Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

I've recently seen a couple entries that are appended from being (comics) to being (DC Comics), such as Chameleon (DC Comics), which makes sense since he's a character in both DC and Marvel. Should the (comics) tag in general be made more specific? What about names that refer to multiple characters, yet separate articles under the same company? Such as Live Wire of the Legion of Super-Heroes who is totally unrelated to Live Wire of the Superman comics and cartoon series? --Squashua 22:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The convention goes something like this.

• If there's one and it's pretty unambiguous, there's nothing. Batman. That makes it quick and easy to find with no redirects.
• If there's already an article for, say, Vulture (the bird), then it's Vulture (comics)
• If there's more than one Chameleon, then Chameleon (comics) becomes a disambiguation page, and Chameleon (DC Comics) and Chameleon (Marvel Comics) are made.
• If there's more than one character by the same name owned by one company, there are two options. If they're relatively unimportant, they can share a page, like Hornet (comics). This is a good way to do things because it prevents a number of small, unmaintained pages from springing up, and can clarify the relationship between "legacy" characters.
• But if they're more important, they can be distinguished by their real names like Spider-Woman (Mattie Franklin) and Spider-Woman (Jessica Drew).
• If they've had multiple code names, they go by real name, like Kyle Rayner, Barbara Gordon, or Carol Danvers. That's why Live Wire redirects to Garth Ranzz -- he also went by "Lightning Lad." (Arachne (comics) should be at Julia Carpenter actually...)

Anyway, maybe you already knew that. But I typed it all, so there you go. Basically, I don't think it needs to be overly disambiguated if there's no need. If there's nothing else by the name, which is more often than not the case, why complicate things? --HKMarks(T/C) 05:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me; I was waiting until I became an admin to make that move. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Rather good summary btw, HKMarks : ) - jc37 16:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• OK. Then what does one do about characters like Phantom Girl (PreCrisis, PostCrisis and Current) / Phase (present day) / Apparition (comics) (Post Zero Hour)? Would that be a Tinya Wazzo article, or would that combine to Phantom Girl (the more traditional and currently-used name)? --Squashua 15:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Using the character full name (Garth Ranzz) seems confusing since he's arguably most recognized as one of his super-hero aliases. --Squashua 15:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Adapted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics)#Character article disambiguation

• Live Wire (comics): An overview page of the characters who have used the name, summarising any sub-articles per summary style. It should be disambiguated by (comics) due to Live wire (Both Live Wire and Livewire should probably be listed at Live Wire due to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)#Minor spelling variations.)
• Livewire (Leslie Willis): An article about Leslie Willis as Livewire.

• Garth Ranzz: An overview page of the character, summarising any sub-articles per summary style.
• Tinya Wazzo: An overview page of the character, summarising any sub-articles per summary style.

(Overview articles will likely have several instances of the {{main}} template.)

I hope this clarifies, if not, please feel free to ask for further clarification : ) - jc37 16:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing: I'm talking the same character as iterated through history. For example, Luornu Durgo article, which links to Triplicate Girl (used pre-Crisis and currently), Duo Damsel (a Post-Crisis identity), and Triad (comics) (a post Zero Hour identity). She's a very minor character in the scheme of things; does she warrant having 4 articles? --Squashua 17:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. a peson may know the character as Duo Damsel, so there needs to be something there for that person. --Jamdav86 17:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Does a redirect from Duo Damsel to Triplicate Girl suffice as "something there for that person" ? --Squashua 21:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, first, I think we (the wikiproject) should discuss whether the "post zero hour revamp" of the LSH might just be considered "alternate versions" of the characters. (That would include Grth Ranzz as Live Wire, and Luornu Durgo as Triad). Whether they deserve their own articles is another question.

Second, I think Luornu Durgo, Duo Damsel and Triplicate Girl should all be merged. - jc37 17:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You left out Triad (comics). --Squashua 21:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Read the previous line : ) - jc37 23:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. Many of the ZH editions of the characters get a paragraph or two summary in the parent article rather than an article on their own (see Lar Gand or Cosmic Boy). Just because they have a different code-name doesn't mean they aren't 40% the same character with mostly duplicated text. I don't think the ZH editions warrant separate articles, but they do deserve redirects. --Squashua 02:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, see CFD here. A list of pastiches and parodies is already contained at Superman in popular culture, where entries can be explained and sourced. Postdlf 01:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Damon Matthews is important or notable enough to have his own article. Does anyone else agree? How do we know what is worth an article in this respect? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with him having his own article. --Basique 14:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I, he appears to be a supporting character from a comic book published by a major North American company. Manhunter isn't one of DC's bigest titles, but they do still publish it. His connection with Obsidian, a character with a siqnificant history, adds to his notability. I wouldn't have created the article myself, but I have no problem with its existance. Stephen Day 15:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the current guidance is to not make an article if there's not enough in secondary sources about the character. That said, there appears to be secondary material about the character in the external links. However, I would think if there was an article about the book he's a character in, Damon Matthews could be merged with that article, as it appears the DM article only serves as a recepticle for plot summary. If there isn't an article about that book, I'm kind of at a loss as to where it would be merged. This is covered here, I'd think. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 00:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is where the trickyness of dealing with a shared universe in an encyclopdedic form comes to the forefront. He is primarily a supporting character in Manhunter, but as he is in a romantic relationship with Green Lantern's son. Due to this, an argument could be made that he is also a defacto supporting character for Justice Society of America. As such the character is notable enough that an article dedicated to him shouldn't be out of the question. Stephen Day 06:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd consider Obsidian a JSA supporting character at best during the time he is dating Damon. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm just playing devil's advocate here Stephen Day 00:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone just created the following: Category:Fictional characters based on insects.

In doing some work recently I noticed that a similar category, Category:Fictional bug-based characters, had been deleted. I found the specifics here Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 11#Category:Fictional bug-based characters.

In looking at it, the new category does not seem to me to be much better than the previous, if not a flat recreation of it.

Should this be submitted for CfD, Speedy Deletion, or renaming/splitting? — J Greb 14:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I would nominate for deletion. The category itself is not categorized at all and there are roughly 50 "Spider-Man" related characters who belong in there.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, CFD it. My comments in the bug-based character deletion discussion fully apply to this one as well. Spiders are arachnids, btw, not insects. Postdlf 19:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as recreation of deleted category with inadequately defined criteria for inclusion. Doczilla 21:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A bot just added the Comics wikiprojects template to the talk page of this article, and it already has the Webcomic wikiproject template. Should I leave it as is? or remove one of them? And just to clarify, the comic is in fact a webcomic.--Vercalos 19:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

(Talk:List of comic book speedsters)

Copying one of my comments from that page to explain:

"The final result was some jackass changing the article for the worse." - I presume that you mean me? I contest the validity of your edit summary that said the page move was done without discussion. I was attempting to revert a page move that have been done without discussion (a single comment that wasn't even on this talk page does not constitute a discussion). Being bold is fine, but when opposed, a discussion should follow. I also think you might consider your tone, and assume good faith. Right now, I realise that there are a few who wish to make this a "comics only" article, even though that's not what it was (see the earliest edit:[1]). The proper way to do that would be to leave this one as either List of speedsters in fiction or List of fictional speedsters, and create List of speedsters in comics, moving the relevent information to the new page, and placing a {{main}} link on this one. The POV arguement should cease. I'll see about having the article reverted in order to clean up this page move mess. - jc37 00:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you should be able to see from my response, my concerns. The full discussion is at the page link above, please feel free to comment there. Please also consider this a "requested move". (There are a few "new" redirects, such as: ‎List of comixc book speedsters, that probably need to be fixed as well.) - jc37 21:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it occurs to me that, based on the discussion further up this page, the new created page should be: List of speedsters in comic books. This of course presumes that "speedsters" is acceptable. - jc37 21:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI Speedster (comics) was created and there's an edit war going on there. Any help with fire extinguishers are welcome. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been noticing on some of the article that there will be edits where the before and after for the paragraphs are identical. What type, or types, of edit causes this?

Thanks for bearing with the "new guy"... — J Greb 23:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've never quite understood the explanation, but the edits which cause it are detailed at dummy edit. Hiding Talk 18:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OK... that makes some sense. But what I'm seeing, and where I'm seeing it, makes no sense. The editor is triggering most, if not all of the paragraphs to show as yellow and green. And the comment is simply "Update". It seems almost worthless. — J Greb 22:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't most of this article belong under Abe Jenkins. Beetle (comics) should be a disambiguation page with information and links to Abe Jenkins and Leila Davis.

The three teenagers currently wearing all of the past versions of the Beetle armour are a problem though. I don't think any of their full names have been revealeed yet, have they? Stephen Day 03:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Taking a page or two from the Scorpion situation from up the page…

I agree that the portion of the article dealing solely with Jenkins be moved to a separate article. But the Beetle article should be in the vein of those like Robin (comics). — J Greb 04:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, that's actually what I had in mind. I guess, I just didn't word things that well. Stephen Day 03:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I just re-added the cleanup tag AGAIN to the article. I remember posting here before about it, but another post is needed. The article is almost all bulleted lists: which is clutter. Until the problem is solved, the tag should remain. If anyone can help me keep an eye on the article, that would be helpful. RobJ1981 07:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that the information I and others have added isn't enough to qualify as cleanup Rob then why haven't you done the research required to provide a solution? An email was sent to the editors of Big Bang Comics requesting additional information, they have yet to respond. If you have the information we need then add it. --Basique 00:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the information to clean it up, but that doesn't justify removing the cleanup tag several times for no decent reason. If the page needs cleanup, and can't be cleaned at the present time..leave the tag alone, and wait until cleanup can actually be done. RobJ1981 00:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The cleanup tag was removed because the people like myself who actually have worked on the page felt that it was cleaned up, it may not have been cleaned up to your criteria, but its about as clean as its going to get. --Basique 11:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The comment "as cleaned up as it's going to get" is rather pessimistic. If it still needs cleanup, it still needs cleanup. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 19:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a page of basically just lists (as I stated before). I don't see how that's considered "clean". RobJ1981 19:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A discussion developed on Talk:Planetary (comics) whether descriptions of characters as analogues of other characters should be cited. One editor noted that these are widely uncited on Wikipedia. I do not think that this is a good reason to leave anything uncited. Surely there is an article that mentions that the Four are analogues of the Fantastic Four, etc, etc. Wizard interns have filled many non-advertising pages with captions that explain analogues and references in works like Kingdom Come and Top 10; these can be used to cite such information in articles. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you going through burnout? Please leave a comment here and let us know. I certainly am, and I and a few others (particularly Hiding) would like to address these concerns. If you have any suggestions for how we might support each other and combat this so that we can continue to enjoy Wikipedia, please make those suggestions here as well.

One suggestion I have is breaking common, focused tasks down into specific committees. For instance, it would be good to have a group of editors specifically interested in working on the structure and ease-of-use of the WikiProject; we'd organize pages, add or update {{comicsproj}} on talk pages, patrol for the notice board, etc.

Another suggestion I have is awarding barnstars on the project talk page. We continue to gain new editors who make great contributionas, and I would like for them to be recognized for the work they are doing.

I am very interested in what other users have to say on this. This message brought to you courtesy of Ritalin™. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the 'committees' idea is an excellent suggestion. This can help turn away burnout by allowing users to switch 'committees', thereby giving them a whole new task and a fresh start. I've been building on WP:PARA in great strides recently, and have become enamoured with both WP:MILHIST's concept of Taskforces based on areas of interest (by system, perhaps?) as well as their idea of a monthly newsletter to keep members interested in what's going on inside the project (which can also give them new ideas of what to work on if something catches their eye). --InShaneee 20:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Part of my problem with burnout is believing I understand a bit of the policy and guidance, then seeing merge and AfD discussions go against it due to voter-verified "consensus" not reached through discussion. That's also where my cynicism comes from. A big part of why I don't do big edits is not having the direction, and also not having the time. A focused committee would be a great boon for how to spend my time when I do have it to put towards this project. The Comics cleanup project is a good idea, but it's a tad too general and undermanned. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 20:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

yeah, I like the committee or task force ideas. I'm interested as much because I feel burnt out on comics articles myself. I haven't looked at afd for over a year now, not seriously, I just can't take it anymore, and after dipping my toe in at CFD, where I once earnt my admin stripes I've realised that's just as flawed as ever too. I know the stub sorting project took ownership of stubs wholesale, from the creation through to the deletion. I'm not sure we should do that with comics, but sometimes it feels like the best solution. Where on earth do merge discussions happen now? I thought we were just bold and did it? We could certainly co-opt some merge discussions. With the noticeboard thing, I'll have a word at bot requests about whether it's feasible to get a bot to update this. Hiding Talk 21:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem with committees. I try to prevent burnout by switching main tasks regularly. I have just spent a month away from newpage patrol and on the portal:belgium, and now I return to the omics project a bit more, and restart newpage patrol as well. I think it's good to step back a bit from time to time, and switch attention, or you can get very discouraged by everything that goes on that isn't helping the project (be it vandalism, fights between admins, abusive users, or anything else). A barnstar rewarding committe would be fine, I know that the one I received made up for many discouraging moments and fruitless discussions (outside this project). Fram 21:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think the cleanup project may need to be integrated into the larger project as a committee. The only way it will work properly is with more input. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw WP:MILHIST's taskforces, and that's along the lines of what I am thinking. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Are we thinking about breaking down editors by publisher (e.g. Marvel, DC, etc), by character (if big enough, like X-Men, Justice League, Superman, Batman, etc), by tasks (condense, image-cleanup, merge, expand, create), or what? --Psyphics_ΨΦ 23:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the issue was so widespread. Yes, the ones of us policing the fancruft are indeed getting burnt out; I've seriously begun wondering if I have what the newspapers are calling "Wikidiction", which oddly enough has nothing to do with clearly enunciating words but about editing Wikipedia at all hours of the day, night and early morning, since it feels as if the relative handful of us who know both the field and Wikipedia guidelines don't spend this time, then the vandals and the well-meaning fanatic fans will wash away all the work we're done so far. I'm pretty proud of our group efforts; a great many Comics Proj articles are more encyclopedic than most comics articles I've seen in print.

Don't know what the solution is. I've toyed with the idea of approaching the high-evolutionary Wiki powers with the suggestion that in order to edit, one must first read, say, the simplified ruleset and then take a cookie-based test — multiple-choice, T/F, what have you. It's not about having a hard test. The test cn be easy; the test's a straw dog. The idea is that it makes you read the rules.

Heaven knows I don't have the wherewithal to lobby for this. And maybe it's been thought of and rejected. I don't know. I just know we spend a lot of time cleaning up the silliest stuff over and over again, like the recent return of the "X # of tons strength-class" stats by that one guy.

Thanks for letting me get this off my chest. It's good to feel among friends. --Tenebrae 23:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is taken from Chris Griswold's talk page and posted for the benefit of all in the project to add their $.02 or more. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it better to use comic book cover art instead of promo art in SHB images?

After seeing the new Spider-Man SHB, I've decided I like the inclusion of the cover art as opposed to the promo for the cover in SHB articles. Thanks for changing it. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 20:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I got tired of a revert war about the promo art/cover art mention, so I changed the file. I think we rely too heavily on promo art.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right, and it takes us one step away from the comic book origin of the characters. Having the title, bar code, and such all reinforce that. Do you think this is big enough to push for the whole project? --Psyphics_ΨΦ 21:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do. And I'll happily find replacements for every cover. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Small suggestion if you do go this route. You maybe able to find the relavent replacements on the Grand Comicbook Database. As per our requirements there they are w/o watermarks (ie "milehighcomics" or the like superimposed on the covers) and can be pulled as 400px, 200px, and 100px jpgs. Simplifies things in that you just have to re-size as opposed to start fresh.

— J Greb 22:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I will take a look at those, but I have other resources to draw from as well. Thanks for the suggestion and keep up the good work. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Promo art is usually used first because it's of a better quality, and it falls under the promocomic template. That Spider-Man cover has its art obscured, and it's faded as well. --DrBat 23:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that in justifying fair use, we need to make sure that the quality is not too good. When a non-promotional version is available, it should take precedence. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

All we need to do to reduce the quality is to make the actual image smaller. --DrBat 23:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I want to ask why you think the promo versions are necessarily of better quality. There are a lot of people online logging man hours scanning comics covers, and a number of the groups that do so produce fairly decent work. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Promo art being "of better quality" is of less import than the comic cover art refocusing the image (and thus the article) on the comic book origins of the character in question. Want to move this discussion to WP:CMC? --Psyphics_ΨΦ 23:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Good idea. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Again; it's about the character in question, not their series; if it was the other way around (ala the Amazing Spider-Man article, which is about the actual series), I could see why you'd want the actual cover. And we don't need the title on the image to know it's comic-related.

I can't speak for other scans, but the color on that Spider-Man one is all faded; the previous image was better for the article and didn't need to be changed, imo (just compare the two; the promotional art, and the scan.)

And the reason why we have the promocomic template is for images like this. --DrBat 23:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The question isn't whether we have a fair use of the promotional image, but whether it serves the purpose. I personally believe that, say, a case by case usage may be good for characters that span books, but for characters strongly associated with one book (say, a cover image from X-Men of Colossus), using cover art would be helpful in retaining the focus that these are comic book characters. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 23:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the pro-cover/anti-promo comments above. We're not looking to decorate an article, or provide the "most realistic" depiction as if it were a real person—we're looking to give information about how works of fiction have depicted a particular subject. Omitting all indicia of that work of fiction—the title, speech balloons (if from a panel), etc. detracts from that informative goal, as does favoring the "best" art over the most relevant to the subject. I'd also like to generally disfavor painted images over conventional comic art for the same reason—the ink line shorthands that the actual comic art uses to depict a character is going to be far more informative of how that character has been created and developed in fiction than a fanciful painting of how it might look if it were a captured in a photograph. Postdlf 00:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The difference in image quality between the two images that DrBat is comparing isn't a difference in information, btw. The red and blue colors of Spider-Man's costume are perfectly legible in the less saturated cover. The decreased saturation and lesser value depth in the image can be corrected in Photoshop, regardless, so this is completely irrelevant on a number of levels. Postdlf 00:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My personal preference is also for either a penciled and inked cover, in full, or an isolated (meaning no background) image of the character that represents the character. This is for the reason Postdif brings up — these are pieces of fiction. When the article is looked at, either by a reader or potential editor, there should be a solid understanding that we are dealing with entirety of the fictional character. Having the cornerstone image, which the SHB image effectively is, chosen to be closer to a "real" image, or photograph, undermines that essential premise. — J Greb 00:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't personally mind the promo covers, and I think they have their place. But to be honest, I would rather see an iconic image in the superhero box, for Spiderman I'd like to see the Amazing Fantasy cover, for Superman use Action Comics 1 or an internal image, and so on. A current image can be used within a section discussing the character as he currently is. Hiding Talk 20:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That makes sense as well from a fair use perspective, as we have the greatest argument for leading with the image that has the greatest historical importance. In the case of Superman and Spider-Man, both of those debut covers also substantially represent how the character is still portrayed (in contrast to the changes in Iron Man or Daredevil, for example), such that they are still immediately recognizeable. Postdlf 21:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What was the consensus about creating character articles with the "(Earth-Two)" extension?

The reason I'm asking is Batman (Earth-Two) was just created today... — J Greb 01:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternate continuity characters should be kept in the main continuity article unless they grow too large. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Articles_on_alternate_versions_of_characters. I'd say that article as it stands is of little use to a layperson not intensely familiar with DC timelines/earths. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 02:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I could see an argument for an Earth-two article if the character differs greatly from the better-known character, but Earth-2 Batman and Earth-1 Batman are almost indistinguishable from each other, except for a few 1970's era appearances. I vote that the contents of the article be condensed to a paragraph or two and added to the main Batman article.--Drvanthorp 17:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems reasonable; really the only things that need to be mentioned about the character are 1) the concept of the Earth Two Batman as a means to separate the GA Batman stories from the SA stories; 2) the separate publication of the history after the invention of the concept, to describe his retirement and death. Really no more than two paragraphs. Postdlf 19:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles about comics series are not about only the current issues. I just removed the listing of the current cast in X-Men (vol. 2) and replaced it with a link to the List of X-Men teams article because all of the characters are listed. What do we do, however, with the credits information? When a series gets beyond a certain number of issues, this becomes either useless or overwhelming. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Try to use Wikipedia standards for notability to establish a short list of notable contributors. Doczilla 07:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For Marvel books copy it over to that Marvel wikia that exists and place a link to the diff of the wikipedia page that it exists in, and then add a link in the external links section along the lines of Marvel wikia has more information about whoever. We should definitely note the creators who launched the book, and other creators who had runs which have generated comment, but that should be done within the text. I can see that lists of creators could be useful, but we have to decide if we're replicating the GCBDB or not. Certainly let's not overwhelm the series articles with this stuff. If there is a consensus to keep this stuff, start separate list articles. Hiding Talk 20:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this list in any way useful and meaningful, or can it be safely deleted (Prodded)? Fram 14:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

I've noticed that on several of my pages the same person, namely 201.239.238.20, has been putting bogus names in. I caught it on 5 of my pages and corrected it, asking whoever to source stuff such as this, if it is factual. Can anything be done to stop this? Tullyman 19:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You make...no sense. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you link to specific edits by that IP that you're challenging, and provide a source that establishes that the added information is incorrect? If it's a clear case of intentional misinformation, I can block the IP for vandalism. Postdlf 19:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Check his contributions, the editor at the IP in question is adding alteregos for characters (like Callisto (comics)) without citations. Agreed, it wasn't all that easy to figure out what he was saying without checking his contributions. His userpage and talk page edit histories were both pretty clean of any unregistered users. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 19:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion...I still don't speak Wiki-ese yet...but Psychics summed it up quite nicely.Tullyman 05:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I know we've discussed lists of works before around here, so I figure I'll mention that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) is looking for comment. Hiding Talk 22:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Article seems to have been stolen. See talk page. --Raijinili 06:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone can quickly remove all copyright violations, make the fiction clear, and provide references for at least one specific comic book issue, that article needs to get deleted ASAP. Doczilla 07:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Even though it has been around for months, the article is still mostly copyvio, so I deleted it. Mythstalker (talk · contribs) made a number of articles, primarily about Daredevil's Pals 'N' Gals, but so far, this is the only real copyvio article I can find. I would appreciate some more eyes on his contribs. Also, I cut out a chunk of his Arc the Lad article that still had some copy from IGN. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)