Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

I was wondering why Steel Spider redirects to Ollie Osnick since he is known more as Steel Spider than Ollie Osnick. I noticed the same thing happened to Pietro Maximoff/Quicksilver. Quicksilver (comics) redirected to Pietro Maximoff but was changed due to Pietro being more popularly known as Quicksilver. Anyway, should Ollie Osnick more or less redirect to Steel Spider and not the way it currently does?

RIANZ 23:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the general thinking can be seen in entries like Dick Grayson vs Robin (comics) (and Flash, Firestorm, etc.) in that the person and character can be different and the thing that wouldn't change is the person. It may be that they adopt a number of superhero personas or a number of people wear the mantle of one name. So going to Ollie Osnick leaves things open for him to adopt other heroic personas or for other people to be Quicksilver.

That said most entries really don't require that kind of flexibility and it might be better to stick with the best known name to avoid confusion.

However, I bet there is a discussion on this somewhere in the archives and I'll now clear the floor so a knowledgable person can link to it (possibly ;) ). (Emperor 00:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

That article sure looks like Ollie Osnick should redirect to Steel Spider, not the other way around. Doczilla 07:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you please drop your thoughts at Talk:Huntress (comics)#Split/Breakout? Thanks, guys. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 17:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A heads up to one and all to keep up-to-date on all your DC-related pages on your watchlists. After "52" Week (issue) 52 came out a couple days ago, a few users have added several uncited references on several pages. Of particular note, identities of and details about several characters appearing in panels of the new Earths, which have little factual detail, are being cited as fact in several articles.Mister Fax 18:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There are an incredible number of biographical articles in wikipedia, many/most of which fall within the scope of WikiProject Biography. I have recently proposed that the Biography project perhaps be involved in a number of subprojects to work on smaller, and perhaps more focused, areas. One such proposal relates to comic creators. This proposal can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Comics creators. Any member of this project who would be interested in working specifically on biographical content relating to comics creators would be more than welcome to indicate as much there. Thank you. John Carter 16:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The Article is Omaha the Cat Dancer and at looks like I am the only one add the Plot summary?--Brown Shoes22 18:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey y'all.

I think that this article is a copy violation of what appeared in the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe: Horror 2005 (or 2006). RIANZ 00:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted. I've taken out the offending sections but someone else needs to check through just to be sure. See the talk page for comments. (Emperor 00:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

Someone has raised the point that if it came from the marvel Database (as it appears to have done) then it is GPLed [1] anyone want to rule on this one as it will clearly be an issue in the future. (Emperor 23:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

Frankly, if:

1. The text is a lift from the OHotMU; and
2. The book was published before the text appeared in the text went up, either here or in the MD; then
3. The text goes, copyleft or not.

At that point the MD article is a copyvio, and by extension so would any porting of it to here.

- J Greb 06:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There's current a debate (not a war, just a debate) about the lead image for the Superman article. One editor would like to replace the previous fair use image with a free image. Actually, based on his talk page points, I think he may be right. But, given that this is an important featured article for this project, I want to solicit others' input. --GentlemanGhost 21:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Though the cartoon may be in the public domain, the copyrighted character of Superman is not, so the image isn't free at all. Postdlf 01:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Currently, the WWIII article is just about the four-part miniseries. Does anyone think it should be more about the actual event in the comics? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DrBat (talk • contribs) 17:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Correct me if i am wrong, but doesn't that count as writing in a in universe style, which is something we are trying to avoid?Phoenix741 23:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Because World War III didn't just take place in the WWIII miniseries; it took place in 52 #50, and the miniseries was just expanding on it.--DrBat 02:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

With an article name like that, it would encompass any World War III that occurred in any comic book, ever. If the purpose of the article is just to cover the DC Comics event, the name probably ought to be changed to something more specific. --GentlemanGhost 01:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe something like (DC Comics) or (52)?--DrBat 20:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

We could copyedit the heck out of the article and see if it can be included in the 52 one, though ... that would also necessitate the hackage of a lot of the fan spec about Rip Hunter's lab. World War III (52) would leave us the most room for manipulation. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I was doing a light tidy up on Category:Comics but I think it needs a bit of a concerted effort. For now I'd like to focus on the pages not the sub-categories as there are issues there I'd like to address but it'd require more debate. The pages in the top category are often just stuck there because people couldn't think of anything better to do with them (or the category is redundnt as it is already in more specific child categories). This might also mean they are new or in need of attention so keep an eye open for that and throw in the comics projet header and flag any causes for concern. If anyone is unsure about anything then drop the link in here and someone else will look at it. (Emperor 16:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

• Design comics, the first one that has stumped me. It smells like a big ad but I'm throwing it in to someone who might have a better idea of the area. (Emperor 19:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

  Should be renamed from having "comics" in the name, per Storyboard and Instructional design. Suggestions for the new name are welcome : ) - jc37 20:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• I also found a number of highly suspect entries: Jack Velvet, The Adventures of Swift and Steele (Comics)‎ and Point Guardian which, if confirmed, would show it is rather a dumping ground especially used by new editors. (Emperor 19:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

Yes, those articles seem the sort that would have a hard time passing an AFD. Murgh^disc. 19:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the best way to handle this would be to empty the cat of everything but sub-cats, and add Template:Parent category, which was developed due to similar issues with the Wikipedian categories. - jc37 19:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Toss them all into subcats and then hit up each subcat from there? Yeesh. SOme of those subcats are ugly too. But yeah, JC37, I'm with you there. I'll start poking around too. Anything to avoid work! ;) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait a sec... Comics has the subcat Cartoons which has the subcat comics... -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

New marketing tag: "Wikipedia: Your Home for Recursion." - J Greb 19:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Makes my head hurt ;) How about this - a comic could be said to be a verison of a cartoon. A cartoon need not have the characteristics of a comic. So Comics is then a child of cartoon. (Emperor 03:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

Yeah we can work towards that. I suspect if we go through those we can get it down to half a dozen entries and if need be we can discuss where to put them (like Comic collector for example). The categories themselves coould do with some work but if we can get the category clear we can move on to that as the next stage (while the problems are still fresh in our minds ;) )> (Emperor 19:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

Ok, I added the template to the category. We may want to add List of comic books and List of comic strips to the category? - jc37 20:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Those are under Category:Comics-related lists I think. Or should be. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep - Category:Lists of comics. However, we can discuss that kind of thing when the category si clear - what you could do is add them into the opening paragraph so as to keep the category completely empty. (Emperor 20:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

Nearly done. We are down to Creator's Bill of Rights and Wikipedia:Wikipedia in comics, so if you have any ideas jump in. (Emperor 22:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

The Bill of Rights is maybe jargon? That WP mentions seems like the beginning of a large project that stopped up, isn't that WP:SELFREF? Murgh^disc. 23:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

OK I have moved Bill of Rights to terminology for now (itmight be we need some kind of technical category for various bits and bobs) and we the Wikipedia in Projects is actually under a Wikipedia address and (while not actually self-referential) fits more somewhere within the project so I have moved it into this category. While not ideal it has cleared the decks - good work everyone it went more smoothly than I was expecting. Hopefully as the tidy contunus we'll find other things that might fit together. What next? Sub cats? I'll start another section for specific ones as some of them are problematic. (Emperor 23:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

I can understand both sides of the debate when it comes to whether or not characters with the same alias should get separate articles or be grouped together. However, I have found one case where having multiple articles definitely feels like overkill. Andreas von Strucker's fictional biography is currently spread out over three articles! These are the titular article, Fenris (comics), and Swordsman (comics). The "main" article is currently tagged with a request for expansion. It seems to me that this won't be necessary if we merge at least two of the articles. Any thoughts? --GentlemanGhost 01:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it is: There is only one Andreas von Strucker. He and his sister were Fenris and he was one of many people to go by the name Swordsman. I think it is fairly reasonable - the person has gone by various identities which are shared by other people. I think it is OK as it stands. If you were going to merge anything then you could possibly merge Fenris but I think it works better as it is with Template:Main linking through to Fenris esp. because the Fenris entry is really the only place his sister gets discussed and as he doesn't appears in Nick Fury: Agent of Shield but she does under the Fenris name a merge would be messy and confusing. What might need expanding is the Swordsman information as the Swordsman entry links back to the von Strucker one so I'd say it is that which needs expanding as well as throwing in any other information there is around. (Emperor 01:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

Frankly the Swordsman looks fine... at least for von Strucker. The other three characters need work, but the redirect looks par for the course.

The Fenris/von Strucker thing though... It may be a case where the Fenris article needs to be re-thought. On that... could Fenris be reworked for focus on the team and Andrea and the Andreas bit be a {{main}} to the von Strucker article? - J Greb 06:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. The Fenris and von Strucker articles are where most of the overlap is anyway. --GentlemanGhost 22:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that the current Fenris page might need to be renamed to Fenris (Marvel Comics). Fenris is also a character in the Vertigo series Lucifer. [2] However, I am loathe to do a page move without checking first. --GentlemanGhost 22:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this really need to exist? I think this leans towards a price guide, which is what an encyclopedia shouldn't be about. RobJ1981 04:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Comic collecting is an important aspect of comics. We can't be a price guide, as you say, but noting the most expensive comics seems like a good way to help summarize the phenomenon, along with other articles. It would be an easy page to find refs for, too. - Peregrine Fisher 04:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me; gives the average person a good idea of just how seriously some people take collecting. HalfShadow 04:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not reprint other published lists for copyright reason. An article about the most expensive comics would have be useful, but a list will almost certainly violate copyright. Doczilla 07:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

We can easily piece together a list without violating copyright law. scoop.diamondgalleries.com has many articles about super expensive comics, and taking the name of a comic and its price from an article is definitily allowed without a need to resort to fair use (or anything else). - Peregrine Fisher 07:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not if most of those articles ultimately drew their info from a single source. P.S. It turns out that the article was a recreation of a deleted article. Its creator knew that too. Doczilla 07:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

So, multiple reliable sources and we're cool? - Peregrine Fisher 07:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that. That's only one point (by far the biggest point, though). There were other reasons raised in the AfD, which had a clear consensus.[3] No new argument has been raised in the deletion review.[4] Doczilla 07:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like people are calling this a copy vio, and writing it off. Also, some people complained that it was unsourced. I don't think it was a copy vio, but if it was, that can be easily fixed. Same with sourcing. Why don't we create a good version? - Peregrine Fisher 08:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If any reads the extensive reasoning I give in the AfD up on the article now, you'll see that it may not be possible to write an article on the subject. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In light of the AfD, deletion review, and recreation problem, I think someone who wants to create an appropriate version of this article should first create it in a user page, then submit it for consideration. Doczilla 17:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I suggested on the deletion review that they start it in their sandbox and we can give feedback on it. If you can get something together on the most expensive paintings it should be possible to look at the highest prices comics have sold for. Such things must be newsworthy and you'd then not be relying on price guides which admit to be rough and always out of date. For example this article [5] gives prices of recent sales - not how much they are valued at (after all that is just a guess until someone puts their hand in their wallet). As it stands it is fundamentally flawed and relying on just one source is bound to lead problems (the article I link to contradicts the other source). You'd need to use the various price overviews as guides to finding the right sources not explicitly as sources themselves. For example the article I list gives X-Men #1 at $45K so the next step is inding WP:RS that says that is the price. Just lifting a list from someone else's site isn't going to cut the ice, we need the sources or it can't be included. Also check the Guiness Book of Records. You can find the sources if you look. Check this out for example [6] it also includes other interesting tidbits like a source for te guy offereing $1,000,000. However, it might mean going to the library (big place full of books that is still better than the Internet - sometimes ;) ) to find the latest GBoR. All those sources could be brought together and something produced that would pass a deletion test. There are various lists of this kind of thing out there they key is getting enough of them and comparing them to get the most accurate information and then sourcing it as well as you can. (Emperor 18:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

An edit on Magneto reverted a category I added for Magneto: 'fictional mass murderers'. The category is defined as such with "the killing of four or more people in a single incident". How does this not apply to Magneto with all his acts of terrorism and destruction against humanity?--CyberGhostface 23:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem is that could apply to almost all supervillains with any powers as well as a reasonable slice of the superheroes too. They are WMDs in tights and should probably be exempt from the fictional mass murderers who have to use a more personal touch than dropping a plane on a city block. We don't include God in there but he solidly kicked ass Old Testament style. (Emperor 00:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

Yes, and there are numerous comicbook mass murderers in the section. Someone who has the potential to create destruction (like Superman) is arguably a 'WMD in tights' but because he has never committed any mass murder, he'd be exempt. Just because a character has destructive powers alone doesn't qualify them Characters who use said destructive powers deliberately kill large amounts of people, as Magneto has done, are mass murderers.--CyberGhostface 00:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, when has he ever use his "destructive powers deliberately kill large amounts of people"? Only the retconned Planet X storyline comes to mind. --DrBat 00:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Does knocking a mountain or sinking a submarine count?--CyberGhostface 00:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd not really want to get distracted on which superheroes might or might not count (The Hulk and The Authority do for example) although it might underline how messy it could be if you start trying to pin this on such non-real world characters. My best suggestion would be to raise it at Mass murder and see what they say as they are the people who will be policing the area and the most likely to get into conflict with. I'd suggest their superhuman powers make them exempt - would someone dropping a bomb on a village count? Possibly only in the broadest sense but what if they napalmed an enemy army unit? You could go on but I'd put superheroes in the class in general. Equally you could say any superhuman who has killed a number of is a serial killer but is a soldier in a war? No. (Emperor 00:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

I asked it here, although as for pinning it on non--real world characters, what else would the category be for? As for superhuman powers making them exempt, characters like Annihilus and Anti-monitor both have it under their categories. (Obviously they're much more murderous than Mags, but still...)--CyberGhostface 00:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a bit of a merge going on over there and we need to plot a course through everything. Discussion here: Talk:Wildstorm#Merges My thinking is that not all Wildstorm titles are in the main fictional universe so a Wildstorm Universe entry could really help sort things out. Anyway let us know your thoughts over there. (Emperor 00:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

What happened to this page?

Having it be at (Marvel Comics), as opposed to just (comics) is redundant; that should only apply to characters like Captain Marvel, where multiple companies have characters of the same name.

And why is the main image the obscure alien one? I'd like to change it, but it seems like most of the article's history got deleted. --DrBat 22:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the article got moved to Vision (Comics), then Vision (comics), and then back to Vision (Marvel Comics). Along the way, the previous edit histories got left behind (a mistake I've made before). --GentlemanGhost 23:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made a formal move request to merge the edit histories. They did a similar action for me yesterday, fixing the time when I kludged the edit history of a different article. I imagine that it won't take them long to fix this as well. --GentlemanGhost 20:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The edit histories have now been merged back together. --GentlemanGhost 22:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Now we have addressed the comics category it is Category:Comic books that is causing me concern. Not only has it been used as a dumping ground for all sorts of random entries (like the main category - in fact a lot of things in there are just replicated in the parent category) but it troubles me conceptually.

It goes back to the name convention business that cropped up when everything was being renamed from (comic) or (comis) to (comic book). The term comic book isn't universal as the entry itself correctly outlines: " In the United Kingdom, the term comic book is used to refer to American comic books by their readers and collectors, while the general populace would likely consider a comic book a hardcover book collecting comics stories. The analogous term in the UK is a comic, short for comic paper or comic magazine."

So we are in a position when a lot of the categories and entries under Category:Comic books (and a lot of things in entries like "Comic book titles") aren't comic books. So what is the fix?

Looking through the category I'd suggest we don't need it. It is basically replicating the function of the Comics Category.

Quick fixes are changing "Comic book titles" to "Comics titles". A lot of the other things in there should be elsewhere anyway. French comics should be under European comics, for example. Most of the rest are comics and should be under the titles category - we can do another blitz on them and sort the bulk of that category to more appropriate ones. Other should be rationalised and marged (we don't need Category:Comic conventions and Category:Comic book conventions.

We also need at least one new category to collect graphic novels, comic strips, comic books, manga (and regional forms), minicomics, comic magazines, etc. and I would suggest: "Comics forms" (or "Comics types"). It may also be that we need a "Comics businesses" which would hold organisations, stores and conventions.

So this one will take a bit more discussion than the Comics Category cleanup. To summarise: "Comic book" is a problemtic terms (and not international) but that might not be such a big deal as we can rename "Comic book titles" and just about everything should be in other categories anyway.

There are things that can be done to tidy things up. I'm going to move the regional comics out of the comic book cat for starters. If we can agree on the new categories and reach a consensus on the way forward we can then blitz the comic book category too and sort it out.

Thoughts? (Emperor 00:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

I'm on the fence about the "version of english" naming choice. I'm fairly tempted to suggest the the category be quick merged to Category:Comics, and then have a discussion about comic books vs comics. We may be able to sub-categorise by location (European comics, American comic books, etc.) I'll more thoroughly look over the category after I eat (brain food - grin). - jc37 01:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes the comics vs comic book issue is a minor one and only need concern a touch of renaming tht can be done later. The problem is that the category "Comic book" has no function other than acting as a waste basker for all sorts of other entries and categories that shouldn't be there. I agree with what you say - ultimately the category would be emptied and comics would be sorted by company and country. What we'll end up doing is tidying the titles out of the main comics category, then out of the comic book one, then there will have to be a few blitzs on the "comic book titles" category as we should be able to categorize everything by country and/or company. So emptying the "comic book" category would have the effect of merging it with "comics" (as everything would be properly categorised under "comics" somewhere).

I've been through and had a look at things and sorted the obvious ones out (like the country-specific ones off to their relevant areas - weird things cropped up: the Australian comics entry wasn't in the Asutralian comics category). What is left are categories that should be moved up to comics (if they aren't already) and nearly everything else are comics that need to be put under "comic book titles" (awaiting further sorting). Once we have all the categories together in "comic" we should be able to see what else needs doing (as I've suggested a "Comics types" or "Comics forms" would work a treat for the various different types). Anyway happy eating ;) I think we are on the same page it is just the details that need hammering out. (Emperor 02:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

I've been doing quite a bit of sorting in the categories and I think the best approach might be to address Category:Comic book publishing companies. There is a request to populate Category:Comic book publishing companies of the United States and nearly all of those entries can be shifted over there. I have moved the categories and some entries already. What it'd do is allow us to spot those companies that have a number of entries created on their titles. When I've found these I've made categories for them. This then makes the tidy up of comic book titles (which is what most of "Category: Comic books" is much more efficient (rather than mvoe them all to "Category: Comic book titles" where they'd have to be recategorised eventually anyway) you can put them straight in the right place. So if the companies can be assigned to the right place (folllowing on that request) then it will make other tidying up easier. If anyone wants to flag up companies with a lot of titles here but no "Category: X titles" I'll go through and sort them out (if they don't want to that is). Anyway that strikes me as the best approach and it should be the simplest one to sort out. (Emperor 12:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

I also found a couple of redundant categories which could be merged:

• Category:Comic book terminology -> Category:Comics terminology
• Category:Comic book conventions -> Category:Comic conventions

They are the most obvious I've found (Emperor 13:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

Just a note to say I have nearly cleared this category. I've still got a few to run through but I'd apprecaite a few editors looking through what remains. As I suspected this was bieng used as a dumping ground for a lot of things that were better off elsewhere and it also seemed to have its fair share of suspect entries (which I've flagged). (Emperor 12:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

OK that is done thanks to Hiding sorting out the ones causing my trouble. I don't know if anyone wants to speedy delete Category:Comic books or just leave it empty and unconnected. Everything is looking better. The next thing that needs work is Category:Comic book publishing companies (as things need to go to their specific countries) but I'll leave it for a bit and then start a new section to coordinate things. If anyone is feeling enthusiastic then go for it - post a note here so we know and can chip in too. (Emperor 13:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Taking a bit of a stab at it, I moved everything in Indian comic book publishers to Comic book publishing companies of India, based on the naming conventions used by the other subcats there. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK cool. If you spot any companies that have say half a dozen titles and no category for them then drop a link in here and I'll run through and sort it out. This way when we sort out Category:Comic book titles it'll make things a lot easier (in fact making the "Company titles" cat often results in those titles being sorted out as you go). (Emperor 14:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

I came back to this after I hacked through, eeps! Sorry. Everything except Hexagon Comics is sorted. I think it's French, since it's a dumping ground for a French publisher who chucked comics, but I can't tell. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To all intents and purposes it appears French. If there is some shared ownership then it isn't a problem to add it to say the Italian cat too. I've also mad a Hexagon Comics cat and one for Edition Lug with relevant titles. Everything now looks good and tidy there - nice work. I'll check through things and see if anything needs a titles category and if anyone spots one they can easily knock one up ;) (Emperor 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

I have an idia for an article, but it stands a good chance of being deleted if I create it.

A several years ago, I decided to create a full list of DC Comics' characters. I kept an eye out for similar, shorter lists of characters (DC characters based on animals, Charlton Action Hero villains, etc) and added these lists to my own to create one massive list of over 3000 characters. I also tried to include creator and first appearance information when I could. This list could be useful to researchers and fans, and could also bennefit from the contrubutions of the same.

I could easily convert the list to Wiki format, with links and all that jazz, but it would probably be the largest list-type article ever created on Wikipedia. Also, many of the characters in the list are obscure one-appearance characters that some people might not consider (the magic word) "notable".

Nonetheless, the list contains information that IS notable, and should be useful to SOMEONE in this compiled format.

I know that there are more fan-oriented Wiki's where notability would not be in question, but Wikipedia seems like the place where the list would bennefit the most people, and would recieve the most attention in the realm of edition and fixing.

If I were to post this list, how should this be done? Should it be split into alphabetical sections?--Drvanthorp 18:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It all sounds notable enough (there are plenty of such lists: Category:Comics-related lists) but... 3000 characters? Ouch. I think the main issue is a logistical one, You could do a list of DC Comics characters broken down into letters but have a look at Category:DC Comics characters which breaks them down into further categories and you could then make a top level list for them Lists of DC Comics characters which would contain List of DC Comics superheroes, List of DC Comics supervillains, List of DC Comics supporting characters, etc. There has been some discussion about lists being prefered over categories (they are more easily policed, you can link to parts of a page, you can redlink entries, etc.) but it needn't be an either/or - the lists would be most people's main port of call and would seem to have value and interest (you can also police the categories by comparing them to the lists). I suppose the main stumbling block would be the sheer amount of work needed to create such lists. If you are volunteering to get the bulk of the work done and it works out as well as it seems like to then I'd support the creation of such a list. (Emperor 19:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

Or perhaps I should pay closer attention to the category I linked to: List of DC Comics characters - if you feel you can improve that then drop a note in on the talk page. (Emperor 19:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

Check this out: List of Grand Prix motorcycle racers. (The template is found at Template:A-Z multipage list.)

Follow the format of that page and it's subsequent alphabetical pages. (For example: List of Grand Prix motorcycle racers: A.)

I suggest that the page name(s) be:

• List of DC Comics characters - Overview page.
• List of DC Comics characters: A
• List of DC Comics characters: B
• List of DC Comics characters: C
• List of DC Comics characters: D
• List of DC Comics characters: E
• List of DC Comics characters: F
• List of DC Comics characters: G
• List of DC Comics characters: H
• List of DC Comics characters: I
• List of DC Comics characters: J
• List of DC Comics characters: K
• List of DC Comics characters: L
• List of DC Comics characters: M
• List of DC Comics characters: N
• List of DC Comics characters: O
• List of DC Comics characters: P
• List of DC Comics characters: Q
• List of DC Comics characters: R
• List of DC Comics characters: S
• List of DC Comics characters: T
• List of DC Comics characters: U
• List of DC Comics characters: V
• List of DC Comics characters: W
• List of DC Comics characters: X
• List of DC Comics characters: Y
• List of DC Comics characters: Z

See also: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists).

Note that List of DC Comics characters will need to be subdivided. (I'm thinking that we have several long comics-related lists that probably should be split this way.) And the ABC pages (and other appropraite lists) should be categorised under Category:Lists of DC Comics characters.

Per User:Emperor's comments, he's right about lists and categories. See: WP:CLS for more information.

And if you're willing to do this, that would be awesomely great : )

Please keep this page informed, I'm sure you'll have help if you would like it : ) - jc37 19:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you go about subdividing a list page that allready exists, without loosing the page histories of that various sections?--Drvanthorp 05:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In the first edit for each new page, include a link to the original page with an explanation that some text has been copied from one to the other. The time is automatically recorded, of course. - Peregrine Fisher 05:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

But every GP racer can have his own page (notable as a professional sporter at the highest level), while clearly not every character will have even the potential of his own page. Why would we list all those characters? Seems rather pointless... Fram 19:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The links need not link to a one-character-only article. They could just as well link to a list of characters which has descriptions for each character. - jc37 09:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am an advocate of the theory that a dead link may inspire someone to create a new entry in the subject is worth creating an entry about. Alternatively, if someone recognizes a character on the list as being so trivial as to not be list-worthy, the character can be removed. Also, character that may be too trivial to have an article might still be significant enough to have one line of text on a list page; if no article materializes after an apropriate waiting time, the name on the list can be edited to remove the link.--Drvanthorp 04:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've split the list. Feel free to update with your 3000+ names : ) - jc37 22:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we need more of these articles? It's just a pop culture guide to everything that mentions/hints at Silver Surfer. Songs, movies, television, and so on. There is a discussion here about it: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trivia_Cleanup#Silver_Surfer_in_popular_media_deletion_notice. If anyone wants to contribute, feel free. RobJ1981 19:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As an update: I've put an afd on it. Feel free to discuss there. This article is very trivial, and certainly doesn't need to exist as Silver_Surfer#In_other_media covers the decent media information already. A mentions/reference list of Silver Surfer isn't encyclopedic. RobJ1981 04:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still chasing the various franchises based on comics or whiich comics are based on and the curent big issue is video games based on comics. It is actually pretty straightforward as the work has been done here: List of video games based on licensed properties it all needs splitting off into separate sections and I have done some work on categories so they should all slot into their respective homes quite easily. We just need some extra input and ideas to make sure it is done properly. (Emperor 16:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

I've plit it off as this has been in the offing for so long. List of video games based on comics that entry will need expanding/policing so stick it on your watch and keep an eye on it ;) Also the rest of that parent entry needs splitting off which will take more work if anyone is interested in jumping in and helping. (Emperor 18:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

Take a look at these. On the Not Quite Felicity talk page the person who created the entry owns up to being the author of the comic and hed of publicity for the company. Now they might be notable but nothing on the three entries shows they are so I've tagged them up but someone may know more and be able to help them out. (Emperor 00:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

I say if it is legit, like it is an actual comic, from an actual company, that people sell. I think it should be ok. I looked for it on google, and there is not much there but there is something.Phoenix741 00:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've prodded "Not quite Felicity", I've left the other two for now, although they seem only barely more notable but still below our threshold. Being sold isn't not good enough, you have to have reliable (not blogs or most e-zines and forums) independent sources with reviews, awards, interviews, ... and tthose seem to be completely missing for this comic. Fram 18:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed this in two separate articles: Jason Todd and Mary Marvel.

Someone is getting hold of preview copies of Countdown and putting the information into articles well ahead of the book actually shipping.

I've got a feeling there are a lot more instances of this happening.

- J Greb 16:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

DC is releasing early sheets on myspace, actually, which is where most info is getting pulled from (well, that and Newsarama). Ish 50 is up already. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Un-frippin'-believable... - J Greb 16:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I could hardly believe it myself, but it's an interesting scam scheme. I mean, not everyone reads Newsarama, and they're trying to jack up sales. But then it begs the question - Since we all learned the hard way that DC LIES with their promos (Green Lantern anyone?) how far do we trust this? Since they're putting out whole sheets of issues, I'd say 'It's reliable enough to put on Wikipedia.' But obviously YMMV. Anyone? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, plot points, which is what these are (also found one at Jimmy Olsen), should not be added into the articles until after the physical book is available for general purchase. Even then it runs into problems: spoiler tags and over use of plot summaries, but at lease the issue is out among the general pop.

If this were a case of using the edits putting in out-of-universe stuff, with the solicit spoiler, I wouldn't mind. But this, in effect, makes the Wiki a shill, and a bad on, for DC.

- J Greb 18:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Amen! People need to read the WikiProject Comics guidelines! This is just another form of advertising/solicitation type material. Doczilla 05:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Per this diff

There are several things in the text that just call out that this was copied from somewhere. (Not listing them yet, since they may be useful for finding other such cvs.)

Perhaps we should go through User:Tgunn2's contributions. Just a cursory look shows me several articles "created". I'd like some other eyes on this though. - jc37 21:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The source appears to be [7] although the page won't currently load for me. Perhaps it'd be worth speaking to them about it unless there are other obvious problematic entries. I had a look through their contribs and they have done a lot of edits and it is difficult spotting anything problematic. Assume good faith - it may be their site (it has happened before). (Emperor 21:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

The other copy vio warnings on their talk page would tend to convince me otherwise... (Part of why I posted this). But then, I'd be happy to be wrong. - jc37 00:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Noting even the user's very first edit. - jc37 00:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Something odd on the Multiverse (DC Comics) entry: The first paragraph of the history section includes this statement:

In 1956, DC's Showcase comics provided a starting point for the new Silver Age Flash (Barry Allen). The new Flash was introduced in house ads as "Heralding the Silver Age of Comic Books".

I have read much about the history of comic books, and have never heard of any such house ads, so I did a Google search for the phrase, as a quoted string, and found nothing. I also don't beleive that the phrase "golden age of comics" had even been coined in 1956, much less become well enought known to be referenced in a house ad in a kiddie comic book. I'm pretty sure that "golden age" and "silver age" terminology emerged from a nostalgiac fan movement that really didn't emerge untill at least the early 1960's. Can someone verify this?--Drvanthorp 16:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of comics that films are based on but the comics themselves don't have entries . This seems awfully odd. Granted the films are going to be more famous but does that mean they get to take the top slot? Taking this slot then tends to hamper the development of the entry itself as the film is then "blocking" the slot. Examples I have found are Road to Perdition, The Haunted World of El Superbeasto and Bulletproof Monk (the latter say it is loosely based on a comic of the same name - never having read it I'd be interested to see how loosely but that is all it warrants). On all those talk pages I have suggested a couple of solutions - both involve moving the film to X (film) but could involve either the comic taking the top slot or the slot being taken by a disambiguation page. So I'm looking for some input on the best way to move forward. (Emperor 16:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

IIUC, if Article Title has multiple applications, and only one is easily seen as a default search, then that article should get a dab line. If it is equally likely that more than one article will be the intended target of a default search, then the main article should be a dab article, with all the others being titled Article Title (type). - J Greb 17:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

i.e. make 'em dabs. (Emperor 17:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Not quite what I meant. Road to Perdition is a good example. It is more likely that someone will come to Wiki to find info on the movie, not the comic. It makes sense that the title Road to Perdition goes with that article, and that a dab line go into the article at the top. The dab line would alter the minorty of searches for the comic that the article exists and link to it.

If both were obscure and searches were 50/50, then I'd argue to change Road to Perdition to a dab only page with Road to Perdition (film) and Road to Perdition (comics) being listed.

- J Greb 19:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the "Sword of Atlantis" section of the Aquaman article is a disaster. I can tell nothing about this new character, including who or what he is, from this. It's sort of written in a "and this was revealed, then this" format, with key bits ommitted. It needs a lot of contraction, copy editing and fictional events need placing within their own chronological order, using the <ref> system to preserve the publication history. As I don't read Aquaman, I'm not equipped to do this myself, I just felt it was an issue which needed pointing out.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just looking over it, it looks like the article needs to be rejigged as per the exemplar. The lead needs a tweaking,the main article needs to be broken into a pub history and fictional character bios sections, and, as you point out, clarity needs to be brought back into the sections. - J Greb 16:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering Superman and Batman are such good articles, we know it's possible. However, I suppose not so many people read Aquaman outside of cross-overs and parodies as you'd find with the two big guns. Another possibility for the new Aquaman section would be to spin it off, as was done with Batman (Terry McGinnis), Green Arrow (Connor Hawke), Superman (Kal Kent) and all the Earth-Two variation articles.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There's not enough history with the new Aquaman to bother creating a new article. We still don't fully understand his nature anyway. The fact that he's also Arthur Curry makes this confusing no matter how you do it. Doczilla 17:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with Doczilla. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 02:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So here's the deal, I changed the above one-shot to a redirect to Marvel Zombies stating that because civil war one-shots were redirected, this should also. An editor than reverted it saying those two situation are unrelated and I should bring up discussions on it. So should is stay an article or redirect to Marvel Zombies? The Placebo Effect 20:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Does not require it's own article - it's a prequel to Marvel Zombies and the content could be summed up in a single paragraph or two on the main article. --Fredrick day 20:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I'd suggest putting up mergeto and mergefrom tags though so it doesn't seem to be coming out of the blue. (Emperor 20:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

The Placebo Effect is right. The one-shot Marvel Zombies: Dead Days does not warrant its own article. Merge and redirect to Marvel Zombies. Doczilla 20:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree: merge and redirect. The same should happen to any other (if there is any, that is), one-shots that are related to a series. RobJ1981 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So yea i am going with everyone else, merge and redirect. But can we also work on the plot for the marvel zombie's article, it is kinda confusing.Phoenix741 22:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to say the merge tags have been added and you can drop in your opinion on the main entry's talk page. (Emperor 22:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

One of our regular comics article editors is catching flack for canvassing in connection to a nomination for adminship. I understand the arguments against canvassing, although I don't wholeheartedly agree. Votestacking - bad. Notifying interested parties - good. Selectively notifying a lot of interested parties because you think they'll agree with you - okay, that could be attempted votestacking. How about notifying one person because you believe that person is more knowledgeable and can make a more constructive contribution than other interested parties? That can be a tougher call.

Back to the issue of canvassing with regard to a nomination for adminship: When someone who contributes frequently to the comics articles is up for adminship, I want to know. Period. All regular contributors in WikiProject Comics deserve to know and deserve the opportunity to have their say. Anybody who frequently edits the comics article damn well better let us know. It would be appropriate for them to notify ALL WikiProject Comics members. Unfortunately, most of the people voting on the RfA will not be our members, and once one mistakes such notification for canvassing, constructive discussion will end as people focus on canvassing instead of qualifications. So what then? The candidacy needs to be announced to us either on our project notice board or on our project talk page. Every time. (I am therefore posting this message on both of the relevant talk pages.) Doczilla 05:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

When it comes right down to it, someone (the nominator, the nominated, or the person making the precess "live") should politely alert the relevant Projects. If that means sifting through the nominated past "X" days worth of edits to see what s/he contributes to, so be it. If it means looking at what Projects s/he has place 'boxes for on his/her user page (making the things useful) even better. But any way it breaks down, the editors that have direct contact with the nom, and his/her work need to 1) know the process is underway, and 2) get a chance to voice their opinion, good or bad. - J Greb 06:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe I am familiar with the particular nomination to which you refer. I had avoided making any commentary on that page for fear of worsening the situation; the nominee is indeed catching a lot of flack. After seeing your post here, though, I decided to add my two cents to the Request for adminship. To whit: I understand the problem of votestacking, but lack of notification is just as bad, in my opinion. --GentlemanGhost 11:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay yea on the part of making things worse, I believe it is my bad on that part(and I would like to say I am sry to the person up for admin, I will admit it, I believe I screwed up), but you are right about the "we need to know" part, and well I read what he put on my talk page in the history and it wasn't stacked in his favor it is just what you said, an alert that he was up for Admin. O and besides this "problem", what is going on in the discussion is the idea that we do or don't need an Admin who is an active part of the wikiproject. I believe that we do, and that every Major project should have at least one, cause it seems like things go alot smoother because of it. What are your guys thoughts?Phoenix741 11:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I started to respond to the comment on the RfA that it is not necessary for an admin to have comics knowledge in order to use sysop abilities, but I thought better of it. I don't really know the specifics of adminship; it is not necessary to know them in order to be an editor. I presume that admins are not restricted to using their powers on a specific subset of articles, even if they plan to do so. So, in one sense, it is more important to consider the likelihood that the potential admin will use his or her newfound privileges fairly and wisely rather than consider an editor's specific expertise. However, if admins are "assigned" to a particular project, then it would absolutely be beneficial to have another admin with comics knowledge. I don't really understand that particular dissenter's reasoning. Yes, you can administrate comics articles without having much knowledge about them, but why would you want to? It seems like a no-brainer to me: an admin with oversight of comics articles ought to, if possible, be knowledgable about them. --GentlemanGhost 12:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not that they are "assingend" to certian projects, it is just they stay with the projects they know, at least I think. Honestly, I am just saying I would rather have an Admin who knows about comics to do stuff with comics articles, rather that someone just passing by and doing something.Phoenix741 13:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Should I be disappointed I wasn't contacted!! ;) Anyway I thinksuch things should be put on the noticeboard at the very least (and possibly a note dropped in here). People who have worked closely with the nominee on projects like this are some of the best placed to provide detailled feedback on how well the person has performed and how they will perform in admin roles (and let's be honest this could bring as much negative as positive feedback - in fact it might be vital for stopping some people get an admin post who can't play well with others). I'd say this was essential and alerting project members should be standard practice. (Emperor 12:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

Does this really need to be here, cause if it does than that means we should do it for all major comics which is not right 8-/.Phoenix741 13:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lord no. There are very few entries on individual issues of comics and then only when they contain a significant story (e.g. What's so funny about Truth, Justice & the American Way?) and even then they are a cause for concern (although actual one-shots seem to be OK). I see that has passed a vote for deletion but I suspect it needs another one. For an entry like this to survive it needs to show it is especially notable in comic book terms and I just don't see it. (Emperor 13:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

So we need to put it back up for deletion, you want me to do it?Phoenix741 14:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd just wait to get some more input from other people here first. There may be some cunning reason for it that I am overlooking. Also if we can kick it arund here and reach a consensus it will mean we either don't have to put it up for deletion after all or it should avoid the "no consensus" decision the last one arrived at. (Emperor 14:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

Ok, sounds good.Phoenix741 14:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The article should be deleted, Wikipedia shouldn't be a guide to single issues (this includes 1-shots). Many 1-shots are related to series: so a mention of the 1-shot should be on the series article only. I remember this same problem happening with Star Wars comics in the past: one editor decided to make article after article for each issue of Star Wars comics. I haven't looked into it lately: but last I checked, it was slowly getting fixed. RobJ1981 16:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

2¢... or a bit more...

I think that WP:NOT#IINFO covers this with the "Plot summaries" bullet.

In general I don't think that Wiki is the place for single issue indexes, "Story arc" articles by arc title, "Story arc" articles by comic book title, or episode guides where the only reason for the page to exist is to talk about the story/episode in an "in universe" manner. There are other venues for this that are geared specifically for such information.

If there was something in this that made the plot, character list, and reprints the minor aspect, it might be worthwhile to keep. As it stands, the factual (real world) material is the fluff side, and it's unlikely that can be changed. As such, it should go, and go fast.

And just to comment on the "Comment" and "Keep" comments... I'm sick of the "WP:NOTPAPER" argument be used to excuse material that runs afoul of the other WP:NOT points. If it does not belong because of the other point, it does not matter one whit that there is no physical size limit.

- J Greb 18:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll support any afd action. --Fredrick day 20:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I've listed this on the notice board, but since the repeated moves of the disputed article are causing edit histories to be lost and the discussion to be fragmented, I think this deserves more urgent attention. The main dispute is over whether or not to merge the "Golden Age" Vision (Timely Comics) with the Marvel Comics version, moving the combined page to Vision (comics). As per the dispute resolution suggestions, I am notifying the WikiProject Comics members at large. If this doesn't work, I suppose the next step would be an "Request for comment". --GentlemanGhost 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering what that pic was about at Vision (Timely Comics). When the pages were merged that was the main pic which made more sense to me. Because of the lack of info at Timely Comics, I think they should be merged. But keep the marvel comics Char as the main person the the other one as like a small side note.Phoenix741 17:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I'm not sure where the best place to note this would be. Most of the discussion has taken place at Talk:Vision (Marvel Comics), although lately it has shifted to Talk:Vision (comics). --GentlemanGhost 17:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

it seems most of it is at Marvel Comics, i say keep it there.Phoenix741 17:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That article has kept bouncing between names. Since it just keeps floating from one to another, discussions are getting fragmented. Anyway, the vote on whether or not to split into Vision (Marvel Comics) and Vision (Timely Comics) is over at Talk:Vision_(Marvel_Comics)#Vote:_To_split_or_not_to_split. I posted a spot to vote over whether or not to split it, then it changed names again. Let's at least keep the vote discussion all at the same place. Doczilla 04:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to adjust the copyright templates for image uploads to reflect that it is now 2007? I just noticed that the Marvel Comics one still says © 1941-2006. --GentlemanGhost 20:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If the image is from 2006 then it should be 2006, if the pic is from 2007, then yes we need to change it. At least I think that is how it works.Phoenix741 20:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

um... Since it is a template, is there anyway to make the years a variable field? Ideally something like {{MarvelCR|1963|2007}} yielding "All characters © Marvel Comics Group 1963 through 2007"? - J Greb 20:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sure there is. Can i get a link to the template mabey i can get it to work.Phoenix741 20:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Marvel-Comics-trademark-copyright}} --GentlemanGhost 06:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok i can deffenitly add a variable to this, and i can go into all the pages and add the info, but I am not quite sure when these images were actually published, which is what would be put into the variable year that I could make. So it would be really confusing. What i will do is make the changes then revert it back so you all can see what I did then decide what we should do about it.Phoenix741 14:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with either one. --GentlemanGhost 08:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded this article quite a bit & added a picture too. It's now un-stubbed, cited, referenced & well written (If I don't say so myself). ;) Just so you know... Cheers, Spawn Man 05:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, & I've also expanded, cited & rewritten Zsasz. Hope you like the new & improved articles! :) Spawn Man 06:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And I created Jeremiah Arkham. Just so you know... :) No one ever answers me when I post here, so it's no biggie... Cheers again, Spawn Man 08:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Um....thanks.Phoenix741 14:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You can also list new comics articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Notice_Board#Recent_creations, although no one will respond there, either. ;) Thanks for the hard work! --GentlemanGhost 10:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I just found this while searching through the Time.com archive: [8]. There's plenty more. Make sure you always check through mainstream media websites (Time, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, Entertainment Weekly, etc.) when digging for reliable sources; there's a surprising amount of good info to be had. WesleyDodds 09:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Could I get some input on this? I've just spotted what is going on and have dropped in a note here Talk:World War III (comics)#Redirecting. Basically an editor has recreated World War III (comics) at World War III (DC Comics) apparently with no discussion (breaking edit histories) and then keep turning the original over to a redirect not to the new page but to World War III which links to the new page. All very confusing and messy. Could I get some input over there on fixing things? I assume the best appraoch would be to speedy delete World War III (DC Comics) as wherever the original ends up you can't just copy and paste and entry to a new location. (Emperor 20:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

Hi there. The title of the original page, "World War III (comics)" was inaccurate in that the page did not deal with the concept of WW3 in comics in general, but only with the most recent DC saga of the same name. Content has been moved to an appropriately named page, and further improved upon in the meantime; the original page was turned into a redirect to the one place in Wikipedia which actually deals with what its title suggests, the concept of WW3 in comics in general. --Nehwyn 20:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

See my reply to you on the entry's talk page explaining naming conventions, reaching a consensus and moving entries. (Emperor 20:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

Seen it, but it is based on the idea that the term "World War III" is not used elsewhere in comics, and that is the basic assumption I do not agree with when deciding whether the title of the page is appropriate or not. If you prefer, we could go to mediation on this. --Nehwyn 20:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

To be blunt: If the argument is "It isn't WW3 in all comics", then you should have been putting up that article when what's there was moved to (DC Comics), not making (comics) a redirect. - J Greb 20:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Uhm... do you mind if we keep this discussion on a single page? (It's already on Talk:World War III (comics)#Redirecting, where I'd invite any interested party.) There's just an observation of mine that this reply of yours may apply to there.  :) --Nehwyn 21:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The articles: Runaways story arcs, Ultimate Fantastic Four (story arcs), Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs) and Ultimate X-Men (story arcs). Why do these exist still? I'm tempted to AFD them. Articles of just issue/plot summaries is simply cruft, in my opinion. While they are in a different condition now: I still don't think they need to exist. RobJ1981 09:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. These violate WP:NOT#INFO #7, in my opinon. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

7 does seem to fit this. Redirecting should be the way to go: unless people revert it back too much (then AFD will have to be done). I wonder if there is any other story arc articles for comics? RobJ1981 10:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

7 does not fit them (except perhaps the runaways), since the intent of that entry was that articles should not solely be plot outlines. See this discussion, which resulted in this diff.

That said, Runaways story arcs needs to be reformatted and pruned similar to the ultimate story arcs pages. - jc37 10:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I only looked at the Runaways article before, expecting the others to be the similar. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is #7 then getting it inline with the others should fix the problem. My concern is that it seems indiscriminate as it is all the story arcs. I can see the case for major or significant story arcs that have some impact on the broader character/world/story (that'd also tend to include major events/crossovers and the like) but this is just all of them jammed in together. It doesn't look too bad as the Ultimate titles are relatively recent but what if someone started doing this for Spiderman or Superman? The information would be useful but I'd probably expect to find it on a fan-site or somewhere else specifically dedicated to the title/character/company and not as part of a broader encyclopedia. So it might be more useful in, for example, the DC or Marvel wikis that are up and running. That said, they would be potentially useful and interesting (I kow I often try to track down certain stories and it used to be tricky without going through all the back issues). We do have to think about what level of plot information we want on Wikipedia as I suspect this kind of detail is only the start and it is best to address it now. As those entries are here now I am fine with leaving them in as long as they provide a broader look at the stories impact, however, we do need a decision on such things or this topic is going to come up once or twice a month. (Emperor 16:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

A few things jump out at me:

1. At the moment, as pointed out, the (story arc) articles are being kept to recent, tight continuity books. This is not necessarily a bad thing since they can be viewed as effectively one story. It may be a concern when we start seeing Major X-Men story arcs or Major Batman story arcs where they are lumped into one article. That being said I know that there are multiple Batman arcs that have their own articles.
2. If these are going to become prolific, either the "by series" or "single arc" type, then we should put together an exemplar for them. At the very least this would allow those concerned to point to something and say "This, by consensus, is what is expected to be in the article."
3. If, and this may be the big one, the book/arc is notable, and the plot summaries are not the primary focus, then there is no reason for the material not to be here. This would mean that there has to be real world context other than "Joe Schmidt", a non-notable creator, worked on it or that it was reprinted.

In the long view, I agree though that having this format applied to all comics, or even a majority, does not belong here. There are other places for individual issues to be indexed or plot-lines to be explored as a primary focus. - J Greb 18:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree - the thing is if they are applied to these series there is no reason why they can't be applied to other much longer series. The only thing stopping people, I'm sure, is that it is a vast amount of work and it might be intimdating people. If people think they won't want this in the future then now is the time to say so even if the current entries look harmless. I think we've all seen Gremlins and know that state of affairs can't last. (Emperor 23:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

I can see that, but that's part of the reason why an exemplar is needed. That can be used to set criteria for what should fall into a "by series" article and what should be placed into a "single arc" one. Once something like that is in place, it's relatively easy to prod an editor hell bent on a "Superman (story arc)" article to break it up into the major pieces.

You also bring up another problem... OR. If the reason we don't have, say, an "Avengers story arc" is "the work involved", that makes it sound like the editor is building the article only from the issues involved. That would be citing a primary source only, if the cites are involved at all.

- J Greb 06:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

These and similar articles have definitely been brought up on this talk page before. I don't recall if anyone has actually submitted one for an AfD. I suspect you can probably find more examples in Category:Comic book storylines. --GentlemanGhost 10:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, how forgetful I've become. I voted on the AfD for Runaways. In retrospect, I probably should have said "Merge and condense", though it used to be much bigger. [9] The others have survived AfDs as well (twice for Ultimate X-Men). --GentlemanGhost 10:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes they did survive AFDs: but it's still a problem. Redirect/merge is the best route to go on this, as a new AFD could probably end up in no consensus I think. The regular editors of the articles will obviously want the articles kept, even if it clearly violates policy. RobJ1981 10:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What about Ultimate Galactus trilogy? --GentlemanGhost 12:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering the three mini-series form one cohesive work, I believe merging the article might work better here. But this might be an exception to the rule. --Pc13 13:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno but wasn't this category deleted. It's popping up throughout the Marvel female superheroes characters. RIANZ 20:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the category, it was created again this morning and is up for deletion again. HalJor 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I put it up just after it started propagating.

If it was previously deleted, could someone track down that CfD? It would be nice to pop that in to kill the "But it shows the gender bias" card that is being thrown around. - J Greb 06:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. Can't find it, but a quick search brought up some related. Fictional Heroines, Female Super-villians ... A lot of other CfDs discuss the need to break down the list in some manageable fashion, and in essence I agree. The Superheroes cat is gonna be huuuuuge. But what about those ding dang genderless people? Bah. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

On size, see my recent comment at the CfD, it looks like that has been addressed in some ways. The current scheme can generate characters with multiple Superhero cat tags. This just adds to that mess. - J Greb 17:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if people are aware, but there is now a Portal:Archie Comics. I'm not convinced one is necessary, but I'm willing to live and let live. Just thought I'd bring it to the attention of whoever maintains the portals now. Hiding Talk 21:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There have been some concerns about the notability of Charles Crumb. I suggest that this material be merged into a new article called Crumb family, which would discuss the artist family Crumb, including some material about the best-known members Robert Crumb and Aline Kominsky-Crumb (who would retain their own articles), as well as lesser-known members such as Charles Crumb and Maxon Crumb. I think the Sophie Crumb article should be merged into the Crumb family article for the time being as well – she's definitely an emerging artist, however, she has yet to produce a body of work that justifies an article longer than stub-length.

There is precedent in Wikipedia for doing family biographies, BTW – there are articles on the Dupont family and the Krupp family, for example.

Please discuss at Talk:Charles Crumb.

Peter G Werner 01:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I get tired of people who aren't involved with WikiProject Comics or apparently even comics in any form piling up votes in discussions of comics categories -- e.g., the CfD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_21#Category:Female_superheroes. Even though I voted in the CfD, I don't have strong feelings about the actual outcome, just about who decides the issue. It should mainly be us. Doczilla 04:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that I said "mainly". Doczilla 17:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"It should mainly be us". Then you may want to check this to allieviate any misconceptions you might have. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 00:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but its never gonna happen.Phoenix741 14:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. While we are the comic project: we don't own the comic articles, so it's impossible to just control AFD and CFD debates on things. Wikipedia is for everyone to edit. We can't just determine things like the outcome of debates by voting in mass force because we are the project of the articles/categories in AFD/CFD. It's likely we know more about comics than just the regular editors not with the project: but that doesn't give us the right to just determine debate results. RobJ1981 15:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say what Rob said. I'll just add that, fortunately, Wikipedia is not a democracy, so if something is seriously out-of-whack, it doesn't matter how many people "vote" to keep it that way, it can still be fixed. --GentlemanGhost 15:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fence sitting. We're not a democracy, but part of the concept behind Wikipedia, as I understood it, was that people who knew about a topic could edit. It logically follows that the people who know more about a subject would be in a key position to reply clearly and factually about any given AfD/CfD. Rob's right. We don't own the articles, and we shouldn't determine everything. Community is bigger than us. but we should be aware of changes in status quo as they affect us. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

True. I'd also add that having "outsiders" involved can have someone look at articles and the like with a less biased eye. - J Greb 17:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. We can stand too close to the wall to see the overall picture of what its mural looks like. I get involved in a lot of CfD discussions as one of the outsiders, but I also pay careful attention to the precedents and preferences established by the insiders unless they clearly violate Wikipedia guidelines. When a vote is largely determined by the outsiders, though, that's bothersome. Right now, the majority of WikiProject Comics members weighing in on the female superhero category have voted to delete while the majority of the oppose votes come from non-WPCers. There are good reasons for opposing, but that distribution of the votes unnerves me.

On a side note, it also grates on me that this category that's inconsistent with five years of categorization preferences was created by a newbie who doesn't yet understand proper categorization as demonstated by his/her other edits. I know that's not fair for me to say. The newbies get to contribute too, and even one who gets other things wrong can get something right. In general, I don't think the newbies should create categories, though, because way too many issues are involved in Wikipedia categorization and category deletion is much more of a nuisance than fixing a split infinitive. Admittedly, some newbies catch on quickly, and one mistake has to be made for them to learn it best. Persistent vandal and repeatedly banned user EJBanks/Creepy Crawler/Batman Fan/BarackObamaFan/Poker Master/Fatone411/User:TheJediCouncil has been at this for some time and still insists on the making the same mistakes.[10] Doczilla 17:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Different note: It looks likely that this one will close with no consensus. That means we're going to have Category:Male superheroes also. Doczilla 17:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I created Comic book original art collecting just now, as I couldn't find anything that really covered it. I think there's sufficient differences from comic book collecting as a whole to have a separate page...specifically, the information I think should be captured is

• the uniqueness of a page
• the types of "original art" (bristol board pencil/inks, proofs, sketches, etc.)
• artists' right to their original art and their sale of it (this section could use more filling out by someone more knowledgeable about the history)
• buying a piece of original art does not mean you own the copyright

Moments later, it was tagged for speedy deletion...:-) Have a look and see what you think. Of course, we could move the content somewhere else if that's better...my pride won't be offended :) Afabbro 19:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It does seem like a good idea for an entry. I'll drop a few thoughts in. (Emperor 19:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

Seems a reasonable article subject, but an outstanding source or two tied directly to the topic might be necessary to fend off the OR scrutiny. Murgh^disc. 20:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

People of the Project, can you please decide on the medium or high importance of Mafalda? It's now rated as "unknown importance", which is hilarious. --Damifb 20:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It is pretty much determined by the estimation of the editor, and will stand unless someone disagrees. Mafalda is easily mid-to-high important in Europe, but huuge for Argentines. No reason to be shy in context with that Archie Andrews is rated 'top'  ;) Murgh^disc. 20:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Damifb 22:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Category:LGBT_characters_in_comics to discuss whether to match the Category:Black superheroes, Category:Hispanic superheroes, Category:Asian supervillains scheme of categorisation, LGBT characters in comics should be replaced with several new categories such as Category:Gay supervillains, Category:Lesbian superheroes etc. with minor characters such as Terry Berg categorised interdependently as a supporting character and as gay like a ethnic minority supporting character is. I figure the current system of dual categories for LGBT characters is left over from a transition from LGBT characters to the various subcategories, with LGBT characters in comics being a child category of that. I feel it might be necessary in making the categorisation system more efficient to intersect these categories, but I felt it required much prior discussion before putting to CfD.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that Superheroes by race is up for discussion [11] so basing naything on it might be troublesome. (Emperor 04:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

One I stumbled across on my tidying up: White wing and entries for their comics like Combat (comic), Sistine Lacustrene, Hyde Vancolle, Iuppitr and Sleuth (comic). Has anyone hard of these? If so can they help with the notability concerns? (Emperor 12:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

They seem to have no web presence outside of the Wikipedia entry, and other web sites that mirror the entry. of the listed artists, Mavrick Magnolia has no web mentions, Chase Black has a few fan-art pieces and illustrations on the web (might be a coincidence), and Spike McAlister shares a name with a character on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Dr. Blue turns out to be a more common name than you might expect, including a self described general practitioner with a blog. The entries don't read like the work of a professional writer or public relations person, so I don't think that this article was created for an advance publicity campaign. I say that this company might not exist outside the imagination of the guy that created the entries.--Drvanthorp 22:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

well then, lets get to the deleting.Phoenix741 22:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

OK sounds reasonable.

While we are here (and I'm chekcing through the comics publishers) can someone take a look at Calavera comics. Now I find myself quite excited to check out a title combining luchadores, Mayan mythology and Bushido but as far as I can tell they haven't got aorund to actually publishing anything but I could be worng.

Oh and this one: Beckett Comics the main entry seems solid enough if they have got the license to adapt T3 that is pretty notable but the entries on the titles barely qualify as stubs which makes me nervous. (Emperor 02:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

And Calvary Comics. (Emperor 02:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

I found this today: Orang Utan Comics. It is a bit like when they ride into town in Blazing Saddles and realise the buildings are just wooden cut-outs. They might be on the edge of breaking out or they haven't done a good job of proving notability (links to MySpace don't count). The only thing that comes close is a Down The Tubes piece which says: "11/5/07: Orang Utan Comics are looking to make a serious splash at this weekend's Comic Expo in Bristol, England. The team are hosting the event's Film Night on the Friday and on Saturday they will be launching their first book, anthology title Eleventh Hour #1, a 36 page black and white anthology book which will be on sale at the Expo and online at www.indyplanet.com" which suggests they only launched their first title the other week and availability might be tricky. That said it does look like they've got a lot of potential and I'd like to see this entry work so if anyone spots anything that could improve the entry drop it in. (Emperor 12:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

This, {{Steve Gerber}}, seems to have just popped up.

Is this something we really need or want? It looks like it's being used to tie together anything Gerber even slightly touched as opposed to things he created, owns, or defined.

- J Greb 18:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree (one can only imagine what a template for people like John Byrne would be like). The template includes things like Doctor Fate and The Phantom Zone which he clearly did not create and for which his contribution is barely a footnote in the entire article. There's even an entry for "Superman: The Animated Series" which doesn't even have a reference to him. ...And, if every creator were to have a similar template placed on every "relevant" article, many articles would be shorter than their respective templates. HalJor 18:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Appears to have only been created today, so theoretically the redlinks and whitespace will be improved/removed (unless the article creator thinks it's done). As to whether a comic creator should have a template at all, I have no particular opinion (i.e. I can see both sides of any such debate).-Markeer 21:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been working on {{Alan Moore}} as well as Category:Comics by Alan Moore and Category:Comics by Grant Morrison and my criteria has been (and has to be) works they created or had an important impact on and looking through those I feel the balance is right (although I'd query Spawn and Glory on Alan Moore - which I will do now in fact). That Gerber one is excessive and if ever major creaotr who worked on say Superman or Batman had such a template tagged on the bottom of the entry then that'd be silly. If we are going to have them (which I think we should) then there needs to be fairly well established guidelines on what to include. As I say the Alan Moore one sums up what I'd like to aim at. (Emperor 23:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

Worth noting the Gerber one is up for deletion. [12] If we are going to have these then we need examples and guidelines. If we aren't (which I think is a shame as the Alan Moore one is OK) then we need to say so explicitly or we'll keep running into deletions like this. (Emperor 17:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

Another template issue

Not too sure where best to raise the issue, but I try here: An increasing amount of comics characters are being placed in character infoboxes that are custom made for superheroes, which in quite a few cases seems a bit silly. I haven't found any character infoboxes for "mortal" characters (not counting Supersupportingbox use of the superhero template) except for the Asterix template. Which gang of editors are most likely to want to have a say in developing a project-wide character infobox for "plain" characters? Murgh^disc. 19:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now I goofily realize the superhero stuff is optional, so there's no problem. Just a question if the project-wide default character template ought to be named "'superherobox", in the long-term view.. Murgh^disc. 20:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

This is timely as someone asked me about this the other day. Most of the 2000 AD characters and teams aren't superpowered so it is an issue about what to use. My reply is here. I don't see an issue with using them as default comic charcater/comic teams (or adjusting the template so they can be used that way) but if this is not the right approach then we need to sort out some new templates asap. (Emperor 23:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

Depends on how eager we are on changing the superherobox template's name to comicscharacterbox. Could a bot make the transition painless? Would there passionate opposition? Murgh^disc. 20:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've asked over at WP:BOTREQ. Looking through Category:Fictional character infobox templates would it be neater to go for {{Comics character}}? Actually, looking at it, I think we could just suggest the rename at WP:TFD, and the bots there would pick it up if a consensus emerges. Hiding Talk 23:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd support such a move if it isn't a lot of trouble as there is confusion about the best thing to use for non-superhero entries. This would be a big help. (Emperor 01:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Ditto. That seems a better solution than multiple templates -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well at botrequests they said we could just make superherobox redirect to {{Comics character}} or whatever we call it, and that would save any bot renaming and the like. Is there any actual need to update all the articles to the new name? People might want to chip in at WP:BOTREQ#Template renaming if they can think of a reason. Hiding Talk 13:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable solution. The bulk of the infoboxes will be added by us so as long as we know and aren't just copying and pasting the old ones then there should be a gradual shift over to using it. I suspect some editors will also update the old boxes to reflect the change (I might do where the characters aren't superheroes as they are more likely to be used as an example by someone creating a new non-superhero comic entry). Are we going to do the same with superhero teams? (Emperor 13:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

The Walt Simonson article mentions Simonson's signature, which is very distinctive and recognizable. I scanned a copy of an example and put it on the page (signatures and autographs are not eligible for copyright, except in extreme cases like Disney's which was trademarked). It looks nice in the infobox and adds a kind of personality to the artist's page...well, at least I think so. I expect eventually an image of Walt will appear either above or below in the infobox. Many comic book artists have distinctive signatures...I can provide several. What does everything think about this? If no one likes it, I can put Simonson's near the line in the article that discusses his signature instead. Afabbro 05:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea, but something about it feels wrong legally, but if it is not then go ahead.Phoenix741 14:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I quite like the idea and they do give away their autographs a lot. If you've checked to see if this is OK (this must surely have come up on other artists entries in the wider arena as some of them have iconic signatures) then why not? (Emperor 15:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

I researched the issue - see my talk page for details and links. This was discussed on the Wikipedia copyright questions page and the answer was a definitive "signatures and autographs are not eligible for copyright".

See:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Copyright_on_autographs.3F, which mentions that "Titles, names, ... mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" are not eligible for copyright.
• http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=173430.

There are many signature/autograph images that are tagged as {{pd-ineligible}}. Afabbro 16:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Then lets do it.Phoenix741 16:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Updated the Comics creator 'box as per the Writer 'box. The sig will show at 128px and is an optional field. - J Greb 17:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems this could be a nice feature, but all is in the clear legally? Is there a certain licensing template that can cover this? Murgh^disc. 20:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

When in doubt, don't do it. Doczilla 02:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The copyright discussion page's consensus was to use {{pd-ineligible}}. Afabbro 14:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There's another edit war with Vision (comics) happen. One user versus the world by the looks of things. What do we do about edit wars actually? RIANZ 02:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

OMG this again, we need to ban someone, I like the way it works right now, and it should stay that way.Phoenix741 03:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

An edit war is one thing, but saying things such as we need to ban someone is bad faith. Edit wars happen: this isn't the first or the last one. Try to talk to the user (and when that fails): warn the user, report the user, and move on. RobJ1981 04:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The user in question has been reported (not by me) for a 3RR violation. I can't predict what action will be taken, but I don't think that it is likely to resolve the issue. The similar conflict at Whizzer was resolved by hammering out the particulars on the talk page. I suspect that talking it out will be the only way to solve this problem as well. To that end, I have started a point-by-point discussion on the talk page. --GentlemanGhost 05:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think you mean Vision (Marvel Comics). --GentlemanGhost 05:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There are now over 10,000 WikiProject Comics articles! (There are probably even more, but that's how many have the template on their talk page.) Next milestone, 10 Featured Articles? Good job, all around! --GentlemanGhost 13:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the Comic book code article should certainly be included in a comics-related category...but which one? I don't see a general "comics" category - they all seem to be sub-specialized. Quite possible that I'm not looking in the right place. It is part of the Category:Comics-related organizations category...but the history of censorship of comics contained on its page seems to transcend a simple description of an organization. Afabbro 18:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hum - do we have something like "Comic History"? maybe we should? or something similar? --Fredrick day 18:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, am I missing something? Category:Comics-related organizations is a sub-category of Category:Comics, so it does fall under the umbrella of a larger comics category. --GentlemanGhost 18:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I need some help tracking down the original sources of the following:

• Image:KatmaTui.jpg
• Image:Rotlopfan.jpg
• Image:Qarrigatakopolips.jpg
• Image:Chp.jpg
• Image:LastStandDarkstars.jpg
• Image:OmegaMen.jpg
• Image:Starbreaker.jpg
• Image:Oa armour.jpg
• Image:Salak.jpg

All of them show signs of Photoshopping: lens flares added, highlighting/color changes, and background manipulations. A few also had frames added (removed at this point, but those were "easy" fixes).

If possible we should get unadulterated scans loaded over these. If not, should the be taken down?

- J Greb 19:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit difficult to tell as the ones I checked didn't have links to the originals. Can I assume guidelines say you can't manipulate the image other than cropping? If so then this might be of concern: Ozymandias (comics). I thought it was quite a handy way of doing it but individual character shots are available so it is unnecessary. (Emperor 22:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

To be honest, I can see the rational for the "graying" to force focus in a group shot. I don't think it's overly justified since it should be possible to find a cover or panel that fits the infobox image guidelines and has just the character. The "graying" though leaves the image almost intact without adding "artistic touches". I also prefer graying to black or white "wipes" of the backgrounds, see Carnage and the spot image in Whizzer for examples.

Both those methods are better than the messes the above are though. Those have elements added and color changes that are not remove items that are not the focus of the articles. That, to me, violates any pretense that these are "fair use" of the images. - J Greb 06:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OK I see. I found the original of the Rot Lop Fan image [13] itself cut out of the background from the comic (and oddly there is more of the right hand than in the comic - not sure what that is about). They have then added some crude photoshopping for no apparent reason. That image is a good illustration of the character but is fine as it is presented in the comic. I can't compare all the others bt now I see what you mean they all look suspect - well spotted. I'd say just either get them all removed asap or post a request for someone to provide the original or they'll be deleted. It depends on how much of a serious breach of guidelines it is - if it is a bad one then they need to go. (Emperor 15:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

I'm tempted to pull a copy of the image from DCUGuide for RLF for a closer look. And likely upload it over the suspect one here. I wish though I could be 100% sure its from the GL Annual and not a Who's Who.

The C'hp on looks an awful lot like a WW image. I'd rather have confirmation on that befor yanking it.

I know where Qarrigatakopolips.jpg (GL 80pg Giant 3), Oa armour.jpg, and Salak.jpg (recent GLC mini) came from. I just don't have easy access for scanning atm to replace them.

Of the 4 remaining, 3 are from recent books: Strabreaker from the recent Adam Strange series, and the Darkstars and Omega Men either Mystery in Space or Omega Men. This is from the inferences in the images and the sparse text provided.

And the Katma image... it looks like the contributor DCUGuide lifted and cropped it from here. Which is damn annoying because it means someone thought it was a valid, fair use image. - J Greb 16:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned the image of RLF is from the DCUGuide but when compared with the one from the comic it is identical except it is a "wider shot" - in the comic the frame panel cuts off some of the right hand. So while it appears to be the same picture from the panel it seems to have been either redrawn/reworked or it is based on an original version of the same drawing. This might suggest it is from the Who's Who which would have the ability to get the hand drawn for balance or have access to the original (I'm guessing the former). (Emperor 17:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

Rot Lop Fan is by Bill Willingham from tales of the Green Lantern Corps, the "F Sharp Bell". The Darkstars are from the last Adam Strange mini-series, artist Pascual Ferry. Salakk is from the current Green lantern run not sure which issue. Ch'p is by Joe Staton not sure what book. Starbreaker is also from the Adam Strange series, art by Pascual Ferry. The Raker image looks like Paul Pelletier but I can't be sure. --Basique 22:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's getting way too big and should have been split into two articles some time ago. One or Mister Mind, the other for the Monster Society of Evil. --Basique 00:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't that long and there doesn't seem to be an easy way to split it without replicating a lot of the information. That said if one part if being stiffled by being joined to the other this could be a reason to cut it free and let it grow on its own. Another angel is that if it feels too long then perhaps trim it down a bit? Anyway just a few thoughts - no major recommendations. (Emperor 00:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Recently, I created the Graphic Novels (Warhammer 40,000) to put up information on Warhammer 40,000 and characters involved in the board game that have stories based on them in the graphic novel format. The focus is only on warhammer, not on comic books, comic book companies, or the like. Recently, people from here have tried to hijack the group without showing respect to the original wikiproject. I would ask you kindly to cease such attempts and if you want your own page on the matter, to do so. As the (Warhammer 40,000) tag shows, this is only an extension of the Warhammer 40,000 page. Please respect that and respect our Wikiproject. SanchiTachi 15:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No one is "hijacking" your WikiProject. Please assume good faith and use less imflammatory language. The person who has renamed the page, Someguy0830, is not a WikiProject Comics particpant. Members of this project have commented on the talk page of the article, which is a far cry from "hijacking". None of their comments have been personal attacks or incivil. They haven't "disrespected" your WikiProject. They've simply stated that they disagree with the current nomenclature of the article and given reasons for this. Quashing discussion is not the way to achieve consensus and is simply not how Wikipedia works. --GentlemanGhost 16:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

By hijacking, I mean making this part of the Wikiproject comics without asking. Hijacking means to take over, by putting your title up on the talk page and rating it, it is putting the page through something not asked for. Graphic Novels is a proper title of works by the Warhammer Group. Whether they are actual graphic novels or not, doesn't matter. They are like all the other works, like Codexes and the like. They disagree because they are not part of the Wikiproject for Warhammer and its showing rudeness by assuming things. See Sisters of Battle (Warhammer 40,000) or Emperor of Mankind (Warhammer 40,000) for other such things. Thanks. SanchiTachi 17:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

SanchiTachi, I know you mean well and want the article to be better, but that reeks of WP:OWN. Any article can and should be a part of any wikiproject that is accurately related to the subject. Would you argue that the Gutenberg bible should be a part of only a project about religion, and not about the history of printing? This is a cross-project subject, and out of respect for the content (warhammer) and the method of distribution (comics), it belongs in both. Teamwork! ;) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Shall we get the wiki arts projects to join in? How about the UK project? How about the RPG project? Don't be absurd. You are better off taking the comics links to the individual pages (like the Leonatos page which deals with the plot and substance of the comics, instead of the page that is intended to look at how miniatures and the like are brought into the Warhammer 40,000 universe. Plus, calling it Warhammer is misleading in the same way we do not name the codex books Warhammer (Space Marines) (as opposed to Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000). SanchiTachi 21:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahem - from your own sign up to Wikiproject40k: Does not believe in Wiki groups or organizations, and believes more in the overall existance of a place for people to look up information that is accurate over any individual contribution or claim to fame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkson (talk • contribs) 22:50, 25 May 2007

And this is the reason why I was hesitant to join, seeing as how people care more about labeling things as a Wikiproject without actually seeing if it belongs in their project, and then imposing their own interpretation on a thing and radically changing from what it is. This is the equivalent of a bird loving wiki project taking over the Toronto BlueJays baseball page. SanchiTachi 22:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If only you realized how stupid that sounds. This is a comics wikiproject looking after graphic novels, which are comics. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding a talk page header isn't hijacking, neither is discussing the issue with other editors on that talk page. Rest assured the comics project follows Wikipedia's naming conventions, as do the various unaffiliated editors who have pitched in. However, this is all best addressed on the talk page over there so we can reach a satisfactory conclusion. (Emperor 17:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

I'm not a member of this project, I'm not a member of any project - I'm a Wikipedia editor - that's ALL the authority I need to get involved. Neither wikiproject has any power over that page. --Fredrick day 17:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I posted over on the Warhammer Proj to bring their attention, since it hadn't already been posted there. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As a former member of the Warhammer 40,000 Wikiproject, I'd like to say that I (would have) had no problem with it being made part of this project, and that you should ignore Sanchi, as he has serious WP:OWN issues on nearly every page he edits. Darkson - BANG! 20:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I always post the relevant project headers whether I'm a member or not as, especially in croosover areas, it is important to get perspectives from the different projects, as well as unaffiliated editors as it helps reach the most satisfactory solution for everyone. I have never experienced issues like this before despite editting a lot of entries where there might be the potential for this kind of thing to happen. Everything is uusally resolved quickly and simply. (Emperor 13:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

As thigs seems to be calming down I have posted a potential solution [14] and looking for ideas, thoughts, etc. (from both projects and other editors). If we can achieve consensus on something then we can actually get the entry unlocked and move forwards otehrwise we are going to be stuck for a long time. (Emperor 13:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

A quick update just to draw a line udner things: The entry was moved to Warhammer 40,000 comics and the gaming informationton removed, that is now covered in its own entry Black Library gaming (Warhammer 40,000). The two entries compliment each other nw with the former as a more general overview of the field and the latter with specific informaiton that should be useful for the hardcore gamers. The next stage is to edit and expand both but Rome wasn't built in a day and they were both given a good start. Sanchi meanwhile spread and escalted things and as things moved up the ladder and more admins got involved they just kept attacking them and have been banned for good. It is a pity as they did contribute a lot of good indepth information - they just didn't seem to want to let anyone else edit it. Thanks to the various editors who chipped in, as I've said their attitude was such that I'd have just walked away. (Emperor 20:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

There is a dispute at L-Ron the robot's article about how important his connection to L. Ron Hubbard really is. Would anyone like to check it out and put in an opinion? Thanks. Steve Dufour 05:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Steve Dufour 01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Doczilla 02:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I finally got around to requesting the merger of Category:Comic conventions and Category:Comic book conventions as was discussed back in February. Please feel free to comment in the CfM/R discussion. (Doczilla's so quick, he already has!) --GentlemanGhost 17:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Basique (talk · contribs) seems to insist on giving people a hard time by making poor edits to each of these articles. His stance is that the articles don't fit the WikiComics guidelines of separating the publication history and fictional character history. While I agree in the case of the Black Adam article (which is a mess), the Captain Marvel article is a different case altogether. While some of the detail can be trimmed from sections, the article was structured the way it is because, unlike Spider-Man for example, Captain Marvel has no cohesive "fictional biography". The article instead chronicles the character's publication history, and discusses how different writers and companies have utilized the character. Now, if someone feels the need to have a fictional character biography for Captain Marvel, what would - or should - it contain?

In addition, Basique has a bad habit of obliterating the lead sections on each of these articles, lumping them instead into the body of the article. These headers were written in accordance with Wikipedia: Lead section; since they summarize topics already covered in the body, making the lead sections part of the body introduces redundancy.

Discussing this matter with the editor has proved futile, and I have little patience for people who continuously try to force large (and poorly done) changes upon an established article that more experienced (and likely older) editors have already made a significant number of contributions to. --FuriousFreddy 15:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Couple of additional things...

1. The Captain Marvel article is an FA, it should be used as the example of how the articles should work.
2. The Superman and Batman articles, both also FAs, have a similar layout, treating the subject as a character and intellectual property first and foremost. Spider-Man also does that but needs some work to get to the FA.

- J Greb 17:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article as it appeared on December 22, 2005,[15] is the example. Anyone interested in resolving the dispute should compare the versions under dispute with the featured version and learn from it. Doczilla 02:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

More experienced and likely older? I have quite a bit of experience editing Wikipedia articles, someone hasn't done their research. I'm also a helluva lot older than a head of cabbage, but not yet quite as old as a mountain. And I'm curious Freddy, since when was age a limiting factor when it comes to editors? The changes I put in make sense to me at the time, after JGreb's comment I see that the page is following a very specific format and that needs to be considered. I also noticed that you removed the "Other Versions" section that I added when you carried out your blanket revert, this shows me that you were never interested in editorial compromise. Looking at your contributions, since 2005 the only Comic Project pages you've worked on involve the Marvel Family, the rest of your contributions revolve around Pop Culture, is that why you didn't understand the importance of the Other Versions section? --Basique 23:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, an "Other versions" section is pretty common. Although I'd argue that the Monster Society of Evil paragraph should be excluded because it's supposed to be in continuity, there are still enough different Captain Marvels (the Captain Marvels from Justice, Kingdom Come, and the new Earth-5, plus 1974's Captain Thunder) to justify that section. Doczilla 02:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Can we please keep this discussion civil. Hiding Talk 07:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  I'll second that. Free links to WikiLove and Wikiquette, all around : ) - jc37 23:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Even though we very frequently have separate sections for publication history and fictional character history, my understanding from the manual of style [16] is that a blending of the two would be preferred. I don't foresee that happening in all comic-related articles, but when an article successfully mixes them together with no in-universe text, we should not turn around and break it back up into separate publication history and fictional character history sections. When articles still have stretches of in-universe text, of course we have to separate them. Doczilla 06:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentally, I agree. If the article clearly gets across the fact that the topic is an intellectual property, then using in-universe comments/passages as illustration works. Unfortunately a lot of character and team articles are currently structured to totally eschew the real-world aspect of the topics. - J Greb 15:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Some people can't understand that the "fictional character histories" of some characters are greatly influenced by their publication history, to the extent that the entire story can not effectively be told without combining the two into one text. And some fanboys have grown so accustomed to "Universe Handbook" type publications from comic publishers that they seem to be unable to write about comics in any other style. All we can do is be patient and fix the damage when we see it. Can you link to pages that have been damaged like this?--Drvanthorp 17:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A flipant answer would be "Pick a minor mutant or Marvel character," though to be fair, there are just ans many DC characters that have the same problem.

There are time that I'd love to be able to appended a side-by-side comparison: "Left current version, right without in-universe material" just to see how many would have a blank left side. - J Greb 18:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How I see it is that the publication history is for mainly characters who have/had their own series or when a creator has done something "big" (retconned etc) to a character and the reasoning why they did so or when a character is popularly used in the 1990's then barely used in more recent years without having to use references or footnotes while the fictional character biography is for the "life and times of... [insert character]". There are some characters who actually shouldn't have a publication history and so I will try and reword and rework it into the biography and then there are some who may require a publication history. Ugh I don't even know if I'm making sense right now. Two more hours and I should be awake. Ha! Maybe I should reword and rewrite this when I finally "wake up". RIANZ 21:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, finally awake...ish. Anyways, what I've been using as a guideline is from Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars not from the Manual of Style for fiction. The exemplars do advise separating real world from the character's "world". Well that's what I got from it. RIANZ 21:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The big problem with following our own exemplars strictly is that doing so does not fit any of the Manual of Style examples on how to avoid writing in-universe. All I'm saying is that when a comics-related article has been well written in accordance with the Manual of Style, we shouldn't rip it up to divide the material into those forced sections to fit our exemplars. The fact that Captain Marvel (DC Comics) became a featured article without being split up like that suggests that it might be a case that functions better without a distinct fictional character history section. Like one of the people in that dispute has pointed out, Captain Marvel simply doesn't have one fictional biography. Superman doesn't have a fictional biography section. I don't think the exemplar page originally intended that we had to include every one of those sections. I think it was supposed to define how they would be written IF included.

I guess my immediate point here is that people shouldn't get into a Manual of Style versus WikiProject Comics guidelines edit war at the risk of what had been a well written article. If we pushed something like that to the point that outside admins got involved, I suspect they'd tell us that our exemplars need to change to fit the overarching project's guidelines and goals as indicated by the Manual of Style. Doczilla 22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment but Batman has both a publication history and a fictional character biography and it was a featured article. And like mentioned above, some articles shouldn't really have the publication history. Really, the publication history should be left for large characters or characters that have had their own title (as I mentioned earlier). RIANZ 23:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I checked Batman also. Each way can work. You're right that we can have more than one way of doing things, depending on what reads best as an encyclopedic entry. The A-says-it-must-be-this-way versus B-says-it-must-be-that-way argument that brought the Captain Marvel (DC Comics) edit problem just doesn't cut it. Both sides need to focus on what reads best, not arbitrary preference for one style guideline over another when, if read legalistically, they just contradict each other. Doczilla 00:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I'm currently working on Batman to clean up the prose and make it adhere to current FA standards. In the case of that article, the publication history and character history works, because there are sources available that analyze the character's changing history from an out-of-universe perspective. Of course this won't work for every article (in particular, shorter articles should probably not have separtate publishing/fictional history sections, and certainly not ones where out-of-universe sources are nonexistant) But with characters that have been around longer (Spider-Man, Wonder Woman, Wolverine, etc.) it can be quite invaluable if handled right. I'm basically trying to turn the Batman into an exemplar of how to do that right and so far it's been working out. WesleyDodds 05:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with RIANZ in that the publication history and character biographies should be separate. I'm not a common participant of this WikiProject, but I think it reads easier and has a better flow for those reading into characters with solo series. For example, Dazzler is an article that blends both character and series, and has several facts and BTS (especially creation) information that, if blended into a fictional character biography, would obfuscate much of that less-than-common knowledge. More, several non-wiki sites have in-depth character biographies that I think are easier to link to for more information on in-story goings on. As a personal preference, I like to read more in-depth creator-style information on a character or intellectual property on a Wiki rather than "this is what X character did (cite issue Y)." I'm not a member of WikiProject:Comics, but thought I would throw that out there. Novaya havoc 02:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Exemplar rewrite?

I think we're going to have to revisit the exemplars. They were written a long time ago now, before the appropriate section of the manual of style was written, and probably need an overhaul. Hiding Talk 07:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I'm afraid so. Doczilla 23:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate, though, I don't think the majority or even a sizable minority of WPC members will want the comics articles written strictly according to the Manual of Style examples. I do think, however, that the exemplars page needs to make it clear that it's talking about with the publication history and fictional character biography sections should be like if the article is so organized. We definitely need to make it clear that we are not encouraging anyone to bust up an article that has been written well and in line with the Manual of Style's example, that we actually encourage writing articles in line with the Manual of Style even though there are plenty of cases when readers want to be able to cut to the chase and know the unanalyzed fiction. Doczilla 03:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The Silver Surfer article is currently under review for becoming a good article. It is put on hold by Fritzpoll as general copyediting (grammar, syntax etc) and NPOV violations are in the way. I requested the help of Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce but have not obtained a response. I'd like to request the help of any wikipedians from wikiproject comics to help. Please see the talk page of the article for additional information. Zuracech lordum 09:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Villains by adversary" categories are reappearing, despite having been salted. To whit: Category:Thor Villains and Category:Daredevil Villains. I've given the creator, a new user, a heads-up on his talk page. I don't have time to initiate a CfD right now, so if someone else wants to do it, feel free. --GentlemanGhost 21:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh for the love of... - J Greb 07:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It was done by a newcomer, so please don't bite him or her. Thanks to Doczilla, the categories have once again been nominated for deletion, including Category:Iron Man Villains, which I had not mentioned heretofore. I'm thinking it might be a good idea to salt all of the improperly capitalized versions of these categories as well. That is, we've already salted most of the "Foo villains" categories, but it might be prudent to salt the captial "V" variant "Foo Villains". --GentlemanGhost 14:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry... just a little frustrated that this seems to be re-cycling every few months.

I'd also go a bit farther with the pro-active salting, covering Foes of "Foo", "Foo"'s foes (f and F), Adversaries of "Foo", "Foo"'s adversaries (a and A), and the like. - J Greb 16:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I actually wasn't remotely concerned about you, J Greb. I was just trying to be pro-active. This doesn't appear to me to be a case of deliberately ignoring a CfD, but it has been a contentious issue, so I decided to head incivility off at the pass. Salting the other variations sounds like a good idea, as long as the admins don't get sick of us asking for more iterations. --GentlemanGhost 16:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the 1 that kicked this off, the 2 I mentioned and "enemies" would cover the reasonable "new and unaware this has been given a 'thumbs down'" situation... though that does cover, what, 16 salts per character/team? - J Greb 07:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed some reverts relating to the "In other media" sections of a few articles. There is a disagreement about how much detail to put into video game descriptions within this section. The WikiProject Comics exemplars don't go into much detail regarding this section. (As noted above, the exemplars should probably be revisited.) Is a mere mention that a character appears in a particular game enough? Is it necessary to summarize the plot of the game as it pertains to that character? My personal feeling is that plot details belong in the main article for the game. Unless it contributes something regarding the game's characterization of the subject, I don't feel that plot synopses are helpful. I could just let sleeping dogs lie, but I thought this might be of interest to the project at large. --GentlemanGhost 14:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any examples? The sections are certianly of interest but should be kept within limits. I suppose the size of the mention depends on how big the characters role is and if there is a specific entry giving more indept coverage. (Emperor 14:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, I should have realized that examples would help give context. The recent reverts that I saw are Fin Fang Foom, Super-Skrull, Radioactive Man (comics), and Grey Gargoyle. These are actually rather small additions, usually one sentence. But I have seen longer paragraphs in the past. --GentlemanGhost 14:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This [17] is an example of a longer paragraph. --GentlemanGhost 15:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That is helpful. I think they look fine. Where it is obvious from the main entry on the other media then a sentence is fine. If it needs clarifying then an extra sentence seems OK to help put things in context. For example the Jonah Hex one also seems fine. What has concerned me as I've been passing are entries like Gizmo (comics) (often the entries are connected with animated series for some reason - check out the rest of HIVE e.g. Jinx). Problem is minor charcaters like Gizmo have often had quite a few outtings in animated series so perhaps it is fair for the entry to reflect that by devoting a larger percentage of the entry to the other media appearances if it is in proportion to their overall appearances (after all it is an entry about the character and not just their comic appearances and if they have an equally major role in an animated series then it might be the amount of coverage is acceptable). I'm not sure what the answer is - all those examples might be fine and too strict a guideline removes the flexibility of editors to decide. If a character has a minor role in a computer game then a sentence is pretty much all that is required. If they have had repeated appearances in the other major taking major roles then it might be that this should be reflected in the proportion of the entry the text takes up. However, some of the entries are out of proporiton (like some of the HIVE members) and there needs to be something done. (Emperor 15:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

I think you maybe looking at something different that what GG is. GG is focusing on a specific type of "other media", video games, where you're looking at the whole IOM section.

The Gladiator example is pretty good. The before is perfectly serviceable for the article on the character. The after has added a snippet that fits more under the game article as it deals with the games plot, does not show atypical usage of the character, and deals with a game mechanic/game play resolution item. That's fundamentally different than Gizmo, where the animated character is markedly different from the comic book base. - J Greb 16:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if that is the issue then most of those examples are fine. I agree that the added material to Gladiator doesn't seem that necessary, especially the first additional sentence - an arguement could be made for the second I suppose but it seems better when done tighter. (Emperor 16:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

I was concerned specifically about video games, but expanding the topic to the "In other media" section in general is fine with me. I agree that my examples are pretty minor changes. What caught my attention is that they are all on my watchlist and they all showed up at the same time. It's not currently an edit war, but it concerns me that it might become one. So, I checked the exemplars page and discovered how little it had to say about that section. Now, I also don't want the project guidelines to become too strict, since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. But, it did surprise me; I had assumed that the exemplars backed up my point of view. Disputes can certainly be addressed on a case-by-case basis (Lord knows, guidelines never stopped edit wars anyway), but I thought it might be interesting to discuss. I had presumed consensus where there was none, so I figured I'd better seek input. --GentlemanGhost 16:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as it goes, I think the IOM breaks down into 2 or 3 types of items, regardless of the number of media involved or if the character was licensed or not (see fanfic/film stuff that crops up):

1. Character used as is elsewhere (Burt Ward Robin)
2. Character is used as a basis for the other use, but there are significant changes (Gizmo)
3. Character is used as a loose base (The HBO western noted in the Jonah Hex article)

The first is likely the easiest to deal with, since there is little "in universe" material that needs to be covered. Using the Ward example, cover who played the character, cultural "points of interest", and any other notable aspects of the translations.

The second will need more space since it should cover how the character varied from the original source.

The last is a problem since it may wind up being a case of interpretation. Also it doesn't, to me, warrant more than a line or two explaining "'Foo' was the inspiration of 'Fud'." (For an ongoing argument over this type of point see Absorbing Man and the chronic in and out of the Nolte character from the Hulk film.)

Even with all of that, I don't think the character articles are really the place for "game guide" elements. That smacks of trying to avoid WP:NOT#IINFO point 4 (game guides are essentially instruction manuals) with the game article.

- J Greb 17:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• The video game descriptions should have minimal detail. They don't affect continuity, they are not themselves primary sources that affect other media (with rare exceptions), and they don't add to our understanding of the characters. Doczilla 23:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else heard of it, apparently it gave him omnipotence, and there is no article on it. Phoenix741 22:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's from Superman Annual #10.[18] That doesn't mean it was ever mentioned in canon again. Doczilla 03:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)