THC Science

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

→

Captain Marvel & Captain Marvel Jr

Thought I'd post this here before I wade into the discussion pages.

It looks like someone has decided to move these pages for little, if any, good reason.

The rationale for the CM Jr move is that the character is not using the name any longer. That seems wrong to me since 1) he hasn't picked up a new name, and 2) no one else picked up his old name.

The reasoning for the CM move makes even less sense to me. The new title picked was Billy Batason, Shazam (presumeably since Billy Batson was already a redirect, and Shazam already has his own page...) on the logic that Billy has taken up that name. This is something that isn't supported by the article, nor, to my knowledge, by the comics.

Should these moves be reversed?

Thanks for listening... — J Greb 12:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The man can't even spell Batson. I moved them back, and if he were to move them back again, these changes should be instantly reverted. Nonsense reason, Superman was still as Superman in the time he didn't identify as Superman - it's an article about a character throughout their production history, not a current status character profile. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

ALSO! Can someone please merge the histories?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you didn't move the article back; you cut-and-pasted it. Please never do this again. Either move it properly or get an administrator to do it if you can't. I did the same thing once, so I know this was a mistake, but now I have to undo this work. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Missed this one when I saw the first two moves this morning: same use moved Shazam (comics) to The Wizard Shazam (comics) at the same time. It looks like it should be moved back as well.

Argh! He's moved it again to Freddy Freeman (Captain Marvel). Could you move it back, Chris, and perhaps stop this guy from troubling the article? By the given reasoning, we could rename one of the Robins to Batman (Tim Drake) because of Titans Tomorrow.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it back to Captain Marvel, Jr. using the move link. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, this 'guy' is Tigerklinge. He also moved Shazam (comics) to The Wizard Shazam (comics), which I've moved back as well. You can check his other edits here. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again... another user, Thethunderstrike04, just flipped Captain Marvel, Jr. to Shazam II (Captain Marvel, Jr). Can an Admin fix this?

Thanks for listening... — J Greb 03:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Based on the page histories, Freddy Freeman, currently a redirect, was the original Captain Marvel, Jr. page. This one seems to have become a royal mess... — J Greb 03:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I've moved it back to Captain Marvel, Jr. ... this is annoying. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 03:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC) ok, I wait until Trials of Shazam! is over. see how TOS series sale go.The Thunderstrike04Thethunderstrike04 04:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography Section

What's the skinny on this topic? I've seen some comics articles with Bibliography sections (listing some, or all, of the character's significant appearances), though they are few and far between. I assume this is because either 1) They are difficult and time-consuming to put together, and/or 2) Wikipedia really doesn't want them there in the first place. If it's #1, I wouldn't mind helping out when I get the chance, and if it's #2 I understand. If biliography sections are appreciated, what if any is the standard format? BOZ

The standard format is deletion. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 10:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a guideline we can cite on this? — J Greb 15:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible instead to start more articles like Bibliography of Magneto? BOZ

Bibliography articles, yes. Articles like that, hell no. It's all POV. --Jamdav86 17:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And no, there is no guideline. The issue never came to a consensus and people lost interest, as I recall. --Jamdav86 17:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

New template

Would it be worth having a template like this for creative teams on pages such as X-Men (vol. 2) and The Amazing Spider-Man? --Jamdav86 14:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

At first look, it might be useful. However…

It looks like, if it were redone for here, it would have to be geared towards being single page specific. Each title would have its own grid, and it would be awkward to have it port to each writer, penciller, inker, etc.
It wouldn't be reasonable to limit it to just the two titles mentioned, there are a lot of titles covered in article space where this would be wanted. That makes for a lot of work.
Fill-in and proportionately very short tenures would be very hard to include in a usable manner.
Books with high creative turn over and/or long runs will make for a large chunk of space turned over to a comprehensive list.

— J Greb 14:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I had no intention to limit it's usage. Some of your comments were unclear, but I would like to clarify that each template would only cover one page. Also, it would not be limited to one row for writers, one row for pencilers etc., if it would be clearer to add an additional row for co-writers, fill-ins or short runs.

Additionally, a version of this could also be used in creator's bibliographies to chart their runs on titles.

If someone with some experience with these templates could create one using X-Men (vol. 2) as an example, it would further this discussion a lot. --Jamdav86 17:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and clarify my points.
The reference you point to is tracking 1 change (companions) over 29 discrete points (episode articles) and is built without variables. This makes it a useful tool for adding onto those 29 articles, but it would have to be rebuilt for similar use on the remaining episode articles. For use within the Comics project, where creating articles for each issue is frowned upon, that means the chart would have to be re-built for each article it is put into, and each one would essentially be a one off.
By extension, creating, and maintaining them would be a lot of work. Each comic creator, living or dead, would need a table. Each title, ongoing or out of print would need one. And each chart on a living, active creator and on a currently publish title would need to be updated month in and month out.
As for readability, there are two issues.
The first is fill-in creators. Almost inevitably the columns will become thinner than the creator's name. The table will wind up having visually tall rows with single points of interest.
The second is density of columns in general. Picture the reference template with 2 time as many episode, 3 times, 5, 10. There is a point at which you cannot read anything because there is too many discrete points.
Granted, these problems can be avoided, but only if the number of issues per table is limited. Once you do that, additional table will need to be created to cover a single series. That means more work. It also means that, for long running series like Action Comics there will be a lot of tables at the bottom of the page.
This, along with books with high creative turn over (meaning more rows of creators), also would result in articles giving more space over to the tables than actually dealing with the topic.
Thanks for listening... — J Greb 00:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Imperial Guard (comics)

Can anybody find a citation that discusses the similarities to the Legion of Super-Heroes, specifically one that mentions they are based on/inspired by/pastiches of the LSH? It seems to be pretty obvious and "common knowledge," but I can't seem to find anything. This and the Gladiator (Shi'ar) articles would benefit greatly from a reliable source. CovenantD 23:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources? Yes. Reliable sources? Trickier. Weblinked citations that could be used as evidence that the general comics community believes that Cockrum based the Imperial Guard on the Legion include these: 1, 2, and 3. However, certainly none of these are reliable sources to make a blanket assertion that A follows B. Post hoc ergo propter hoc doesn't apply to wikipedia citations.

The only interviews with Dave Cockrum on the web that I see are at here, here and hereand he makes no comment on this subject in any of them.

I'll keep looking. If anyone has old copies of either of the following he might make a direct statement there, as they publish extended interviews closer to the time the work was done: David Anthony Kraft's Comics Interview #20 (1985), The X-Men Companion I (1982) -Markeer 04:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone with the old Claremont/Cockrum comics handy should check the letter columns. As I recall, it was acknowledged in at least one letter column. Admittedly, I'm thinking back to what I read over a quarter-century ago. Doczilla 10:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Species template?

This has been brought up before, but I haven't seen any discussion of it. (Doubtless, it has been discussed somewhere and I'm just missing it.) So, forging ahead, is there a need for or a desire to have a template for alien species and/or fictional domestic species? Alien races such as the Skrulls, the Kree, and the Kryptonians don't have a template that neatly fits them. These aren't "teams" certainly, but I don't know that a standard Super Hero Box template really works either. In practice, there seems to be a mix within the articles on comicdom's fictional species; some use the SHB, some don't. Although it's not necessary for these alien races to use an infobox, I think that there might be some value in developing a one specifically for them. Any thoughts? --GentlemanGhost 01:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day

It's being suggested that for Wikipedia Day, Jan 15th, we try and do the following:

Each Wikiproject will try to clear its to-do list;
Each Wikiproject will pick an article within its scope and form a collaboration to improve it to GA/FA status;
Each Wikiproject member will attempt to make as much useful and constructive edits as possible to articles within the Project's scope;

It's all being discussed at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week. Hiding Talk 10:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Basilisk (comics)

What's the deal with this article. It keeps getting reverted back and forth with the statement "revert: clearer picture of subject, presence tense, comic book references used". Anyways just letting y'all know since it's been going on for a couple of months now. RIANZ 18:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just the user Asgardian trying to make the main SHB image of the character be their first issue, regardless of its quality. --DrBat 01:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This article was one of a set of articles, most of them Thor-related, getting reverted back and forth during a three-month edit war that has slowed down since an administrator incident report last month. Doczilla 06:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:History of comic books

Is there a way to come up with on page guidelines for this one? At the moment it looks like it is being hijacked to recreate the "Comics related" cat. — J Greb 01:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not just delete it? What useful function could it serve? Postdlf 01:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say "As an umbrella for comics by year and similar cats/articles" but since the comics by year already default in the Comics cat there isn't really anything substantive to cover... I'll put it up. — J Greb 02:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That category has been added to many articles with no apparent rhyme or reason except that if an article is about comics, it gets categorized, thereby making the article pointless. Within a minute of logging in, I rushed to see if the person who is suddenly adding it to article after article had joined during the days since EJB's banning. (It's a relatively new username, but not that blatantly new. Plus, not enough words are capitalized to make any incarnation of EJB happy.) Doczilla 06:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Adventures of Tintin

The Adventures of Tintin is today's featured article for the main page. As such it is getting a fair amount of vandalism. Could project members perhaps add it to their watchlist and keep an eye on it for the rest of the day. Cheers, Hiding Talk 21:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

New cartoonist added: Rob Tornoe as a stub

Hello, I created a stub artist on Wikipedia. I do not know much about this cartoonist. If you do, would you please visit his article page and give me a hand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronbo76 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyberpathy

I've been having an arguement with the fellows on the talk page on List of comic book superpowers. I thought that cyberpathy -the ability to control and intercept computer data- was different than technopathy -the ability to manipulate technology.- They kept on disagreeing and, though I still believed in cyberpathy, I decided to let it go. But then, right after that, they add "Bone Manipulation" as a separate power as "Biology Manipulation." I say we either add "cyberpathy" (which I'd rather do) or take away "bone manipulation."— Preceding unsigned comment added by David the Phantom (talk • contribs) 15:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs) is back again

Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs), which spent a month redirected to UItimate Spider-Man, has been recreated, with the no-consensus AFD being used as a shield against redirecting the page. Can someone help me out here? Consensus on the project was to redirect it (although I can only find one discussion of story arc articles, when I know there was more) and consensus on talk is that nothing can be done with it, but I'm standing pretty much alone at the moment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching it, Hiding, and I'm waiting to see how the similar Ultimate X-Men (story arcs) AfD goes before I nominate any others. You're not alone ;) CovenantD 03:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the spider man page is acceptable, and we're working on fixing the x-men one. It looks like we didn't fix the x-men page in time to stop the AfD, but I guess we'll hash it out with spider-man. It's totally different, so don't use the x-men result to redirect the spider-man page. - Peregrinefisher 07:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at long running titles such as Avengers, Batman and X-Men (original series) as examples, I see no story arcs for them (and hope to never see them). A comic wiki is the place for story arcs, not here. Ultimate titles shouldn't be an exception, even if they are written well. RobJ1981 23:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability of a comic in a student newspaper

Hey there folks. I was wondering if I could get your perspective on a notability issue. Fluble's claim to notability is that it was published in the Brown Daily Herald, a student newspaper. Does this satisfy the criteria we have in WP:WEB? --Brad Beattie (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Features in student newspapers are not notable enough for their own article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 10:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

comicbookresources.com

Is http://www.comicbookresources.com/ a reliable source for comic info? Can it be cited? - Peregrine Fisher 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

IIUC it depends on the article/author hosted by that site. I believe the LITG stuff anathema, even if referenced or borne out elsewhere. — J Greb 22:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The articles are fine to source. As for the columns, it depends. If you are sourcing that the columnist is giving his or her own opinion that's easier than say taking their word as fact. WesleyDodds 01:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Lying in the Gutters is one of the most reliable and insightful comics columns on the Internet. It is rarely wrong, and less so than most reliable resources. It's reliable; you can cite it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comic character pages are getting huge

The character pages for notable comic characters are starting to become very large. Do we have a guidline on how to split these pages? If not, let's make one. We can also deal with Ultimate and Earth 2 versions and whatever. - Peregrine Fisher 10:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the guideline is discuss any and all page splits in depth before performing them. --Jamdav86 17:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

First off, there is a good guide on page length here. Second, IMO the variation (Batman Earth-One/Two, Spider-Man 616/Ultimate) should not be the first thing to split off. Use in other media, cultural impact, bibliography, even powers/skills should be split off first, and that's if the article cannot be reasonably condensed by, for example, removing unneeded summary information. The variations are part of the real world publishing history of the character and should be kept in one article as long as possible. Third, Jamdav86 makes a very good point. Since any split is going to be an issue, it should be discussed first. — J Greb 17:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with most of what has already been said, I have a few comments. Bibliography: not needed very much in articles (so there is no need for it to be split into a seperate page). Encyclopedia: not a guide to every appearance. Small bibliographies in articles: fine, but it's certainly something that should be split off very much. Also, powers and skills shouldn't be split off either. That's a main part of the article, and doesn't need to just be moved to a seperate article. In bigger articles: cruft needs to go first. I've seen on some pages: big descriptions of movie appearances and video game appearances, which shouldn't be so big (considering the movie article explains the character and any changes to it for the movie version, same applies for video games). Lastly: variations such as Ultimate, Age of Apocalypse, earth 1 and 2, etc... shouldn't be split off unless it's really needed. Many variant characters are very minor, and don't have enough differences to justify a page. RobJ1981 22:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A bibliography is completely out of universe information. It seems like that makes it some of the most appropriate info about a comic that we can include. - Peregrine Fisher 16:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Biblographies for characters who've been around for decades can get pretty huge. They're more apt for creators. WesleyDodds 23:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing series

Can editors please take a look at this article? Thanks. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 10:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

One of my concerns is that this is jargon, and so the title should be changed to reflect this; references to ongoing series in other articles should be explained fully as being a comic book series. Also, I don't know that we differentiate ongoing so much as those that are non-ongoing: one-shots and limited series. Finally, the article comes across as original research. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't like the terms are used in a different sense than their ordinary meaning, so what is there to explain? This is nothing but a dicdef generally applicable to any serial work (television as well as comics), that has been pointlessly applied to only one specific context via the magic wand of OR. I think it's unsalvageable and inappropriate as an article, and anything that is of worth should simply be mentioned in comic book to discuss publication practices. Postdlf 18:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month: Peanuts

For how many months has this been the Collaboration of the Month?--Drvanthorp 17:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Two (and one week). --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Modern Age of Comic Books

Can we get some consensus about what to do with the Modern Age of Comic Books. It's getting huge and a lot of it is covered by Bronze Age of Comic Books. Also there are big sections on Movie adaptations and alternative comics which arguably don't belong in it. Thoughts?

Iron Ghost 00:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Webcomic Misfile nominated for deletion - please do not visit the debate unless you are an established contributor.

Misfile has been nominated for deletion today. If you know enough about this comic, please speak to its proposed deletion at its proposed deletion [Misfile]. As a regular contributer to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, this is not a call for a vote based upon popularity or other similiar reasons. AfD require contributors with a history of article creation or editting to speak upon an AfD. I will speak as a project member and also as a AfD nominator and debater. Ronbo76 00:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Two other webcomic articles were nominated by the same user. Tags were added as per the appropriate article. Ronbo76 02:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Web comics

Question: What's the policy (if any) on entries for web comics? Particularly ones where the website no longer exists? I'm thinking specifically of Liberty, the American Girl which used to be at http://www.powerheroes.com. She appears in the superheroine list, although there is no entry as yet. If there is some interest, I may be able to contact the creator of that comic; I believe he is still active on Animotions. --Jackytar 09:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

On the premise that you can't go wrong asking, I've sent him an email to see how he feels about it. Also asked specifically for permission to duplicate an image or two here. --Jackytar 00:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Alan has replied to me and will send a CD of the series, along with permission to use a couple of images. I'll put up the article when I get the material, and let the chips fly where they may. --Jackytar 04:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Penance

If Penance does turn about to be Speedball, I'm assuming Penance's page will be merged/redirected to Speedball's page. That being said, should an image of Penance be made the main image for the SHB box, and should the article title be moved to something like "Robert Baldwin (comics)" since he's going to Penance and not Speedball for the foreseeable future? --DrBat 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't put the cart before the horse. Leave it as is for now, until within the comics they declare that Penance is Speedball. It's all conjecture and spec at the moment. Nothing wrong with waiting. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying to do it now. I'm saying, if Speedball is Penance, what should we do? --DrBat 21:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread some of what you said! Mea culpa! Using Dick Grayson as an example? I'd say make a Robert Baldwin (comics) or Robbie Baldwin (which do people call him more often?) page. Then put a link from the main Penance (comics) page to that one, and explain it all in one page. Nice and easy! Of course ... be careful. He might be cured and go back to Speedball. Darn comics! -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 22:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's been confirmed.

Thanks for listening... — J Greb 01:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This one's actually got an editorial guideline. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Uniform cover artwork crediting convention.

And on a separate note, may I just compliment you on all the category, infobox and other such items you've been adding to Comics Project articles, which helps enormously to unify the project and develop consistency. Hear, hear!--Tenebrae 12:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's the reference I was looking for. And thanks for the complement as well. — J Greb 14:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

200X in comics

Should we make comic versions of 2001 in television and 1999 in film? It would give us something more relevant to link to when we mention dates. - Peregrine Fisher 05:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We have a number of those articles (see 2000s in comics and similar grouping pages), but there are a lot still missing, and those we have are not really useful, I think. There is loads and loads of info, but also loads and loads of work (I'm working since two months on and off on dates in comics (e.g. January 1, January 2) for the comics protal, and it's a slow and laborious process to make it varied and not too one-sided. I would support the articles you propose, but I'm not going to collaborate on them, I think... Fram 06:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This just doesn't sound useful. Comic story time doesn't correspond to real world time anyway. Comic publication time lags with respect to real world events. And again, why bother? As Fram noted, the ones people already started never got fleshed out. Expanding the number of such articles will just leave us with more orphaned, incomplete articles. Doczilla 07:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's more out of universe stuff. I have gotten way behind on 2006 in comics, which is what I'd see such pages as being, but I do bash away now and again. But yes, it is an awful amount of work. I hadn't realised you had started working on those day pages Fram. Do you need a hand? Hiding Talk 13:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, but I think I'm getting there. I have now entries for all but 30 days, and will expand it still more the next few days. I still have a whole bunch of articles that I know I need to check through to get to the dates. When I'm done with those and still have dates without entries, I'll post a list of the empty ones. (I hope this doesn't look too much like WP:OWN, everyone is of course free to help, the pages are all like this: Portal:Comics/Anniversaries/September/September 8.) Fram 08:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that 2000s in comics has been PRODed. I have given my thoughts here: Talk:2000s in comics#PRODed. As things stand activity on these entries is too low to sustain "decades in comics" for now. Hopefully the PRODing will help resolve the whole List of years in comics issue - it could be a very important part of the Comics Project and really just needs more editors working on them (although Hiding has done awesome work showing us what the "years in comics" entries should be like. To help with the activity I suspect we should add them into the pending tasks/to do list of the Comics Project (I also try and edit mentions of years in comics into entries so: 2006 instead of 2006). (Emperor 15:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

I don't know what I think of this

While it's not strictly a comics only category, what do we think of Category:Fictional characters with the power to generate force fields. Very similar to the "manipulate energy" categories. Just what constitutes a force field - Invisible Woman style, Jean Grey style, Green Lantern style? All of that?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Was there not a blanket removal of Category:Fictional characters by superpower? (Guess not) If not, I'll agree that it is rather ambiguous on the type of force involved. I guess the biggest question is, is the ability to generate force fields a defining characteristic of these characters? Invisible Woman, possibly, though not from the beginning I'm guessing (was the ability to generate forcefields one of her original powers?). Jean Grey, and Green Lantern definitely would not be defined by their abilities to generate force fields. It would be absurd to list every power and every possible use of the powers in the categories. I don't really like the category myself. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 20:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And this one: Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate radiation is still kicking around as well... — J Greb 21:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

ALL things have the power to "manipulate" radiation. You manipulate some of it into your skin when you absorb UV rays. Doczilla 07:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Any time someone creates one of these categories and hastily populates it is a sign they're just plain reckless. The true definition of a force field (a field of pure force in the operational definition of force used by physicists, not just any old form of energy, not just any repulsive force) does not apply in most of those cases. If we can't generate a useful definition of force field, the category sucks. A magnetic field is not a force field. Telekinetic repulsion is not a force field. Doczilla 07:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:COMIC should come up with a guideline that allows us to speedy delete some of these more undefined categories.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

New and old templates

Hey. Ace here. Hate to be the problem-bearer, but here we go. A new template has been created, using the old color codes already discussed away in the "Kill company color codes?" discussion. Then, looking at Category:Comic book infobox templates, I noticed another template. An older template using that scheme and serving less of a—if any—purpose. Oh wait- Maybe I'm getting ahead myself. Okay. The new template, Template:Comicbookspecies, is apparently for species—I'm Captain Obvious, BTW...—such as symbiote, Kree, Skrull, et cetera. I won't out and out denounce it at the moment, but we should at least make its coloring uniform. Then there's older template, Template:Alternateearth. Yeah. I can barely believe this shiz myself. A template for altermate earths. Anyway, that's the situation. We can update both, get rid of both or "half 'n' half" it. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry the species one is my bad. Ace ain't the only one who can get ahead of themselves. I keep forgetting to lay every on the table first BEFORE going ahead with it. Only thought the species one could be helpful (though it's PRETTY basic and - yes I know should of got a consensus - if it is kept then it could be upgraded... a lot). As for the alt universe one... ummmm... I dunno I guess some things are created to give a article... more... colour? (OK that is MY reason why I created the species one) I could be useful but then we don't have a template for locations now do we? Do we? I dunno. Anyways, if both get deleted then they get deleted. The species one (guess whose being bias) doesn't really affect many pages, just the basic ones. The alt uni one on the other hand... well has five things linked to it. It could do with a lot of work and may be useful if anyone is willing to just overhaul the Multiverses. Though I guess someone also needs to overhaul the species articles as well. RIANZ 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, well, I'll see what I can do about updating both. At the moment, I don't feel a strong need for deletion. (if I did, I'd submit them myself.) I'm still hoping more people weigh in, though. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I've fixed both. Whether or not they're accepted is out of my hands. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 07:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

category needs renaming or refactoring

Take a look at Category:Peanuts people. I'm not even sure what this category is supposed to be, and the user who created it is long gone. The people in the category do not all appear to be related for any of the same things except some very vague big-tent Peanutsism. I was looking for Wikipedia:What the heck do I do with this weird category but I couldn't find it, so I came here. Got any suggestions? How to make this more specific and clear out whoever doesn't belong? Decide what it's supposed to be in the first place so we know who does belong? Kill it with fire? — coelacan talk — 06:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Template for The Sandman and related pages

Hi, everyone, just a heads up to those who may be interested: there is a newly created and proposed template for The Sandman (Vertigo), created by A1437053. They're welcoming comments on how to improve the template to better adhere to guidelines and suit the subject matter. Please drop by and add your comments or make some changes. I for one would love to see this template in action. María: (habla ~ cosas) 13:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Article move mess...

Could an admin please take a look at what used to be the Tempest (comics) article. The editor who was hell bent on renaming the Captain Marvel articles based on an assumed ending of Trials of Shazam has moved it to "Garth/Aqualad/Tempest (comics)". This was right after an annom deleted the Joshua Clay info and mucked the infobox.

Thanks for listening... — J Greb 14:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully, it was a straight move and nothing linked to Garth/Aqualad/Tempest (comics), so I moved it back. This was a ... partially good idea. But Tempest shouldn't have been a redirect to Garth. Possibly we should look at Tempest (Garth) for a page, if a new Tempest shows up. Oy. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Editors here have brought articles on obscure and inconsequential comics characters amd information before, and the suggestion was even made and discussed to wipe the slate clean, sending the majority of articles to another wiki and start fresh with the important articles.

Let's instead focus on eliminating and merging articles about these characters. Let's make some sort of notability guideline for the project that says which characters, teams, and items really need to be here and which should be sections of another article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

hmmm. If we have to do it, I'd go by sourcing. If we're only using the comics as a source for an article, to me that implies the article should be merged somewhere. We shouldn't really base an article on primary sources, in my opinion, and it also feels like a good rule. Your Eternals and so on make more sense discussed in a list of Eternals. Major characters have more sources, so articles can be written. Those are my initial thoughts. Hiding Talk 14:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. My only concern is that "obscure and inconsequential" could be subjective. How do each of you think we should define it/draw the line? - jc37 15:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have to. The verifiability policy notes that If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. I'd say that's our line. If there are no reliable third party sources, then there's no article. Anything without reliable third party sources is "obscure and inconsequential". I think the argument over subjectivity, with all due respect, is a blind alley. All decisions on Wikipedia are subjective. It's all about consensus. The line from WP:V holds the strongest consensus, being in an established policy. Hiding Talk 15:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

...and where to "draw the line" is subjective : ) - However, the word "notability" was used first (even as the name of this thread), and that is what I was responding to. (I'm not a fan of WP:N, though I will have to note that it's undergone a lot of changes since I last looked at it. Hmm...) But yes, I agree that WP:V is the current "strong" policy. (Note also: Some interesting discussions have been going on at WT:ATT : ) - jc37 16:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh hell yeah, I agree with it all being subjective, that's why I went for the strongest consensus consensus I could think of. I'm no fan of WP:N myself, although I think I wrote parts of it. I kind of take the view that I'd like to avoid using or creating notability guidance if I can, but if people are going to discuss it then I'm better off helping steer the general direction. I dropped out at WT:ATT, it seemed to be discussing sourcing issues that I coulodn't see as overly important. What constitutes a good source is yet another subjective area. :) Hadn't noticed the way [{WP:N]] had changed myself either. Hiding Talk 10:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

We'll get a lot of opposition, but applying WP:V rigorously is the only good way to improve this encyclopedia, and if we can't or won't do it for comics (which are one of our main interests), then we can't expect editors in other domains to do it either. Let's try to make this project an example of how we can have truckloads of articles and still follow WP:V (meaning: we only allow articles that can reasonable be sourced, not only articles that are currently already sourced). Fram²

I agree that less-notable characters should be shifted to lists if possible. Look at character lists for TV shows like the Simpsons for examples. Not every character needs their own article. WesleyDodds 01:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement that we should apply WP:V rigorously as a notability guideline. I'm also against blanket usage of WP:N but I believe that verifiability is missing in a lot of these articles and can be used objectively to remove fluff and fanboyism. I'd thought we decided this months ago. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 16:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be the consensus that this initiative is moving forward, so what is the next step? Is there already a list started for inconsequential articles that are to be shifted/merged? Anticrash talk 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

How are you guys going to make these subjective decisions? Anyways, it doesn't sound like this is any different from how wikipedia normallly works. - Peregrine Fisher 18:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it isn't any different from how Wikipedia normally functions, which is why they felt the need to start this discussion. Since Wikipedia is so huge, its all too easy to overlook certain areas and amass excessive clutter. This should help us condense the Comics-related clutter and streamline a lot of the inconsequential articles. As far as the decision making goes, I assume it would be the same as any editorial consensus. Anticrash talk 18:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Peregrine Fisher, I think the point of using the WP:V criterion -- If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. -- is to make this into an objective decision, as one can objectively determine whether there are third-party sources on a topic. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we make them by being bold, and then discuss and reach a consensus where needed. Hiding Talk 18:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add a note to that though: Do articles first! Give the lists a chance to catch up. In my experience, the comics-related lists are in dire need of references/citations. So don't delete content from lists due to lack of WP:V for now. (This includes lists which aren't named "List of...", or are part of an article.) Instead, leave a (polite) talk page notice that the list in question is in need of references/citations. I think I may start a WikiProject task force on lists soon (pokes Hiding and CrisGriswold for help in setting it up : ) - As a WikiProject of fictional content, including fictional characters, we, by our nature, have a large quantity of lists. And due to recent trends in CfD, a fair chunk of our categories are likely to be listified. I would like to get a jump on that. - jc37 21:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

More thoughts

Okay, I kind of see what's causing the problem. I think we are going to have consider a notability guide of some sort, otherwise articles are going to fill up with a description of everything that has ever happened in a given comic. I suggest to avoid that we again follow the verifiability rule of thumb. When we describe characters, we should only include information that has been noted in reliable sources independent of the comics themselves. And I don't think in this instance blogs are going to be reliable. What I mean is, okay Wolverine got married in issue whatever. Now that's going to be notable enough to get press somewhere. But the fact Wolverine's healing power didn't quite work properly in issue whatever, that's not going to get picked up somewhere and so we shouldn't really record it. This is going to be a really hard line to draw, but I think we're going to have to work something out to avoid articles getting bogged down in describing everything a character does. For example, here's what I think is a good article on a minor character: Congo Bill. Here's an article which is in need of moderate work: Brother Power the Geek. Here's an article which needs a lot of work: Deadshot. Here's a page that is just wrong: Kevin and Kell. Kevin and Kell is the 125th longest page on Wikipedia. I think we're going to have to revisit the exemplars too, and nail down some hard decisions. I don't really think we need separate Character history and publication history sections. The character history should probably become a brief description of the character. Anyway, let's get some discussion going. We might need to start organising ourselves a little better, maybe revise our use of the noticeboard. Is stuff getting swamped there? Hiding Talk 14:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we need a better, centralized place to discuss this more thoroughly, so that we have clearer indications of which articles need sourcing, cleanup, or shortening, which sections are acceptable / unacceptable, and which articles are just unneeded or unwanted (it looks to me like the four examples you give are described correctly, but all deserve an article: however, does e.g. Allfather D'Aronique deserve an article? He looks to be a fairly short-lived, minor character, and I wonder if there are any WP:V sources about him (17 distinct Google hits don't give much hope of this)). Fram 14:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A mention in some article somewhere as having existed may be the best that character can hope for. I don't remember him as a memorable chatacter, in fact I can't recall him at all. I'd say delete. I'm not at all sure we need alist of all the minor characters that have appeared in a comic book series. Do other areas do this? Is there a list of minor characters who appeared in Agatha Christie's Miss Marple's series? A lot of this stuff really isn't targeted at a general audince, which is what Wikipedia is aiming for. Hiding Talk 14:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Some other areas do this as well, and seems like if the general public (i.e. non-fan, neutral editors) comes across this they want to have it deleted: see e.g. the Gundam related AfD 's currently running. On the other hand, we have the Pokemon defense, where every single Pokemon has its own article. It looks to be restricted to pop culture mainly: Miss Marple has no character articles (at least not accessible via the Category:Miss Marple), while (at first glance) every character ever mentioned in Harry Potter has a page (Category:Harry Potter characters, with 110 articles plus 14 subcategories). E.g. for music, the decision has been made that usually, singles get their own page, but other album tracks don't. I don't know how that is relevant, but at least it shows that not everything that exists and is related to something notable (say, a Nirvana track) can have it's own article. (Note: bad example: it seems like every track does have its own article: see e.g. Christina Aguilera (album) for a better example). Fram 15:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically, the Pokemon case ended in merge, but it was ignored in good faith, because a team of editors wrote good articles which I assume are still maintained as such. I think we sort of straddle the line between Pokemon and music, because we have a far greater number of potential articles if we give every character an article. It does look like we may have to work up a list of which characters are and aren't notable. How we do it is going to become a problem. We simply can't maintain the number of articles we currently have, that much is certain. Hiding Talk 15:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon should be taken as a cautionary example. We are quickly discovering that we cannot source many of our articles' claims hardly at all, without resorting to fansites and personal observation. It'd be best to act before specific precedent becomes so burdensome that nothing can be done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at some of the debacles of the past month or so, I don't relish the fall out of enforcing "'primary' sources aren't good enough, nor are fansites." Some of the recently created articles will disappear, along with a lot of "NO! Not that!" — J Greb 01:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I find myself on the opposite side of this debate. One of the things which I appreciate about Wikipedia is the philosophy "Wikipedia is not paper". [2] I like the idea, as stated in the essay, that you can potentially have an article on every Simpsons character or every poker variation. Granted, there are a lot of poorly written, in-universe plot summaries out there which would receive a failing grade if presented as a book report, let alone as an encyclopedia entry. However, that doesn't make me want to expunge the information entirely. It just makes me want to improve it. So, as far as I am concerned, publication by a major comic book company (Dark Horse, DC, Image, Marvel, etc.) is enough to establish a character's notability. --GentlemanGhost 02:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I have to agree with GentlemanGhost mainly because what may happen is a complete and total meltdown among the more inexperience contributors or the contribs who like adding articles and working their butts off to comply with the Comic Projects standards and then have their article deleted. I'm not one of them since I'm doing something complete different. Can't really be arsed creating new articles yet. Anyways, I have to admit that if "we" (I'm "anti" this) choose to delete the more "less notable" character articles I am so not doing the clean up with the red links all over the almost every other article. It would kinda like be Decimation in my opinion which is seriously going to cause some type of backlash. So regardless of the outcome here, I'm going to carry on doing what I'm doing and enjoy the ride that is the Comics Project. RIANZ 19:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And how are you going to improve it? How are going to even start an article on such a character? IF you take your info from the original publications, you are conducting WP:OR and are basing an article on primary instead of secondary, WP:V and WP:RS sources. What you are writing may be interesting and completely correct, but it would not follow some of Wikipedia's core policies and would fall outside the scope of Wikipedia. We have to limit us to report on things that other reliable secondary sources have written about, and there is more than enough work for everyone doing only that (it is amazing what holes we still have in our coverage, and how many articles on important subjects lack sources and essential information which is verifiably available from reliable sources). Wikipedia is not paper, but Wikipedia is not a fanzine either. Fram 12:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(not sure if Fram is talking to me but hey) I never said I was going to carry on creating articles for comic character notable or otherwise. I said I was going to carry on doing which is move sections round and rename ummm those chapter type section... oh headers etc to comply with the project blah blah blah; take things out, reword when necessary, create introductions; add infoboxes etc and so on. What I was getting at was that this may cause a major backlash and a lot of clean up. RIANZ 18:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I was replying to GentlemanGhost, but you are more than welcome to reply of course ;-) What you describe is good work, even if occasionally it is done on articles that are afterwards merged or deleted. And I agree that applying the Wikipedia policies more strict, and thus deleting or merging a lot of articles, may create a backlash. That's why we are discussing it first, since it is important and can have consequences, and can give some people the impression that we are out to get them or so. It's a delicate excercise, being strict with the policies without scaring away good contributors. Fram 06:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think what you are proposing is a rather strict interpretation of WP:OR. What about this section?

Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

It's one thing to require secondary sources to verify a subject's importance, interpretation, and effect. However, it is an entirely different thing to say that primary sources cannot be used for comics-related articles. Even after re-reading these policies and guidelines, I see no reason why primary sources should be rejected for uncontroversial facts regarding a character or a story. --GentlemanGhost 11:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that I based the "No original research" part of my objections on an older version of the policy (see e.g. [3] from december), which hadn't the section you quote. No problem, I withdraw my objections based on WP:NOR, and will only insist on establishing notability (for which secondary sources are still needed), and the avoidance of WP:NOT for plot summaries (which is not the main problem with most of the character articles, but a major problem in many pop culture articles). So I agree with you, if the subject is importaznt enough for an article, then the contents can be based on the primary sources (the comics). Adding the evidence of the notability to the article is of course always a good idea... Fram 13:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree. It just seemed to me that we were setting the bar too high. (Doubtless someone will still object, but that's just the way things go.) Back to the overall subject of notability, what kind of secondary sources do you feel qualify? Certainly there are a variety of secondary sources out there, but many of them are industry magazines and websites. I'm hoping we're not going to require that notability be dependent on having a hardcover book or doctoral dissertation. If so, the qualifying articles within this field of interest will look rather sparse. --GentlemanGhost 14:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think where we have to be careful with using the comics as sources is how we present that information. It's one thing to describe a panel or an event using the comic as a source, but it another thing to describe our interpretation of that event. The former is not original research, the latter is. We can't say that Rorschach's diary is published at the end of Watchmen, but we can state that the possibility of it being published exists, describing why. Hope that helps explain what I mean. Hiding Talk 14:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Hiding. As for secondary sources: it needs to have some reliability, some repute. I'm not well-versed in American comics, but I assume that something like an article (or even a good paragraph) in the Comics Journal may qualify. Most websites will not be valid though, since those are usually not acceptable under WP:V and WP:RS. Articles like they are written in the introduction of reprints like those by Fantagraphics or (when they still existed) Eclipse Comics are probably acceptable as well (e.g. the discussion of some of the main characters in Pogo and their origin in the Eclipse reprints is a valid source in my opinion). On the other hand, a random website like [4], although it may be completely correct, is not a valid source to determine notability per reliable sources. This is a thing where a consensus will have to build, since it can be hard to decide where to draw the line between e.g. reliable magazines and fanzines. Fram 15:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

To me even that is a stretch since it is commentary on the material and is still speculation. Using that example, it would be appropriate to include such a comment if there is a citable source stating that Moore intended that assumption be made or that DC editorial has thought about using that plot element to extend the series. — J Greb 15:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. A description of the final panels should support the fact that it is possible Rorschach's diary saw publication. Authorial intent is not required, nor is publisher intent. Unless you are suggesting we cannot describe a painting but only the things the artist or commissioner attests exists within the painting. We may describe artworks and we may describe plot points of novels, I see no reason why we can't do the same for comics. We see the diary placed in the pile. We see the editor ask for something from the pile. We see the hand reach into the pile, [5]. That should support the assertion that it is possible the diary was printed. However, if a source was required I'd cite Watching the Detectives: An Internet Companion for Readers of Watchmen, the work of hyper/cybertextual academic Stuart Moulthrop, who also uses Watchmen in his essay Misadventure: Future Fiction and the New Networks. Hiding Talk 18:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair points, and you point out something I erred in not including in my list — a reliable secondary source providing the conclusion.
I guess what I'm leery about is material being included that can look like fan spec or assumption. The Ultimate Tarantula back and forth and the forthcoming Doctor Fate are a good examples of this. There are solid cites for the intentions of the writers, but to date the defining plot points (identifying which character is the Tarantula or the new character donning the helmet) have yet to see print. I can see it as valid to include the intents in the article, but there is a push to take the intents, vague or not, as proof for speculation as to what may be revealed. — J Greb 19:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad th primary/secondary sources has been clarified and that gives us a chance to enforce WP:V without there being a wave of entry deletions. All we are asking for is that statements are sourced even if that source is the comic itself. This means that if I want to check something (like a quote or a statement about events that I don't recall) I don't have to reread everything to track down the one nugget of info. For example, the Cassidy character history is constructed in a a timeline way but parts of his story were told in flashback so it would be wise to source the different developments (as most of his history is told in an issue or two). Equally the "Overview" looks shaky - it might be fixable with reference to say a review of the trades and/or quoting directly from the comic (sourcing both). "Origin" looks horribly like speculation and original research but could be savable if it can be sourced. That, I think, isn't an unreasonable thing to ask of any entry within our general remit and should be the bare minimum if what is required in an entry - after all if you are writin about a comic you surely just have it to hand somewhere and if you are checking you've got the plot right then reference it as well as you go along. Perhaps have example entries showing good practice in different areas (including verifiability) will help people get used to doing this automatically. (Emperor 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

Well, as far as I am concerned, we still need the secondary sources to establish notability, so a wave of entry deletions is still possible. To reuse an example I used above: I trust that there are primary sources about Allfather D'Aronique and that all the facts in the article are correct, but I think that nevertheless, the article should be deleted because the character is completely non notable, since he hasn't been discussed by any reliable sources. If notability is indicated by secondary sources, we can use primary sources to add facts to the article: but if no notability is indicated, then the primary sources can not save the article and it should go. Fram 06:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability is a tricky beast (one of the reasons we are discussing the importance of verifiability) and has to take on board a number of factors. The Allfather is a minor character and has effectively been merged with the Minor characters in Preacher entry and I'll be deleting it in the next day or so (along with Jody and TC). There just isn't a vast amount to say about him. (Emperor 15:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

I'm not trying to pick on you, I just want to continue with the same example. Please don't see this as an attack on your work. After the merge, we now have instead of a number of pages about non notable characters, just one page. This is of course an improvement and may be an acceptable solution if consensus decides so, but basically, the same question remains: what makes these minor characters notable enough to have even a collective page? Are there any WP:V and WP:RS (secondary) sources about these characters, even as a group? The source given in the article is a wiki-like website, so not acceptable under WP:V and WP:RS (as an indicator of notability). Does Wikipedia want or need a page on these (and similar) minor characters? Are there any reliable sources discussing Preacher at such lengths that there is significant mention of them, so that while individual articles may be a bit too much, at least a collective one is needed? (If you prefer, we can shift this discussion to Snoopy's siblings, which I created by merging individual articles but which may suffer the same problem: I am fairly confident that the chance of discussion of these characters in reliable sources is greater, with Peanuts as one of the all time greats, but the current state of the article has no reliable secondary sources at all). Fram 16:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally believe that the lists derive their value as being sub-articles of the main article. That the work Preacher is a notable work I would think is something we can all agree on, and so the characters may be described within the article, and then the list is a logical section to split from that article if it becomes too large. The area for contention then is whether the ancillary characters would be described in the main article. I haven't read Preacher in ages and didn't much care for it, but I would suggest the bald headed bad guy, the ugly bloke, the vampire, the love interest and the use of God would be of note when discussing the work. Hiding Talk 17:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify that isn't really my work - I was discussing ways to tidy up the various Preacher entries and then I found the Minor characters entry so have been doing some minor tidying and sorting out to clear up some of the mess. I haven't even started addressing any of the issues raised here. Using Preacher as a broader example I can't see much in Category:Preacher (comics), beyond the main article (and the creators obviously), that would meet a strict interpretation of WP:N or WP:V. That might be a good thing for a number of those entries but what about Jesse Custer? Like Cassidy this is largely elements of the plot that concern him rearanged into chronological order and I'm not 100% sure that justifies its inclusion but I suspect there would be a lot of concern expressed if it was deleted. Throwing my net wider and picking an example at random what about Cyborg (comics)? He is what one might consider a third tier superhero but has appeared in a lot of other media and would be considered notable by me (and an awful lot of other people) but I'd suspect it currently fails to tick any of the boxes you mention and that is a considerably better entry than 90% of those dealing with characters (and potential a similar number of comics - I mean should all Image Comics releases get an entry?) within our remit. It might be that we don't need these entries (we'd be largely left with the first tier superheroes: Superman, Batman; and the second tier ones: Robin, etc. - i.e. the ones the public would probably recognise in the street and so the ones that would be the subject of broader study and comment) but it would certainly be a dramatic decision and we'd need to think very carefully about it. I'm certainly not 100% opposed to deleting all of the Preacher character entries (if attempts to prove notability fail) but I'd want to make sure we are all on the same page. The problem is that Wikipedia is a work in progress. This is why the focus on verifiability seems a good first step to improving the articles and making them encyclopedic but if the majority are still going to fail notability in the end then perhaps we would be wasting our time. I don't claim to know the answers to all this but it does need to be resolved to the satisfaction of the majority. (Emperor 17:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

Just an observation re: the cast for Precaher and similar. It's very hard to justify seperate articles for any of the characters with a series like this. The material is self contained. Using Precaher as an example, it's one story and the characters and settings only appear in it. If I understand correctly, the preference would be to write the article for the collected work, then, if it is overly long in a tight form, split off sections starting with the main characters.
It's hard to apply this reasoning to characters like most of the superheroes. They may belong to a large body of work (DC Univers, Marvel Univers, etc.) but they tend not to be solely related to one title. Hence an article about Cyborg would cover aspects of the character out side of what could reasonably be placed in the Teen Titans article.
On a side note, there was a comment made on the Batman article that may forshadow where this debate may wind up. The coment was that the article should be remaned Batman (comics) and a new Batman article be created because the character is more notable through the television series and films. — J Greb 17:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I share your concerns. The only thing is one of the reasons a clean up of Preacher seemed a good thing was because of the upcoming TV adapatation. This would give the character cross media appearances and once you get a character appearing in a range of media (or in various different titles) the character essential takes on a life of their own separate from the actual publication/title it is in. (Emperor 18:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

I've made the point at the Superman FA review that the article may need to be split with a Superman in the comics article created. I agree with this approach, to a point. I think listifying has to be the first move, and then work from there. I think that all comics from Image are worthy of an article, even if that article is a redirect to a list of Image publications. As you can tell, I'm a list fan. There's research value in a list that standalone articles and categories can't give. A list of all Image publications is of value, whereas standalone articles are not. That's my thoughts. Hiding Talk 19:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

However, where it gets muddy is in lists of characters, since we can't reasonably expect that a list of all characters in a given work be compiled, such a task is unmaintainable, I don't think such lists can work as well. Inclusion would be on a point of view assumption, imparting that character's actions within the comic with worth. I'd suggest that for works like Preacher, standalone works, characters mentioned in review copy or interviews with creators could stand a listing, but other characters wouldn't be so suited. In the instance of continuing superteams, like the X-Men, I'd suggest all members be suited to listing, as such lists are maintainable and completable. Spinning them out from the list to a standalone article would, as suggested above, need thought, and perhaps a case by case decision, perhaps basing a shorthand rule of thumb on appearances in other media and the like. How likely is it that the general reader is going to be looking for an article on this character? So, broadly agree and restate opinions above. :) Hiding Talk 19:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Bibliographies

I moved this from the Devil Dinosaur talk page. Thought it was more appropriate here. RIANZ

“

I have added bibliographical information that includes short summaries. Some comic book character pages such as Spider-man and Hulk have bibliographies without summaries in a "Bibliography" section at the end, while others have plot summary information with limited bibliographic information in a section titled "Publication History". Given the information I have added, which of the above two configurations would be more consistent with other comic book character pages?

Mainehaven 20:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

”

In the WikiProject Comics exemplars, it suggests creating a section called Bibliogrpahy. This should include either a list of titles (a complete list of all solo stories of the character) or a list of significant stories (a set of links to the articles — if any — which detail crucial moments in a character's storyline). In neither case does it suggest summarizing the plot in this section. If necessary, plot points should be included in a different section, Fictional character biography. --GentlemanGhost 11:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Blackbolt page, for one, makes use of a Fictional character biography with references. The References section then functions as something of a bibliography. I think this format would work well for the information listed on the Devil Dinosaur page. Given a character like Devil Dinosaur who has a relatively short publication history, I assume a bibliography section per the exemplar would be unnecessary in such a format. Thoughts? Mainehaven 22:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Can Wikia projects plagiarize Wikipedia?

I just saw this, which is a marvel.wikia page, that's just cut-and-paste from Runaways (comics). This doesn't seem kosher to me. Is it? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that as long as the user sources Wikipedia then it's OK to use Wikipedia content outside of here. If they don't have Wikipedia sourced, then it's definitely plagiarism. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

They have to acknowledge us and I think provide a link to the version they took, but otherwise it is fine. For more details see WP:COPYRIGHT#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations. Hiding Talk 14:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Earth-Two

Earth-Two redirect

Just wondering... what was the Project position of the pre-Crisis Earths getting their own articles?

Someone seems to have picked the Earth-Two redirect to expand into an article. — J Greb 04:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I had an idea for an Earth-Two article a while back. It was basically focusing on the out-of-world nature of its signifigance. The current article probably doesn't need those bits on the Earth-Two character counterparts. WesleyDodds 06:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The guy that made this page seems to think that Earth-2 is limited to the core characters of the JSA. If every Earth-2 character were given the same coverage he's given a few, the article would be the length of a novel. Earth-2 is the most notable of the DC Comics alternate earths, and if only one should have an article, Earth-2 should, but the sections for individual characters need to be cut back.--Drvanthorp 07:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the character entries should be pared somewhat. I think character entries should be limited to how they (earth-2 versions) differ from other earths (such as Earth-1 and the current DC earth). As well as including an overall historical synopsis of the world (that it centers around the WWII characters, including the JSA, and the later additions of the All Star Sqaudron, and the Freedom Fighters (who eventually left for Earth-X with others, including the Blackhawks). This article may also have to detail how the "post-crisis earth" went through several changes (Fury being the daughter of Wonder Woman, then of Miss America, then of Fury, of the Young All Stars, just to note an obvious example). - jc37 11:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Characters (Earth-Two)

I thought we had a consensus against this kind of article. Now I see Batman (Earth-Two). I see a huge mess coming. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 14:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's here… or more accurately here. Feel free to move the discusion here. — J Greb 14:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why this is an issue now, when the article Batman (Earth-Two) was created back on November 7, 2006 without any discussion nor dispute? NetK 03:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, where applicable, Earth-Two versions of characters should be treated like alternate versions of Marvel characters (ie. Ultimate, Age of Apocalypse, etc.) are in those articles. That is, placed under an "Other versions" heading and summarized. If Ultmiate Captain America can be covered in the main Cap article, the same could be done for the DC characters. Obviously you run into things like Earth-Two Superman's mere existence being an essential plot point to Crisis on Infinite Earths, The Kingdom, and Infinite Crisis, but it works for people like Earth-Two Robin and Green Arrow. WesleyDodds 01:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly does it work for Earth-Two Robin the same way? If we determine whether a character merits consideration based on publicated works, why stop at the Crisis maxi-series or Kingdom? And if this character doesn't merit any further consideration, why would DC put out an action figure of this Robin in there Crisis on Infinite Earth's line? I find the line determining which characters merit the final "cut" as to deserving an article or not to be rather arbitrary. That said, I completely concur that Green Arrow of Earth-Two, with essentially cameo appearences in JLA, Infinity Inc and Crisis wouldn't merit his own article. Lumping him with Robin however frankly doesn't work. NetK 03:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Net, there has got to be a point where variations do not deserve to be split of from main articles. I've pointed this out in the discussion on the Robin page, and I'll repeat it here: the E-2 Superman and Batman are exceptional cases for "clone" DC characters mainly due to the shear size of their articles. The E-2 Superman goes one step further since DC went out of its way to make the character important beyond his creation in the JLA/JSA crossover stories.
Show me that the E-2 Robin was an important character beyond the few dozen bit parts he was used for in 20 years of existence. Make a case for this character on its own merits. Explain how its inclusion on Dick Grayson will make the article either large and unwieldy or take up an unreasonably large portion of the article. At this point, aside from the action figure, I haven't seen anything that justifies a split.
And please do this on the talk pages first. If anything, this situation should underscore how sensitive a topic this is. Bold editing is fine and wonderful, but doing something has proven to spark revert wars and the accompanying aggravation accomplishes nothing.
Side note: Yes, I'm firmly in the camp that splitting off the Earth-whichever and Ultimate versions should be a rare thing and should only be suggested when compelling reasons come up.
Point of clarification: I'm using the term "clone" here to refer to characters which are identical codename/alter ego counterparts.

Thanks for listening... — J Greb 03:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

J Greb, please see below for some compelling reasons as to distinctions between these two necessitating a need for this particular article. E-2 Grayson was never written as a clone. NetK 19:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am having a hard time with the idea of anyone saying that a character that existed for at least 25 years (45 years if we are to consider "Earth-2" characters to be "Golden Age" characters...) is less "notable" than a lot of the other character articles we have. While we should note the "current" status (what we know of it) of Earth-2, there is absolutely no reason I know of that such a character should not have an article. Yes, he should be noted in other Robin-related articles. That's exactly what the {{main}} template is for. There simply is no comparison between Earth-2 and Ultimate Marvel. Earth-2 was not only a part of the "infinite earths" construct, but was an additional mainstream earth for DC. This is clearly evident by what 5 earths that were chosen to comprise the "new" mainstream earth after Crisis on Infinite Earths. (1; 2; 4 - acquired Charlton characters; S - acquired Fawcett characters; X - acquired Quality characters;) - jc37 10:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

From my point of view, and probably from those of others who've expressed similar sentiments, when it comes down to it it's still just a variation on the basic concept. I do feel the Ultimate line is a proper analogy. You have four ongoing series and numerous miniseries that have been going on since 2000 featuring variations on characters already published for decades. DC had All-Star Squadron and Infinity Inc. and miniseries like American vs. the Justice Society for the Earth-Two characters, which were mroe or less variations on their "core" character usually holding court in Justice league of America every month. The main difference is that the Ultimate characters don't cross over. Samuel L. Nick Fury isn't piercing dimensional barriers every year to team up with his whitebread Hasslehoffian counterpart. Obviously there's going to be some Earth-Two characters with articles. One of the main categories is simply the Golden Age heroes (Jay Garrick, Alan Scott, etc.) that the concept was created for, and have been used post-Crisis. Others, like Earth-Two Robin and Green Arrow, are mainly there to fill out the world ("Gee, I guess since we have different Flashes and shit we should have a Superman and Batman too . . ."); they were written out by Crisis on Infinite Earths and really do only matter on a larger scale as footnotes. WesleyDodds 11:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't one say the same of a character such as Xorn? (Intentionally using an example I know we both know, rather than posting a list of several hundred articles...) And really, Xorn isn't anywhere near as notable, and doesn't come close to the number of appearances. Also, "written out" can equal a lot of characters. And finally, I strongly dispute your parenthetical comment ("Gee..."). I'm fairly sure I can find some quotes from Julius Schwartz, Carmine Infantino, et al., which would contradict that. (Especially concerning Superman.) - jc37 11:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's where real-world notability becomes key. Let's stick with Xorn for the moment. He was presented as a new character, but (old spoilers for the lot of you who haven't kept up) was revealed to be another in disguise. Sure, stick that under the Magneto article. Then Marvel decided it wanted both Magneto and Xorn, and the problems caused by this, aided by numerous comments by those involved, made it very public and very notable. Oh, and Marvel says Xorn is a separate character now and was never Magento. Whatever. What I was getting at with my joke quote was that Earth-Two is itself by and large the notable topic from an out-of-universe perspective; those variations on characters (Superman, Batman, Wonder woman, Robin, Aquaman, Green Arrow) are there mainly to fill out that fictional milieu. Sure, we could make articles for all these characters, but is it really necessary? Are they all that notable outside of the stories themselves? Can't they be addressed in the page space of related articles that exist already? Is the Earth-2 Dick Grayson guy who dresses up as Robin and fights crime all that different from the other Dick Grayson who dresses up as Robin and fights crime he's based on? Those are the options we have to exhaust first. WesleyDodds 12:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Then we should have a single article for Superman and Captain Marvel. Or for Captain Marvel and Mary Marvel. Or for Superman and Supergirl. Or at the very least, shouldn't She-Hulk just be a footnote in the Hulk article? After all, the character was only created for copyright reasons. As for "...notable outside the stories themselves..." (ignoring appearances in other media, such as radio, televion, or film; licensed merchandise; or uses as spokespersons for causes), that would mean we'd have maybe a dozen articles, with Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, and Spiderman topping the list. (I don't think I need to explain their "out-of-comics" notability : ) - So essentially, this comes down to whether we, as editors, decide on a character's notability? Just because something may have happened outside a person's experience doesn't mean that that event wasn't "notable". Also, if "infinite-earth" versions of characters aren't notable on their own for articles, what about Ultraman (comics)? Or better, we could delve into the court cases surrounding Superman and Superboy. That involves characters that possibly are even the same person, not to mention an "infinite-earths" version. And regarding clones, what about Vision and Wonderman? Bizarro-Superman? or even better, Spiderman and Ben Reilly? I guess what I'm saying is that a character that was around (and active) for at least 25 years, which has (by your estimation) appeared in several series, and has had multiple cameo or group appearances, when compared if only to the above, quite easily deserves its own article. The rest of the argument seems to just be POV. - jc37 19:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A few points:

One of the major reasons I've cited for accepting the splits in the Superman and Batman articles is length. A few of the examples Jc37 fall into the same category: Superboy (reduce the length of Superman), Ultraman (same), Ben Reily (reduce the length of Spider-Man). Once an article hits a certain point that, correct me if I'm wrong here, is suggested under Wiki guide lines, it needs to be reworked either to remove unnecessary fluff or split up into two or more articles.
Any judgment to split off a character into its own article is going to have a degree of POV. My understanding is that because of this the some major changes need to be discussed first. The only cases I can think of where discussion is not mandatory is with character that have 1) used multiple codenames, and 2) one or more of those is shared with another, distinct, character.
"Active" maybe subjective. DC actively used the Earth-Two superman as a main character for many years. The Earth-Two Robin was active as a hero even though DC only used him sparodically, and then mostly in supporting or cameo roles. Stepping back and looking at how the publisher used the character instead of how other characters viewed it is an important thing.
This is where "notable outside the stories themselves" comes from. Is there something that makes the character's creation and use more than just "we need a cape to fill space"? If there is, is it enough to support a subsection in an article that already exists or to support its own article. — J Greb 01:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in fact there is more which has been added into the article in question, showing characterization that dramatically departs from the Marv Wolfman model of Teen Titans Robin. NetK 19:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Are they all that notable outside of the stories themselves?" Apparently so, otherwise DC wouldn't put out an action figure under their Crisis line and it wouldn't be a topic of discussion here.

Ok, action figure, anything else? How DC treated the character? Promoted its use? Evolved it beyond "not-quite-Batman"?
As for this discussion, it looks to me like it was the proverbial straw. It could just as easily been Green Arrow (Earth-Two) or Ultimate Tarantula. — J Greb 01:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please first explain why producing an action figure tied in without an important maxi-series times to coincide with another maxi-series is disgarded as non-consequential. That in and of itself is promotional. And while no characterization beyond what was originally chronicled during the 1940s-1950s is evident in the Earth-Two Green Arrow, there is extensive characterization that differentiated the two versions of Robin published during the Silver Age as separate and distinct. Please don't compare apples to oranges. NetK 19:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

First, apologies, my comment stated out overly dismissive. An action figure is a good start, but only a start. Bringing only that and "the character is different (degree is subjective here)from the current version" to the table and you should also bring the creation of Lois Lane (Earth-Two) and Lex Luthor (Earth-One). Both fit the same criteria. — J Greb 00:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually think you've proposed an excellent idea...there should be a Lex Luthor (Earth-One) article because that character isn't the malcontent would-be red-headed dictator nor the Metropolis businessman/ganglord. He's a distinct character and should be treated as such. As to Lois Kent, she's a supporting character in her Silver Age appearences more than a protagonist or antagonist, so that case is somewhat more difficult. Regards. NetK 06:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Can't they be addressed in the page space of related articles that exist already?" No, because then the character becomes buried within an article on the current version of said character. And Robin (Earth-Two) can be expanded into far more than "two or three" sentences as there were dozens of stories written about this character.

Really? Up near the top, where it is now, is "buried"? As for the dozen appearances... I have to ask this, are you suggesting that an article is needed to provide a synopsis of all, or the majority of those appearances? If not, what else needs inclusion that a few sentences cannot convey? — J Greb 01:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Is the Earth-2 Dick Grayson guy who dresses up as Robin and fights crime all that different from the other Dick Grayson who dresses up as Robin and fights crime he's based on?" Yes in fact there is a huge difference. The Earth-1 Grayson broke away from his mentor, left his shadow as it were to become his own hero Nightwing. Although aiding him later, they were never partners as before. Marv Wolfman wrote this distinction and others followed, a Grayson that disputed his mentor on several occasions. Now, the Earth-2 Grayson never left his mentor's shadow, kept the name he was given, even wore a version of Batman's costume for years!!! He even went so far as to defend his mentor's twisted diary in a court of law...something Earth-1 Grayson never would do. Simply a few of many examples of two separate characters. NetK 19:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

One last though NetK, have you read this? Is there honestly anything else that needs to be addressed about the Earth-Two character? If so, I can't see it. — J Greb 01:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note the additional edits in Robin (Earth-Two) which show several distinctions in history, in character motivations, in interactions. NetK 19:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have, and it leaves me cold.
The opening, lifted from Batman (Earth-Two), looks more appropriate for the Earth-Two article, not repeated in an article for the character. The opening paragraphs in Superman (Kal-L) treat it better.
The "Adult history" reads as an attempt to include a summary of each story the character appeared in as opposed to condense it down to pertinent facts. It's padding.
The format originally based on Batman (Earth-Two) was more in keeping with an encyclopedic article. But even in that format there was nothing to justify splitting it off from Dick Grayson. — J Greb 00:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

An attempt has been made to not summarize plots of the various stories, and not to feature every single appearence. Summarizing the character's career over several decades is not padding, he simply had more noteworthy events transpire in fewer published appearences than some regularly featured characters. I'd say stories detailing his career choice(s), his membership in the JSA and his major conflicts later with them, his personal relationships, and the death of his mentor and of himself are major plot points. I would further submit that each of these types of details would be (and are) elaborated in virtually every superhero article. NetK 03:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Kal-L and E-2 Bats should stay, any others are not distinct enough to warrant their own articles. CovenantD 08:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a blanket statement without any NPOV for what qualifies as "distinct". I'd like to see a concise statement on what warrants an article's existence or not. Please read the entire article and state why it doesn't merit an entry when far less historically notable character (see JC37's comments above for several examples) have entries without dispute. NetK 19:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not just longevity and amount of issues they've appeared in that matters. Given that they're basically alternate versions of other characters other factors come into play. For example, Superboy has a certain standing in popular culture, there have been more than one version of the character, he's had several series, and there's the whole ownership case. on top of that there's no room in the Superman article to reasonably discuss the character. Earth-Two Robin is covered quite succintly in the space of a paragraph on the Robin page.

There's also a level of fancruft we want to avoid. Not every character deserves an article. They can be covered in articles about stories ot titles, articles about topics or concepts, lists of characters, etc. With characters that are alternate versions of other characters (when it comes down to it, Earth-Two Robin is basically just an older Dick Grayson with a different costume and a JSA membership, just like Ultimate Mr. Fantastic is just a younger Reed Richards with a different costume and glasses) we have to be even more cautious. WesleyDodds 00:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with that assessment...the stories show distinct differences in their relationship with Batman, in their interaction with others, in the decisions that they've made that have made them two distinct versions of the same basic character. As to fancruft, I've read extensive writeups of the most recent issues of Infinite Crisis and 52 which seem to shine a magnifying glass on every issue dealing with the character...without dispute. NetK 03:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

NetK 1) it's not the best idea to cite a wrong to support your case. Something participants in this project should be especially sensitive to is contributing to articles in such a way as to put them in violation of #7 here. At the moment there is a stalled Project level discussion here. There may be a lot of project related articles that should be either re-written or deleted over this point. The fact that they haven't been should not be used as an excuse to flaunt the general guidelines.
2) Up page you made a point of not comparing apples and oranges. It could be considered bad for for you to then compare apples and eggs. Articles for characters characters and articles for comic series are two different beasts. What works, and what can be gotten away with in one may not in the other. — J Greb 04:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

J Greb: Touche, good points. I do stand by the fact that considerable fuss over this particular relatively innoculous article has been generated when far greater issues seem to be pressing as you yourself state. That said, it is true not to simply disciminate information. However, Robin (Earth-Two) does far more than reveal knowledge, it provides an additional insight into the overall Batman Family mythos. Regards. NetK 05:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I find the seperate page to be an improvement as far as readability goes; it gets its own table of contents, and you can go directly to the part you want. Dick Grayson already has over 20 sections and subsections, not to mention being 50kb long. As far as notability, every version of Robin is going to be notable compared to the many minor comic characters. People stop these famous character pages from being split up, and they're becoming huge. - Peregrinefisher 01:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No further debate from me. Just a suggestion that all involved read Wikipedia:Summary style for content. It's nicer when we all have some idea of the hows and whys, before attempting to discuss based on those hows and whys. - jc37 05:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum to above: I would submit upon further analysis due to various discussion in this thread as well as Talk: Dick Grayson that Robin (Earth-Two) should instead be Dick Grayson (Earth-Two) due to Wikiproject Comics naming conventions for characters with multiple aliases (this character used both Robin and Batman aliases, albeit the latter briefly). NetK 23:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There's only one Earth-Two Robin though. If someone was searching for Earth-Two characters, they'd probably be searching for "Robin" before "Dick Grayson". Wikipedia general naming conventions prefer titling an article with the most recognizable name. WesleyDodds 01:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, ignoring for a moment what's already been done, we'd first have to determine what the correct disambiguation phrase is.

(earth-2)
(Earth-2)
(earth-two)
(Earth-two)
(earth-Two)
(Earth-Two)

(And variations of the above without the hyphen...)

Or should we use a name that is "different" but applicable.

Superman (Kal-L)
Robin (Richard Grayson) / Richard Grayson
Batman (Bruce Wayne) doesn't have a distinctive name, so that character, at least, would need whichever of the e-2 dabs decided on above.

Though both of the above should have synopses (with Template:Main used) under Superman, Clark Kent, Robin, and Dick Grayson, respectively.

These are just questions for the actual articles. Obviously several redirects covering the variations should be made as well, once these are determined. - jc37 03:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand DC tended to type it out as "Earth-Two". WesleyDodds 03:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Initial Survey (from Robin (comics))

Since the above discussion seems to be making it difficult to see who means what, I'm suggesting we make a survey. Someone who's commented get us started. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 21:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Support or Oppose - ~~~~

Neutral: In general, "voting" is discouraged. Surveys can be good ways of "testing the waters" or quickly expressing opinions in a less talkitive format, but they're still kinda "evil". WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a democracy. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh fine, I used the wrong word, but the concept was to get a clearer view of what people are thinking. The discussion's running circular, and if people are reverting based on 'two are for and one's against', then we need a straight view. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 22:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Support merge with Dick Grayson: 1-There's already an Earth-Two section at the Dick Grayson article with more detail than the currently non-existent Earth-Two Robin article. 2-Both Robins share the same early history, and the divergences can be explained in a few sentences. --Ace ETP 23:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Support merge with Dick Grayson: I also support a merger, and I think the other Earth 2 articles need to be made into redirects before the inevitable Power Girl, Huntress, Flash and Blackwing articles show up. --Basique 23:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

- There are already Power Girl, Huntress and Flash articles and I fail to see how Dick Grayson is analogus with Blackwing, a bit player at best. NetK 19:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Support merge with Dick Grayson: As per my reasons above. — J Greb 00:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

- J Greb, per your suggestion: "Unless, of course, you want to argue inclusion in the cats 'Fictional ambassadors' and 'Fictional lawyers'", I have added both categories to Robin. From your post, this would seem to indicate some justiciation for consideration of the article's existence. NetK 19:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Support merge with Dick Grayson: For what it's worth, I think that this is the more logical place for this information. --GentlemanGhost 02:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep: There is no significant argument against Dick Grayson that couldn't equally be used against Superman (Kal-L) nor Batman (Earth-Two), and yet these two have existed for months now. This character has more appearences than the former, and appears several times with the latter as a significant plot point in various tales. NetK 02:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum to above: I've added surveys to Superman (Kal-L) and Batman (Earth-Two). What is good for the goose is good for the gaunder...in all fairness the above participants should vote in the above surveys. If they suppose merging these...then at least there is consistency. If they oppose, then I question the WP:POV as to how a different conclusion is reached for the above...particularly for Batman (Earth-Two). NetK 02:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep or Merge to Batman and Robin (Earth-Two) - I think that Batman (Earth-Two) and Robin (Earth-Two) should have the similar fates. My preference is that they be separate from Batman and Robin. Just because Earth-2 has not existed in most of the last 20 years or so, doesn't mean that it didn't in the 25 years prior to that. (And that just since "Flash of 2 worlds". If we were to include all of the Golden age...) As an alternate solution, perhaps Batman (Earth-Two) and Robin (Earth-Two) should be merged together to be Batman and Robin (Earth-2). - jc37 10:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

- Just to clarify, the comment above would indicate by preference that this would be a keep vote. Please correct me if I'm wrong. NetK 06:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Clarified above : ) - jc37 09:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

- Comment If we split of an Earth-Two Robin article of some kind we can finally take off Justice Society and All-Star Squadron from Dick Grayson's alliances --Exvicious 16:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Exvicious, would your comment about the benefits of a split equate to a keep. You haven't stated any negatives towards having a separate article, per your above comment. NetK 06:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

keep - improved readability. - Peregrinefisher 01:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Support merge with Dick Grayson - He's just not notable on his own as a character. If his section becomes unwieldy, then it should be split, but at this time, it's fine. (also, we can link JSA and A-SS with |Richard Grayson (Earth 2) to explain it) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep I think it's significant because he actually replaced Batman and his participation in COIE, but hasn't done much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exvicious (talk • contribs)

Oppose the merge I make the same point that I did about Kal-L and Kal-El, these two characters are too distinctly different to merge them. The Earth-One and Earth-Two characters are not the same people, I don't know why the two Robin and Superman articles are being suggested to be merged. - DavetheAvatar 00:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose the mergeWikipedia is not paper --Lasttan 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Support merge with Dick Grayson - I've had a long read through the arguments and checked out the various entries and I can't see a good reason for most (all?) of the Earth 2 character entries including the Dick Grayson. I support the idea of Having a ection in the characters entry alongside the various other versions as well as having more information on the Earth Two entry covering the whole general concept. I think this would help reduce the amount of repetition and, I feel, would help people get a handle on the whole situation. (Emperor 19:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

Survey

On merging and straw polls:

There are times when the distinction between a DC Comics character and one of their Pre-Crisis counterparts is definitive and long-lasting (e.g.: Superman and Superman (Kal-L), warranting the need for more than one article. However, in most cases, the difference is blurry to the point when it's up to each reader or creator to forge their specific interpretation about the validity of the story when talking about a specific version of the character. "Lex Luthor (Earth-One)", "Robin (Earth-Two) and "Wonder Woman (Earth-Two)" are many among the latter cases. Inevitably, this leads to several bad things for the quality of the articles, including but not limited to: 1 - There is an extreme redundancy when one takes into the account the existance of a "Pre-Crisis" or "Earth-Two" section in the original article. 2 - Most splinter articles, unlike their "parents", are written - against Wikipedia policy - in mostly in-universe style, with barely a mention of the fictional context. 3 - Finally, the splinter articles are often created and then immediately orphaned for a long time, left with information which applies only to the original article from which most of the information was copied from (and when the appropiate information is included, it's basically three sentences which already were in the parent article). Nothing against you personally, User:Netkinetic, but I believe you're taking a suggestion that was made pertaining to a few specific characters to the extreme. There is an enourmous in-universe bias in your work (though I do not deny your good faith). Sometimes the "they're different people!" argument doesn't apply, specially when they WEREN'T different people for years, and when the divergences can be counted with one hand. --Ace ETP 03:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

They weren't different people? Could you cite that for me? One could easily say that the Golden age Wonder Woman and the Earth-Two Wonder Woman were essentially the same person "for years", but you'd be hard pressed to say the same about the Golden age and the Silver age ones. (Which is also the dividing line between the E-1 and E-2 Wonder Women.) This doesn't even go into the vast differences between either of those and the "modern age" Wonder Woman. Which is an interesting thought: Should the modern Princess Diana be listed on a different page than the other Wonder Women, since it's been established many times (the latest being in infinite crisis) that she's not them? And if we really want to delve into the "alternate versions" debate, I'll pull out the Hawkman mess : ) - jc37 08:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You know what, maybe we should cut to the chase. Take all the DC character names that have had 1) multiple users, and/or 2) portions of the publication histories attributed to different versions and convert their article in to refirects like Robin (comics) with each user and variation getting a seperat article linking from it. So we get:

Superman
- Superman (Kal-L)
- Superman (Earth-One)
- Superman (Current)
Batman
- Batman (Earth-Two)
- Batman (Earth-One)
- Batman (Current)
Robin
- Robin (Dick Grayson, Earth-Two)
- Dick Grayson (Earth-One)
- Dick Grayson (Current)
- Robin (Jason Todd, Earth-One)
- Jason Todd (Current)
- Robin (Tim Drake)
- Stephanie Brown
Green Arrow
- Green Arrow (Earth-Two)
- Green Arrow (Earth-One)
- Green Arrow (Oliver Queen, Current)
- Green Arrow (Conner Hawke)
Blue Beetle
- Blue Beetle (Dan Garret, Fox Publishing)
- Blue Beetle (Dan Garret, Earth-4) (Charlton)
- Blue Beetle (Dan Garret, Current)
- Blue Beetle (Ted Kord, Earth-4) (Charlton)
- Blue Beetle (Ted Kord, Current)
- Blue Beetle (Jaime Reyes)
Captain Marvel
- Captain Marvel (Earth-S) (Fawcett)
- Captain Marvel (Post-COIE)
- Captain Marvel (Current DC Comics) (Possibly moving to Billy Batson)

And so on. We could also expand this to the Marvel character, and the Wildstorm, and any others that have changed hands , been revised, or had multiple versions hit print. And while were at it, may be we should also give 'each appearance in other media its own article. That's what, another 7 or 8 Batman articles, a like number of Superman, 6 Robin, and, again, so on.

It can't get too ugly, can it?

Thanks for listening... — J Greb 15:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. And ~~though I realise that someone above was being somewhat facetious, or even sarcastic,~~ essentially that's what disambiguation pages, and overview pages, and the "main" template, are for. The only real question is whether we as the community feel that they are necessary - such as for article length reasons or searching/navigational reasons. So if we truly want to "cut to the chase" that is what we're actually discussing. What do we - as the WikiProject Comics community - feel is "necessary", and accurate, and precise. - jc37 20:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Not facetious, per se, and definitely not sarcastic. If anything I'm frustrated with this entire mess. The more I read through this, the more I see the argument for the articles like Robin (Earth-Two) (by any name) boiling down to "Since we have an article for the Earth-Two Superman and Batman we must have an article for this Earth-Two character." To my understanding, unless the inclusion of the information makes an article confusing, and/or pushes it over a substantial size (50k+), splitting isn't necessary. — J Greb 20:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if I mischaracterised your intent. As for mine, I think a character should have an article if there is enough information to justify one, otherwise, the character can be a part of a List of x characters. And perhaps the step we could have teken first: place all the Earth-Two characters that we're discussing in a list, and then split those characters whose entries are long enough to their own articles. We've skipped that step for Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, and Robin, because, as far as I can tell, there is enough information to split them to their own articles. This is no different than a list of Danny Phantom characters or a List of Harry Potter characters. And as I've mentioned, it's a prime example of what the main template is used for. When we were discussing Naming conventions, User:Hiding suggested the standard of using "overview" (list) pages for characters when they have similar names, either secret ID or their "heroic" names. And then from that could be links to their various articles through use of Template:Main. I don't see how this is any different. - jc37 21:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Both Superman and Batman were at the point where it was more or less self evident that the main article needed to be spread over many pages. However, IIRC the Batman split did raise some concerns about it being done as a bold edit without any comment on the parents talk page. The Robin edit was another bold edit that birthed this current round of discussions. And considering the creation of the Wonder Woman (E-2) page... IMO that was an incendiary edit. The person who created it did so knowing that there was an issue being discussed re the Robin edit. Further what discus ion was put forth was after the fact. There is nothing on the talk page asking "This is a long article. Should we split off the E-2 Wonder Woman to help alleviate that?" To be honest, given the length of that article, if someone had started a discussion about which additional section(s) to move in full to separate articles, the E-2 article may have be given community approval. As it stands the process there is going backwards. — J Greb 22:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

(Side note: I'll have to keep a better wach on coments to that editor. He seems to have taken my comment about a split to the Lex Luthor and Lois Lane articales as a go ahead to actually split off a Lex Luthor (Earth-One)...) — J Greb 22:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

And why would it necessarily get ugly, if the main article branches off to the supplemental entries? To my knowledge, there is already is Oliver Queen AND Conner Hawke article and there already is already a Jaime Reyes article separate from Blue Beetle. Furthermore, if DC Comics in the DC Guidebooks and so forth have listed separate entries for individuals such as Robin (Earth-One) and Robin (Earth-Two), why are we as a seemingly NPOV editorial staff saying "what DC Comics said about their characters isn't true nor noteworthy...we're the final authority of whether [Character X] is meritous enough for our organization to consider...we deem that they are one in the same character despite what DC and/or Marvel (Ultimate line) has said". Sounds a bit like intellectual snobbery, perhaps. NetK 17:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

NetK, I know that Wiki already has multiple listings. The point I was making is, following this through to the ultimate result yields, in addition to a dab page, Three Superman articles, Three Batman, Seven Robin, Four Green Arrow, Six Blue Beetle, Three Captain Marvel (Eight including the versions never owned by DC), and so on. That's what I mean by "getting ugly".
And it isn't "intellectual snobbery", it parking the fanboy attitude and asking if the first split of an article really should be the what amounts to a minor point in the publication history. — J Greb 18:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

J Greb, that argument rests on a pretty unstable foundation. To wit, comicbooks (the subject in question of which we're devoting a considerable amount of time discussing) is in fact an instrument of "fanboys" in effect. Writers, artists, editors...all contributing to the publication of material impose their own outlook on the medium. This isn't WikiAutoParts or WikiMathematicalTheory...this is accurately reporting and giving sufficient space and partition to characters and ideas proposed in a fictional realm. We do not impose our own view of what qualifies as a real character or not...that's not what Wikipedia is about nor has it ever been. It is about devoting an NPOV to the contributions, both from an in-universe perspective (i.e. continuity within published stories) and out-of-universe publishing perogatives (i.e. editoral mandates and artistic license stating in out-of-story references...be it comicbook journals, letterpages, publisher webpages) that said characters ARE valid and HAVE merit in and of themselves. I hear what you are saying, having a predominance of articles from which a reader could become lost. If that is your prime concern, you and I are in agreement that this aspect of the problem needs to be solved. My recommendation is that presented by jc37...using the :main" fork. NetK 01:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So which is more important, the fan's perspective? The original creators'? Those of all the hands that have touched the concept since? Where do we start in weeding through that?
As best I can tell, the guidelines for this project and for Wiki in general indicate that what is written in the original source and what is presented in reputable secondaries is where we start. We don't draw a conclusion, and we don't cite "as per fandom". If you question that, look at the examplars. At this time the character one places the bio of the character under the publication history. That is the "who created the character", if important "why they did", "what inspired it", "Who published it", "when", and "how".
There is a further concept that bandied about as a guideline for Wiki articles: notoriety. This isn't an assessment of if a character is real or not, but of if the character is notable or not. To that end many things can, and should be looked at: the character's longevity, use, and impact among them. Yes, popularity among fandom does fit into that. But, since I would venture that everyone actively involved in this project is a fan of varying degrees and tastes, to try and attain that vaunted NPOV we do need to check ourselves. "Got a reliable, citable source?" "Writing without hype?" "Am I creating this article/adding this information because it is important to me or because it is truly important in the grand scheme of comics?" These are internal checks we should be making. I would also add to that "Is what I'm about to 'boldly' add/create/change/delete a sensitive item that should be put up for discussion first?" It should be crystal clear to people that have been around this project for any length of time that the splitting of character articles is a touchy subject, at best, and E-1/E-2 verieties even more so. — J Greb 03:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a very good point in there: "Got a reliable, citable source?" - The comics themselves are sources. And we can start sifting through various comments from editors/writers/artists, etc. Since it's been shown above that he is a distinct character (and WesleyDodd's been kind enough to cite several examples of comic book series and appearances, though I'm sure we could be more specific, and reference those, and cite even more.),I think a good question would be: Can anyone show that the Robin of Earth-Two is not a distinct character? - jc37 12:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

And the mess goes on. Articles regarding earth-two versions keep poping. I don't think Wikipedia is the right place for this kind of thing. This is about to become the mess DC Database Project Wiki is. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 19:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

With restraint, maybe. As I point out below, I can see the alt-versions being split off of long articles after they hit the point that they cannot be further condensed and all other reasonable topics have been split off. The existence of an article for an alt-version of one character should not be used to justify splitting out an alt-version of another. As for the DCDPW, IIUC it is geared much more for an in-universe POV, hence the articles should only deal with one character/version each. — J Greb 20:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As someome mentioned above Wikipedia is not paper That's all I have to say. --21:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary of the discussion

This section is getting too long to read. Could both sides quickly summarize their positions. - Peregrine Fisher 10:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. The argument for establishing articles for separate and distinct characters, as set for in an in-universe perspective by stories published, and as set for in an out-of-universe perspective by editorial decree of the publisher of said characters, seems to be clear. If comic professionals felt the need to partition one character into two or several, than this should be the final authority as to if said character has merit. Some entries will seem unworthy of their own entry due to impact, and some believe said entries had profound impact. Who is to judge which is and which isn't impactful? Since we are each coming from a different point of view, this can cause divergent opinions on the validity of this character or that, leading to endless debates on (potentially) thousands of current and future entries. Should what the publisher has said editorially and has written in their publications be the deciding factor, to break the impasse. When did we as Wikipedians decide that WE know more than the creators of the contents we are simply summarizing? NetK 17:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My general point is that Earth-Two characters are essentially derivatives and variations on other, more notable characters and should be treated as such variations (Ultimate Marvel, other media, etc.) are. That is, dealt with in the main article as an addendum unless they require an article for exceptional cases (ie. Earth-Two Superman, but to me even that's pushing it and really is its own article due to page length guidelines). I remember we had a long discussion once about an article on Batman as portrayed in Batman: The Animated Series and we came to the conclusion that it didn't deserve to be a separate article, and that portrayal is much more notable than the majority of Earth-Two characters. WesleyDodds 22:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As I just noted some sections above, we shouldn't be "simply summarizing" as the main basis of an article: we should report what WP:V secondary sources have siad about the subject. If no books, articles, studies, ... have been made about a character or a specific incarnation / version of a character, then we shouldn't have an article about it, no matter how important, influential, popular, ... the character is: on the other hand, if WP:V sources routinely give serious attention to the characters or to the different incarnations of those, then we can and should have articles. This does mean that we will often not have an article about a major new character for months, but that doesn't matter, since that is not what Wikipedia is for (even though many people may use it for those reasons). We are a tertiary source, not a secondary source, and articles with our own character descriptiopns, histories, and plot summaries are fancruft, no matter how objective and accurate they may be. We need to become much stricter in this respect, since it is a (perhaps the) core policy of Wikipedia. Fram 16:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I realize the mess is being officialized. Whatever. But I'd like to know why the heck now we have Robin (Earth-Two) and Dick Grayson (Earth-Two). —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 17:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And I'm still awaiting a response to my query above: why is the issue of a Robin (Earth-Two) an issue now, when the article Batman (Earth-Two) was created back on November 7, 2006 without any discussion nor dispute from you, kind sir? And please note Fram, that I have included (and will persist in including) secondary sources...which I concur is an excellent idea to justify the existence of an article. NetK 05:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, if you're going to make all these different articles (before the final decision, i might add) on these characters, can't you at least do it correctly? In Lex Luthor (Earth-One) and Wonder Woman (Earth-Two), is an immediate link to the another article. Not to mention the state of Wonder Woman's super hero box. It's like you're making these articles just to make them. We should probably just merge them all if we have a large influx of inferior articles. You just cut and paste from the original articles, without condensing the section you took it from. So basically you're just saying the same thing twice. Furthermore, these are silver age creations based on the Golden Age. The split off point is the first appearance of Earth-Two.

(ugh.) --Exvicious 09:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still wondering how Exvicious' feet weren't put the fire regarding his contribution on November 7, 2006 of Batman (Earth-Two)? There was not community consensus then, why are we holding to a different standard now? He (wisely) created an article based on a silver age perspective...I've attempted to do the same. Where there are symantic corrections in new articles...they are gladly accepted and will be acted upon. As to the Wonder Woman and Luthor pages, there was a suggestion (and taken simply as that) that they would seem to be acceptable under the same criteria. Duly noted. Of course there would be a link at the top of the article referencing the parent articles covering the broader subject in question. That is standard operating procedure. They too can (should) have a survey, as has Robin (Earth-Two) which seems to indicate some for keeping the distinct article, some for merging. Netkinetic/T/C/@ 19:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You're kind of comparing apples and oranges. We don't know what works until we try it. We have exceptions to every rule in Wikipedia, sometimes some things are more acceptable than others. I appreciate that can appear rough, especially when you are on the end of a very confusing turn around, but the best way to solve this issue is to discuss the issue, and not discuss side issues. Generally, these sorts of articles on variants of characters aren't encouraged. To be honest, I think the main article at Robin (comics) is in a pretty poor state and attention might be better invested getting that up to featured article status, which Batman holds, before we start splitting stuff out. Hiding Talk 20:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm really not...I'm not asking for platitude as to "we have exceptions" and "what works for one doesn't work for another". Your asking for absolute submission to relative principles, now that is "apples to oranges" right there. With all due respect, the process needs to show impartiality...we're not talking one article about auto mechanics and another about comicbooks. That would be "apples to oranges". What I'm asking for is some clear delination...objectivity...not subjective statements. Because that doesn't work for encyclopedias...and it doesn't work for Wikipedia. Netkinetic/T/C/@ 20:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Then the consensus appears to be that Robin should not be split so but Batman should. I can't find any other way to put it, but reading the discussion that seems to be the consensus. I'm sorry but objectivity is impossible in the sense you would like to see it applied. If you'll permit me, might I suggest you take a look at the deletion process, and see the myriad of contradicting decisions made there. Check out our adminship promotion system and see the inequities exposed there. Wikipedia is not perfect. Wikipedia doesn't work with hard rules that must be obeyed. Wikipedia works by consensus. Sometimes that means the consensus says one thing to one case but a different thing to another. Each case is separate, and is as like each other case as an apple is to an orange. Sometimes they are both fruits, sometimes they are of different colours. That's why the analogy works. Hiding Talk 20:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see above survey (from Talk Robin (comics). There is no "consensus", and as Earth-Two articles have been allowed to exist for months...then established "consensus" as to tolerance of a valid contribution would work in this instance as well. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 17:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you consider that the survey has closed, then there's no consensus there, but maybe it would have been wise to let a consensus develop. Since the survey is now here, I suggest we read it in the context of the whole debate here, and then we can see that the people who support the split but didn't vote at the Robin article where this initially was help develop a consensus for a merge. But there's a compromise being worked out below so let's leave that discussion for a while. As to the argument that the "articles have been allowed to exist for months", I suggest you have a quick visit at the deletion debates. That is not, never has and never will be a reason to keep. What we need to do is work out how to collaborate together and do what's best for the encyclopedia. Hope we can all focus on that rather than one article out of a million. Hiding Talk 15:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"Then we can see that the people who support the split but didn't vote at the Robin article where this initially was help develop a consensus for a merge"? If people support the split and didn't vote, then how would their contributions "help develop a consensus for a merge". I'm not sure having an admin steer the dialogue towards a personal preference of "merge" instead of allowing all voices to be heard is necessarily constructive. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 18:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm steering nothing, and have expressed no personal preference in this debate beyond the fact that I think attempting a compromise is the best idea. If you don't want the survey to be read as part of this debate, why on earth have you moved it here? I'd suggest this issue is set aside in the hope that people can rather direct their energy at constructing a working way of moving forward. Hiding Talk 19:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies Hiding, I simply did not understand the sentence that I referenced in quotes relating to "people who support the split" and how we then arrived to "develop a consensus to merge". That seemed counterintuitive towards a preference for merging even though I added the survey from the Robin page showing no clear consensus either to split nor to merge. Bottom line is the sentence didn't make sense when read, that was my only point. Sorry for any offense to you. As to setting aside the issue, fair enough.Netkinetic | T / C / @ 19:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, has there been a violation of the GFDL here? If they are created from a cut and paste that has to be noted in the edit summary of both pages otherwise the copyright license is violated. Hiding Talk 12:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's taking sections of articles to make new articles within wikipedia, and linking the section to the "main article". is that a violation? i just thought it was redundant. --Exvicious 17:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the edit summaries have to mention the split. See Wikipedia:Summary style, "Whenever you break up a page, please note the split (including the page names between double square brackets) in the edit summary." We have to keep page history intact as part of the license under which contributions are made. Hiding Talk 17:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why Earth-Two couldn't cover this? I mean, even Batman (Earth-Two) doesn't seem to introduce any material that couldn't be generally covered in Earth-Two. As someone unschooled in DC entirely, this whole Earth-One, Earth-Two thing is a total cluster. The separation of these articles seems rather fanboyish (which I say as a reformed creator of an Ultimate Marvel character article). --Psyphics_ΨΦ 21:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's the sort of solution that works for me. Hiding Talk 22:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I would absolutely be in favour of Earth-Two being used as an overview page. Let's put the question of whether this or that character "deserves" an article, on the back burner for now, and work on developing Earth-Two. - jc37 22:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The Earth-Two article would be a good parking place for this if it truly is a size issue on the character page. It can always be brought back for discussion later if 1) the E-2 article gets to long, or 2) if there is enough to show a character should be split off. — J Greb 00:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So then, we are speaking of Superman (Kal-L), Batman (Earth-Two), Robin (Earth-Two), Power Girl and other Earth-Two characters all placed in this article? Netkinetic | T / C / @ 17:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- - - Or, should that occur, Characters of Earth-Two or something of the like could be created. --InShaneee 17:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that in light of the questions raised by the events of JSA # 85 (and the clear need for a separate Kal-L article), Batman (Earth-Two) should remain separate for now. This is especially true since the parallel worlds issue will apparently be one of Geoff Johns' major themes in the new Justice Society of America series. --

ABCxyz 17:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

- We're not in the business to help people understand plot. We're trying to help people understand the background, the real-world history, contributors, development. What happens in the comic is secondary to who wrote it, when, why, and so on. Trimming down Kal-L to be a part of Earth-Two may not work, but that doesn't mean the same is true for all denizens of Earth-Two. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 20:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm for the Superman (Kal-L) article. And only this one. As discused months ago, we have to check article by article, case by case, because what is good for one article, might not be for another. Let's be reasonable. Kal-L is the only Earth-Two character with recent activity and even set to reappear. All other characters are dead and buried for years. All of them can perfectly exist within main articles such as Batman, Dick Grayson, Huntress (comics) and Wonder Woman (who had only reappeared to uselessly say "goodbye"). If necessary (e.g. a comeback) we can spilt them. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 16:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Listed of related articles

Superman (Kal-L)
Batman (Earth-Two)
Lex Luthor (Earth-One) (created after start of survey)
Wonder Woman (Earth-Two) (created after start of survey)
Robin/Dick Grayson (Earth-Two)

and to a lesser extent

Huntress (Helena Wayne) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Semidelicious (talk • contribs) 03:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

So, where do we go from here? —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 15:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We leave well enough alone and respect that there is no consensus to merge as per above survey. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 18:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... you do realize that since there was "no consensus" on the Robin issue one way or the other that the issue can be revisited at any time. Further, the bad faith splits of Lex and Wonder Woman were no touched. The only splits that should be "left alone", barring a change in criteria for Project articles, are the Superman and Batman articles. As for the rest, either 1) it gets ignored as per most "personal taste" issues seem to be or 2) it gets left alone for a few months until someone brings it back up. And in the case of option #2, all this debate (debacle?) does is show we couldn't come to consensus last time , not that the consensus was to split. — J Greb 19:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?!? "Bad faith edits"? Please see above, it was your suggestion on 00:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)...kind sir...that such articles be considered. You may have not meant that in the way it came across, but nonetheless please avoid personal attacks on another editor's contributions as "bad faith". It does not garner respect towards your point of view. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 19:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And you sir saw that the split you made to the Robin article sparked more concerned parties that just the two of us. For you to decide to split the other articles in exactly the same way, while that debate was ongoing, without stating "I intend to do this and this. Should it be discussed first?", is acting in bad faith. It escalates a bad situation and comes across as a dictation of policy, regardless of the rest of the community's thoughts on the matter.
As to my comments re: Lex and Lois. I have observed up thread that I now realize that I'm going to have to painfully clear and blunt in similar situations. You provided an example to support your bold edit. I pointed out in a way that I thought was clear that if your action rested solely on the criteria presented to that point, there were other characters that either 1) you should have been bold with before the debate started, or 2) need to be part of the discussion. It frustrates me to no end to see that used as an excuse for and/or justification of an act that is akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. — J Greb 20:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And saw just as many who weren't concerned with a split and saw that it was justified. IF we apply your same logic to the Kal-L and Batman Earth-Two split as not being effected by this debate...THEN why are the Luthor and Wonder Woman splits "adding gasoline". You treat certain articles as a separate case but not others...this logic is flawed. If you postulate that "the splits occured after the debate"...please note there are *several* split in *several* articles throughout Wikipedia, and has been mentioned above "what applies to one article doesn't apply to others...each is a SEPARATE CASE". What worked for Batman Earth-Two wouldn't for another so we shouldn't compare. I personally think that ALL these Earth-Two articles need to be treated under the same consideration...however since yourself and others throw out the first two E-2 splits, then don't reverse your position when it is convenient and throw in later splits.Netkinetic | T / C / @ 20:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"[J]ust as many" means no consensus has been reached. The split of the Robin article was neither sanctioned nor condemned by the community at larges.
Objection and debate was raised as of the Robin split. Keep that firmly in mind. An editor who, being aware of that fact, proceeds to create new articles under the same method and reasoning is, at the least, inflaming the situation.
As stated previously: The Superman and Batman edit appear to have been originally based on file length. The articles exceeded 50k and something had to either be deleted or moved to a separate article. From where I sit, the Superman split went unchallenged because of how huge the article would be if the 4 or 5 splits were undone. The same seems to be the case with the Batman article. Remember, I said I tacitly support that one. I don't like it, but accept it to keep the article size reasonable.
The premise for your splits reads as "It's a variant character and deserves its own article." This is a judgement call outside of the guidelines for the Project and Wiki in general. The Batman variant and the ones you created have debatable divergence from and relative wight to the parent character. For that reason, I cannot support that as a primary justification to split off the information into another article.
To treat the Earth-Two articles (and those regarding other DC Earths) the same Start from the place the Superman and Batman articles were at: Ask if the article overly long (50k+) and use that as your reason.

One last thought:

If the Dick Grayson article had been tagged to have the Earth-Two section split off with the primary stated reason as "This article is overly long and only going to get longer. Shouldn't we alleviate that by splitting off the Earth-Two section?", I think you would have had less backlash. — J Greb 22:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"This is a judgement call outside of the guidelines for the Project and Wiki in general". Really? And which objective source determines this is a "judgement call"? Isn't that, in fact, judging another's actions? "Do not judge lest you be judged" or some such. "Outside guidelines for the Project and Wiki"...please reference this in the bylaws and guidelines of Wikipedia. There are polices and guidelines encouraging editors to be bold and ignore all rules when they believe their contributions add to the quality of this encyclopedia. Thus far, you have offered no convincing nor compelling evidence that such a split isn't adding to the quality and in fact detracts from this. The project, it would seem, appears divided as to splitting an article (again, reference survey) so to summarily state this is "outside the guidelines" of the Project, then I would equally and just as adamantly submit that you are acting "outside the guidelines" of the Project by holding to your position. Of course, such as postulation is ridiculous...which disproves this point you attempt to argue in your favour. As to article size meriting the earlier (undisputed) splits, I concur that as a valid reason...but not the sole and inclusively binding reason. I do echo your sentiment that Robin (Earth-Two) has neither been "sanctioned nor condemned", removing it would be a step backwards. Wonder Woman (Earth-Two) would under the aforementioned "size" criteria definitely merit consideration for a split. Lex Luthor (Earth-One) is still notable however admittedly on weaker foundations as the character was never shown as separate nor distinct from the core character. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 22:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Point of clarification: "judgment call" is not a bad thing with regard to Wiki.
There are guidelines for things like date formatting, how to notate volume numbers, secession numbering for supers, and so on. There are precious few covering "notability". The only one that jumps to my mind is neologisms.
So, as you point out, Bold and IAR hold sway. But even those have limits. BOLD is referred to as a guideline on its page. It also has a a good sized section called "…but don't be reckless." This ties into the essays linked to the policy IAR, of which both "Use common sense" and "Don't be a dick" have bearing here.
Being bold and ignoring the rules is all well and good, but there is a point where common sense has to kick in. Hopefully that is before putting in an edit or creating a page that will create, or exacerbate, a problem. As I told you on your talk page at the start of this, I want to believe that the Robin split was made in good faith as a bold edit to enhance the material here. It had elements to it that felt off at the time and still do now. But it is what it is. — J Greb 01:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"Telling someone 'Don't be a dick' is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly." The comment above "had elements to it" that felt like this may be the case. My whole point, take it exactly how you want, is that the more articles on the more distinct characters the better. Can orphaned articles be a downside to this? Absolutely. So editors that create such articles need to endeavor to link it where appropriate to similar topics where relevant. This I will endeavor to do. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 04:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm drawing a line, respect it if you want. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is that way. On the issue itself, I tend to agree with J Greb. Regardless of anything else, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. People who cannot work collaboratively should perhaps reconsider whether a collaborative effort is the best venue for them to contribute to. I would also suggest that people consider another couple of points. If we all act on our own whims, it will be hard to build. We need to work together. Therefore, it is obvious that to do so people have to discuss issues, and stop working on them whilst discussion takes place. This is to ensure debate can move on in good faith. It therefore seems a reasonable conclusion for some to assume others who do not stop working whilst a discussion occurs are acting in bad faith, whether that is true or not. They believe this to be a reasonable conclusion to draw because it appears to trump the discussion. It sends the message that someone is not wholly invested in the discussion, nor that they intend to respect it if it goes against them. We have policies on edit warring to encourage discussion of issues. It can at times appear that people take advantage of this and edit to their own desire, perhaps in the belief that people won't revert them due to a lack of consensus. I would suggest that people remember that good faith is not a tool to hide behind. Now, the guidelines which apply here are the comics guidelines and WP:FICTION. WP:FICTION is quite clear on this issue, Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." That was the idea suggested above, and if no consensus exists to change the prior consensus established in numerous places, the previous consensus is to be respected. People who have an issue with that are reminded consensus can change, and they should raise a discussion of changing WP:FICTION at the village pump to ensure a broad spectrum of Wikipedian input. Otherwise this matter appears as if it will end in arbitration. The fundamental point regarding Wikipedia is that we work together and respect consensus. Hiding Talk 11:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I therefore suggest people start merging the articles as outlined by the guidance. Hiding Talk 11:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, I thought so. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)