot] will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion [that the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself]" is completley untrue. More often than not, Keenspot comics are not the subject of multiple third-party reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 06:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion if it's on Keenspot it's notable. Comic Genesis is a whole different matter. General cretiera in my mind is if it manages to hang around for over 1000 strips, it's notable, no matter where it is. Hell, if Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki can get on Wikipedia, I think Jerkcity and Help Desk (webcomic) qualify. Stormscape 08:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• The footnote is pretty clear on this, hosting should be non-trivial. Is it a trivial matter to attain a listing on Comic Genesis? It appears so, therefore hosting there does not meet the criteria. Hiding Talk 11:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be one thing if the site required the comic to be relatively notable before being allowed hosting, but now, it's just a matter of the site's administrators to determine if the comic's good enough, as I understand it... after just having read the FAQ, more exactly this:

To apply for membership, send an URL where your comic strip is located to keenspot @keenspot.com, along with the TITLE OF FEATURE, DESCRIPTION, CREATOR(S), and ESTIMATED NUMBER OF CURRENT READERS. Keenspot is not very interested in working with cartoonists that have not yet published their work consistently on the web. However, if you can't put your comics on the web yourself for some reason but you still feel you have what it takes to become a member of Keenspot, send photocopies (no originals!) of your work to Feature Submissions, c/o Keenspot Entertainment, P.O. Box 110, Cresbard, SD 57435. Submissions will not be returned unless you enclose a Self-Addressed Stamped Envelope.

It would appear to me, at least, that the comic in itself doesn't need to be very notable. As a matter of fact, it doesn't need to have been on the web at all (looking at the last few sentances), and then I would guess that it's just a matter of them liking it or not. They don't say how many "Current Readers" you need, either, which could mean just a few dozen if that. I'm not well versed in the practice of the site, but that's the best I can find. Torte 16:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Just found this a bit later down. Reader appeal. If you've been producing a strip on the web for months, but your readership still numbers in the double digits, we might have doubts that your strip has what it takes to gain a large audience. Does that mean we won't consider your comic if it's not popular? Definitely not! If we think your comic is great, it doesn't matter how unpopular it is. If we love it and think it's Keenspot material, you're in, even if your readership numbers in the single digits. So forget what this whole paragraph just said. . I think it further proves the point. Torte 16:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Except that SGVY doesn't get in on WP:WEB's third criteria, it supposedly gets in on the second, winning awards (that of course depends on whether the WCCA is sufficiently notable to pass WP:WEB's second criteria, and whether WCCA's categories are too stretched as to become meaningless.). Note that SGVY has only been up for deletion once in 2003 when the rules were more lax, so you can't say it's guaranteed to stay if an AfD were to be applied to it. (this is incidentally why having articles in similar categories on WP is not a reliable notability test.) ColourBurst 16:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been said before and I'll say it now: Comic Genesis and Keenspot are entirely different. You can't just get on Keenspot. You have to be invited on their by the Keenspot owners. Comic Genesis is just some cesspool o non-notability. Keenspot most certainly is not. Stormscape 18:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Two separate issues here

Comic Genesis used to be Keenspace, the free comic hosting service. It's still free, it's still open to anyone, it's still analogous to Newgrounds, Livejournal, or Geocities.

I don't know if Keenspot should count for #3, but #3 was originally written with Keenspot in mind, back before the webcomic notability standards were merged into the web notability standards. No reason we can't change that, but we need to consciously change it if we're going to. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to self, work this here tomorrow. Preferably this too. --Kizor 01:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it:

• We share "parent-project" status for anime and manga with WikiProjects: Films, Television, and Japan.
• There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject American Animation.
• There is not a WikiProject Animation.

Therefore I think it's fair to say:

• We share "parent-project" status for animation (in general) with Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films.

Considering the "Peer review" system, and the article rating system being currently set up, I think that we should discuss this, due to several articles that could become confusing otherwise.

Does anyone have any issues with the above? - jc37 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Not sure where you are going with this. Any project can rate an article, there's quite a few articles where overlap is happening, especially people who fall under the biography project as well as the project for the discipline in which they are notable. The importance rating relates to how important the article subject is to the project's field, so for example Jack Kirby is going to be more important to us than to the biography project. The quality assessment, we should generally harmonise, but again we're looking at different things. The film project might be looking at how an article on Spider-man discusses the films, whereas we're looking at how it discusses the comics, so again, you can see minor disparity there. The same goes for the peer review, people can take articles to different peer reviews for different reasons. I don't think the parent status denotes a sense of ownership, more a sense of classifying. Hiding Talk 11:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  Wasn't going "anywhere", except to hopefully spark a discussion/clarification, such as you presented above : ) - I wasn't suggesting "ownership", I was/am more concerned about "responsibility". What things come under our purview, and what will eventually need to be looked at. Thanks for the clarification : ) - jc37 21:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  How do you mean what comes under our purview? I don't put any of the "child" WikiProjects as under our purview. Articles fall within our scope, but we don't have any responsibilities, just a common area of interest and a common goal. I wouldn't put American Animation as within our scope, for example. Hiding Talk 21:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  "Scope" works too : )

  Just as you said, a common area of interest. When considering my use of the word "responsibility", consider it in relation to what articles have the WP:COMIC banner on their talk pages. In a "sense", we're responsible for those pages. - jc37 21:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been wondering about this project's scope for a little while. While it's obvious that we look after Superman, do we also look after Superman Returns, Justice League Unlimited etc. as well, because they are based on comics? Do we look after Joss Whedon because he writes Astonishing X-Men? Where are our limits? --Jamdav86 17:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we look at all of those things: films based on comics and comics professionals. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought, too. It would seem we even look at articles which are "in format" similar to comics, such as cartoons/animations which have not been previously in comic format. - jc37 23:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

(This is only partially an extension of the WikiProjects thread above.)

There are a fair number of lists (and perhaps articles with lists within them) that say "...in fiction", but are rather obviously "...in comics" (especially if we add catoons/animations).

Considering that it looks like we're going to need to eventually list/review all the comics-related articles, this probably needs clarifying.

I would like to see the following:

• All comics (with cartoons/animation) related lists/articles be renamed to "...in comics and animation". (Compare to the standard for "in computer and video games".) I think that there are going to be few (perhaps none at all) cases where a comics-related list won't be inclusive of animation as well. Though I can see where a split could be useful for long lists to "...in comics", and "...in animation".

• Truely "in fiction" articles that have an "in comics" section, could have the comics section split to it's own list with the {{main}} template used in replacement on the "in fiction" list.

I'll start attempting to compile a list of such lists/articles, any help would be welcome. In the meantime, I would appreciate comments from everyone on the WikiProject, to see if we can determine consensus about this. - jc37 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds a good idea. Hiding Talk 11:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat related to the above: If we were to set a standard (ignoring animation for the moment), which would be preferrable?

1. List of "x" in comic books
2. List of "x" in comics
3. List of comic book "x"
4. List of comics' "x"

Personally, I think #2 (in comics) is the best, because we're supposed to avoid the use of "comic book" as a disambiguating phrase, and I think the disambiguating phrase is better at the end of the name, rather than in the middle. What do you (plural) think? - jc37 21:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm. Looking into it more, there are already standards at Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming conventions. "Lists of whatever in fiction" are supposed to be named "Lists of fictional whatevers", so it has to flow from there. I think you've got to work out what your list is doing before you name it. A "list of dogs in comics" would allow a list of fictional and historical dogs to be included, for example Eddie Campbell's dog has appeared in his comics and actually exists, so he is a real dog in a comic, and it would also allow such creatures where they appear in comic strips, so if that's the case then yes, go for "List of dogs in comics". If you only want fictional dogs appearing in comic books, then you're going to have to call it "List of fictional dogs in comic books", and then discuss what a comic book is in the lead paragraph. People should be listed as "List of Whatever people", so for artists, again it would either be "List of comics artists", with the understanding that this applies to cartoonists et al, whilst "List of comic book artists" would apply only to comic book artists, and again you'd need to clarify in the list lead what artists merit inclusion, (colourists in or out). Hiding Talk 22:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Good point about "fictional", I was including that in the "X" : )

  And good point about "comic book" - my statement above is incorrect per WP:NCC (which I find rather sheepishly ironic - I've been sick the last few days, and am perhaps over-tired/fatigued. It's a feeling like not being able to read your own handwriting, I think : )

  Technically would that be a fictional representation of a real dog in comics? But I've also seem comic book biographies, which are likely not fictional, so I have to agree with your overall point.

  So those aside, it sounds like "x" in comics/comic books should be used when talking about something "in universe", or at least printed "in comics", and comics'/comic book "x" for talking about things (such as creators) outside of the publication.

• Theoretical examples of "in comics":

  List of characters in comic books (fictional is presumed?)

  List of superhuman powers in comics (fictional is presumed?)

  List of alien races in comics (fictional is presumed?)

  List of Hispanic superheroes (fictional is presumed?)

  List of fictional locations in comic books

  List of fictional devices in comics

  etc.

• Theorectical examples of "comics x":

  List of comics spin-offs

  List of comics creators

  List of comic book publishers

  etc.

• Am I understanding correctly? - jc37 23:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Eddie Campbell's comics are autobiography, so it's as real a representation of a dog as a representation can be in an autobiography. Campbell's stuff is pretty much art, really. If I painted your dog in an oil painting, is that a real dog or a fictional one? That's Campbell's dog doing what Campbell's dog does in a story about what Campbell does. As to the other points, per the conventions I think characters in comic books needs to be fictional on a case by case issue, for example as seen above dogs would have to be fictional but dragons don't have to be, so where it's not possible for a real example to exist, no fictional, but where it's possible one could, fictional. Firemen, needs to be qualified, Superheroes I would argue doesn't. Lawyers would, Aliens wouldn't, Dogs would, talking dogs wouldn't. I know, the horse is dead. :) Other than that, I think so on all the other points. Although List of comics spin-offs doesn't feel right, the best alternative I can come up with is List of properties derived from comics. I don't know either. Hiding Talk 19:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• I had no idea about Campbell, so I was just guessing : ) - and I would presume it would be a representation of the dog in art. (I don't think we need to get into further technicalities than that : )

  So, the above is correct, except on the question of whether or not "fiction" is presumed? Would it be fair to say that fictional is presumed for "character(s)", but not presumed for person(s)/people and animal(s)? - jc37 21:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Grief, don't guess when we have such a wondrous compilation of information literally at our fingertips. :) What, the actual word "characters"? I'd qualify it as fictional. Otherwise, like I said above, case by case basis. Fictional should not be presumed where real world examples exist. Hiding Talk 14:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  I think I understand you (and agree), but one important request for clarification (especially considering the discussion directly below): Do you think that "character" can ever refer to a non-fictional (or real) person/animal/creature? - jc37 15:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  What, the word character. Yes. Note where we place our article on the Fictional character. I don't get what you are asking. Is Eddie Campbell not a character in his comics? Take a work like Seth's It's a Good Life, If You Don't Weaken or the works of Joe Sacco. All the characters Sacco depicts are real, but they are characters none the less. Chester Brown's depiction of Louis Riel in Louis Riel: A Comic-Strip Biography would make a good addition to a list of historical characters portrayed in comic books, alongside Muhammed Ali, who once fought Superman. I'm struggling here because I simply don't get the question. Like I said above, "characters in comic books needs to be fictional on a case by case issue". Hiding Talk 19:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification. That's exactly what I wasn't clear about your opinion on. I might have said "... a list of historical people portrayed in comic books...", because I am not certain that "character" should refer to anything but a fictional person. However, it's a question of semantics, hence asking your opinion : ) - jc37 23:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisting the above, edited based on Sb's comments:

• So "x" in comics/comic books should be used when talking about something "in universe", or at least printed "in comics", and comics'/comic book "x" for talking about things (such as creators) outside of the publication.

• Theoretical examples of "in comics":

  List of superhuman powers in comics ("superhuman" presumes fictional)

  List of alien races in comics ("alien" presumes fictional)

  List of Hispanic superheroes ("superhero" presumes fictional)

  List of fictional characters in comic books

  List of fictional locations in comic books

  List of fictional devices in comics

  etc.

• Theorectical examples of "comics x":

  List of comics spin-offs

  List of comics creators

  List of comic book publishers

  etc.

Is this what you're saying, then? - jc37 23:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I also would like to know if we should use comics or comics' (note the plural possessive single quote) in the latter instances. - jc37 23:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's an adjective, not a noun in those instances, so no possessive apostrophe. The medium we all love has bad terminology at present, but think of it like this, would List of sculptural creators have a possessive apostrophe? We're saddled without an adjective because although comics stopped being comical aeons ago, nobody thought of what they started being. Film has screenwriters, comics hasn't, to my knowledge, squared that one better than comics writers. Graphic novelists is gaining currency, but still makes no distinction between roles that film director and screenwriter does in movies. All the lists look okay. Hiding Talk 21:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  Ok. Updated WP:NCC based on the above. - jc37 12:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)