Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

I just updated the board for the new year. (See that page's talk page for more information.)

Is there any chance that we could see some movement/work on the merges/splits of 2007?

Let's see a "push" for the new year : ) - jc37 01:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the bot that is doing this a little too fast. The topic on the Bloodstorm merge was up for only about 24 hours. Stephen Day (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think that's a bug due to the new year, since it is set for five days. The same thing appears to have happened at my talk page. I think that the right place to post merge notices though, is at the noticeboard, specifically, I think, Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice board/Proposed merges and splits/2008. Hope that helps. Hiding T 13:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• I've tweaked the archiving back to 8 days though. We don't seem to generate the level of discussion we used to, for better or worse. ;) Hiding T 13:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to create an article entitled "eComics", under the category "Comics" (the article "Comics" already exists, I know that). But there is a large set of specific topics related to this subject, that don't fit the standard Comic article:

• Web comics and web strips (I think there are articles for them, too)
• The emerging culture of printed comic scanning (digitalizing)
• Techniques and processes for enhancement of the scanned comics
• Standards for archiving of these images
• Softwares for reading and organizing these archives
• Emerging communities all over the world dedicated to exchange (usually via peer-to-peer) and translate these "eComics" to foreign languages.

The last item above might be the "hottest" and most controversal, because there is the debate on royalties and piracy versus "free initiative", "out-of-market" and other "arguments". But this can be debated later.

I thought about this initiative after the deletion of the article "ComicRack" which talks about a freeware software to organize and "read" eComics. Most arguments pro-deletion talked about "low visibility", and, after a research, I found many eComic-related articles (most of them stubs) without this "main" article to mend them (perhaps even as a category).

Please, suggestions and opinions preferrably at my talk page. Thanks in advance.

Clayton.Aguiar (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There's already a webcomics article. Otherwise, pulling this material together under one name of your own choosing sounds like a violation of the WP:NOR policy. Doczilla (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion. The WebComics reference on this article could be only phrase or at most a paragraph with a direct reference to the main article. But I read the WebComics article. It talks nothing about the other topics I proposed, and its aim is different. Under my point of view, eComics is a wider definition, under which WebComics is one of the possible formats. Briefly, an eComic might be a set of image files (usually jpeg) stored inside a zip or rar compressed file and then renamed to the CBZ or CBR extension, respectively.

Clayton.Aguiar (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it's still your "point of view" as you say. Who has defined this? It sounds like you're trying to define it. That's not what Wikipedia does. Doczilla (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Doczilla, especially since neither Pullbox Online nor Eyemelt uses the term. (See [1] and [2]) --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

An anon user has twice performed this edit, under the explanation that in a future issue (namely Amazing Spider-Man #546) which is about a week away from release will state that the information he removed is irrelevant. But this to me seem a little like Crystal ball, especially as no information on that issue is available anywhere. I am not saying that the anon user is wrong, but i think it shouldn't be removed until this issue states otherwise. --- Paulley (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Any sentence which begins the long term effects of this, however, are now seemingly moot, should be removed or rewritten so that it isn't speculation. I can't understand the point the sentence is making, so as such I support the removal. Hiding T 11:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think it had something to do with One More Day changing history so that Peter never revealed himself to the public thus the clones trying to bring doubt on Parker's identity as Spiderman is no longer relevant, and there subsequent punishment for doing so is now a moot point. -- Paulley (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Betabot is running again, so I've just compared Category:Non-free comic images and Category:All disputed non-free images, so hopefully as of about now all comic related images without rationales are listed at User:Hiding/no-rationale. Could people have a run through and add rationales to images they think should be kept, bearing in mind policy states As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. It's probably best to orphan any people feel don't comply with our policy. I'd suggest people update the list to reflect your workings. Hiding T 11:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems like it needs to be had sooner rather than later. There are now two users planting these, with one of said users not using what I would call good judgement as to allocation (see History for Absorbing Man) I know the Cosmic List was culled as it was too subjective and smacked of "fandom". I would like to know if these are manageable, as the whole exercise appears to be steeped in subjectivity. By this I mean article choice, choice of characters in the boxes and of course upkeep as things change. One user argues that because the Joker and Green Goblin have this feature it is appropriate, but by this logic EVERY entry needs one, and this then raises the points I mentioned above. Thoughts?

Asgardian (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Are we referring to the Daredevil nav box which was added to Absorbing Man? That seems overly large and appears to detract from the purpose of teh article. From recollection, anything which has been mentioned in an article should not appear in the see also section. Since nav boxes appear in a see also section, I'm at a loss to understand how things which appear in the article should be in the nav box. I appreciate they are geared towards ease of navigation, but then that's allegedly what categories are for too. This seems far too wide a topic just to be discussed here though. Anyone know of any guidance on the matter? Hiding T 13:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Asguardian's swing through was with {{Thor}} and {{Hulk}}, both of which seem to be tightly focused.

I've run into {{Iron Man}} and {{Daredevil}}, and had a run in on the talk pages of those two.

Just my 2¢ on navboxes in general: They are a half step between the cats and list articles, allowing for some of the things that routinely get deleted in CfDs, ie Creators by series, foe lists, and supporting characters, without going to the trouble of creating a list that may be AfD bait. These four seem to be geared to topics that are large enough while still being tight to avoid the TfD grounds of "The articles are already all sufficiently inter linked" or "Encroaching on the kitchen sink" (IIRC that was what killed the Marvel Universe characters 'box).

Slight side note, the discussion on the Iron Man and Daredevil templates could use more voices from all POVs. - J Greb (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. This obvously requires more discussion. It reallt does seem like too large and subjective an exercise to maintain. There's also the question of relevance. A Daredevil nav box, for example, has no place on the Absorbing Man page. DD fought the villain once and that was it.

Asgardian (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I mostly dislike navboxes as something that are better suited to life as categories. In a few cases, particularly those with logical sequential orders, navboxes are nice, but for something like Absorbing Man or even Green Goblin I tend to think them unnecessary. Category:Spider-Man would work fine. Phil Sandifer (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the only way they could possibly work is with teams or "prime" characters, but again it will ultimately mean someone is making a subjective decision about which characters this broad outline includes and then which allies and foes can be featured. There would have to be extensive criteria. For example, what validates the inclusion of a villain in a "prime" characters' nav box? Five or more encounters? A significant development? This is a minefield.

Asgardian (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Phil,

This harks back to my comment about the navbox being a half step. The following have gotten categories CfDed on sight:

• Categories used to collect writers and artists by series or character they'ce worked on. This is looked as as a variation of "Performer by performance" which leads to category clutter on the articles.
• Categories used to collect villains/foes. The terms get hammered as NPOV. It also gets tagged with the clutter since 1) super-villains tend to fight different heroes over time, and 2) the less POV naming opens the cats up to hero-vs-hero fights/rivalries.
• Categories that collect "supporting cast". Again, the term gets hammered as NPOV and there is the same migration problem.

That the single use cats, the broader cats have been put up when these items have been added as side stepping the consensus reached through the CfDs not to have the singe use cats.

The 'box allows for those groupings on a minimal level without having to create a list article. The 'box also allows for grouping themed articles where Wikilinking maybe scattered about the article, or non-existent.

Asgardian,

Two things...

First, right now the boxes do seem to limited to "A-List" characters, so it's unlikely (knock on wood) well see an Ambush Bug or Great Lakes Avengers 'box.

Second, something I had suggested on the talk for the Iron Man template: when editing the templates, we need to set aside our detailed knowledge and ask is someone with limited knowledge would link a particular character with the topic of the 'box. If it's "yes" then including the character may be warranted.

- J Greb (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This obviously needs a wider discussion. Exemplars?

Asgardian (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

in afd'ing the original article all we have seem to have done is move the problem... as the text from that article was just pushed directly into a new section of Mutant (Marvel comics). I have reworded the introductory text to reflect its place as a section not an article but i think i needs serious condensing. --- Paulley (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've had a quick pass. Hiding T 16:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as we're on the subject, there's also a Category:Omega-level mutants. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The list of creators for CrossGen was recently deleted from that page, on the basis that it constituted a list of company employees, and that Wikipedia is not a business directory. I certainly understand the thinking behind that policy, but as this is a somewhat different situation, I am not sure what policies or stipulations apply. As a comic fan, I think it central to know which creators worked for which companies on which properties (characters, series). Articles relating to other creative fields, such as those for individual record labels (e.g. Johnny & Associates, Avex Trax) and (visual art) artists' collectives (e.g. Kaikai Kiki) do include or link to lists of associated artists.

I don't know if there's any special stipulations anywhere in particular within the WP:MOS or elsewhere, but I am hoping that someone from this project is familiar with such things and can help figure out what to do, and how to best apply the relevant policies to lists of comic creators. Thanks. LordAmeth (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The list could probably stand on its own as a List of CrossGen creators. If other editors still feel that such a list goes against the ethos of Wikipedia, then we ought to consider doing away with the List of Marvel Comics people as well. (Is that an inverse of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?) With all the crossover between companies (despite recent exclusivity contracts), I'm not sure how useful company-specific lists would be; it seems like they'd all list the same people. But as long as you're not making a long list of red links, I think that you can argue that the content of the list is notable and more than a mere directory. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I recently stumbled on the comics artist article. It seems to me that it could be improved (or possibly merged). --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I recently discovered the Category:Comics people. Does this name seem overly vague to anyone else? It would appear that its purpose is to provide a category for two articles that don't fit into the creator categories: Dennis Ketcham – son of Hank Ketcham and inspiration for Dennis the Menace – and TM Maple, a fan whose letters were frequently published. I tend to think this category is unnecessary, but I'll gladly listen to other opinions. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is vague, but it provides an umbrella category for five important subcats. I suggest renaming it Comics professionals and then place those two articles in appropriate subcats. Doczilla (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I just noticed that there are multiple "people" categories: Category:Magazine people, Category:Media people, Category:Radio people, etc. Maybe this is a naming convention of which I had hitherto been unaware. It still seems vague, though. I like your suggestion better. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the Secret Invasion article should make a brief reference to when the Skrull's first planned to replace heroes with modified Skrulls. This was during X-Men (vol. 2) (issues 89-90). The story had Skrulls being modified to replicate the powers of heroes and training on their homeworld's moon in preparation to replace heroes learning everything about them from television news reports (which were very out of date) but before the plan could be fulfilled their homeworld was eat by Galactus. I know it doesn't have anything directly to do with this Invasion but its such a similar plan which must have derived from this at some point, i just think it deserves a mention. What do you guys think. --- Paulley (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No. It's in-universe trivia and speculation. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. --- Paulley (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd think it would deserve a brief mention as being a similar story. --Dr Archeville (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Doczilla, and I also think this is a very old plot, I seem to remember this going back to early FF. Any news sources pick up on the similarity? Hiding T 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems like nothing more than a coincidence, though, and with a tenuous connection to the upcoming story at best. After all the whole point of the Skrulls is that they can shape-shift. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Right now, it does seem to be only speculation that there is any connection. Without sourcing, it wouldn't have any cause to be included. If and when a parallel or connection is made either in the story itself or in published interviews, then it might well qualify for inclusion. John Carter (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Located here, I am concerned that this category is going to fill up with every character who - in the way that comics are - walk away from a beating in the next issue without visible marks and whatnot. The only characters that should be on this list are those who have actual accelerated healing as part of their powers set, like Wolverine. I started to revert them, but realized that I should probably bring this to the attention of the Project. I don't want to end up in a pissing contest with Piemanmoo (the author and populator of the category) over the inclusion of several characters. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• The reason I created this category was to sort out Marvel and DC characters from the category Fictional characters with accelerated healing, who made up a large portion of them. I am only adding the specific cats to articles which already contained them. In other words, if they already had the Fictional characters with accelerated healing category on their page and they were from Marvel/DC comics, I'll change it to the Marvel/DC Comics characters with accelerated healing category. That's all. If you think that specific characters don't qualify for any accelerated healing categories, then I don't mind if you remove them. I just ask that you don't revert the category back to the original Fictional characters with accelerated healing.--Piemanmoo (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  Arcayne has good points about the category's (categories') problems. They're just not Piemanmoo's fault. That accelerated heading category has always been a mess. Doczilla (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Couple of other things that have cropped up:

• During his run through Piemanmoo miss-moved at least one article, putting Hugo Danner into the DC sub. This adds to the problem that Doc and Arcayne noted about over-broads/OR character inclusion prior to Piemanmoo's hard work since the subs now have to be vetted for proper publisher inclusion as well as the OR/
• Piemanmoo has since moved on to breaking up Category:Fictional telepaths by Marvel and DC. Frankly I'm a little amazed at this since the category wasn't large enough to need this done.
• And again at least one character got miss-moved (Brainwave to Marvel instead of DC) bringing the same problem of having to vet the subs.

- J Greb (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Would it not be better to subcat as Comics characters first, and then see if we need to break down further? Hiding T 14:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The above article is currently a GA nominee. I regret to say that I have reservations about the language of the article, however. I am a new GA reviewer, this is actually I think my first review, and I have requested a second opinion. However, if any of you agree with me regarding the language concerns, it might be a good idea to address them before the more experienced reviewer arrives. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i will be the first to admit im not much of a writer. I'd love it if someone from here who had a bit more experience in regards to proper grammar could do a once over on the article. --- Paulley (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Obsidianblackboard actually Asgardian? I can't say for positive, but the similarities are striking. BOZ (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's already been run through Checkuser with a positive result. - J Greb (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The proposed merge is to move the Storm section of Bloodstorm (comics) to Alternate versions of Storm. This seems to have been debated for a while and any added opinion would be helpful. See discussion here Talk:Alternate versions of Storm

It seems that even though this has been discussed and merged twice in the past month (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 30) it keeps being reverted by the same user. Any chance this issue can get some closure? -- 69.182.199.231 (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does it keep getting unmerged? ALL of the other Mutant X characters that once had their own page have been merged into the appropriate head article. There is only a miniscule chance that any of these characters will return, so there is no need for them to have their own article. Concensus was reached. They should be merged. -Freak104 (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I commented on the talk page. Frankly one editor is being difficult and refusing to accept a consensus. The merge should happen. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Only two opinions have been posted for the She-Venom to Venom (comics) merge. Can some people please go to the discussion to give their opinion? Thank you! -Freak104 (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody rewrite the first paragraphs of this article? They read as vital information has been stripped out, producing the impression of a non-sequitor.--Drvanthorp (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have created an article for an old favourite title of mine from the 1990s, Lucius Shepard's Vermillion from DC's discontinued Helix imprint. I have never made any contributions to WikiProject Comics before, so would be grateful for any improvements or changes in order to conform the article to the standard agreed format which you use. Additionally, this was the first time I have uploaded an image to Wikipedia. The software on my PC is not very sophisticated so I would be grateful if someone could reduce the resolution of Vermillion_01.jpg to a lower level. Kind regards--Calabraxthis 20:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. :) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Per my posting above on Vermillion I may have some time on my hands to create/expand on some of the articles for the lesser known Vertigo and Helix titles. I would propose to keep these articles short, reflecting the lesser importance of the titles.

However I would be very keen to upload at least one image of a cover page per title. Yesterday I did this for the first time in respect of the Vermillion piece and included a licensing tag showing that the image was not free or in the public domain but was nevertheless "fair use" because it was low-res, depicted the cover only, there was no free image available and this was permitted under US law. I selected the "Comic Book stuff" licence tag. I would like to know if there are any other rules of which I need to be aware, or whether, provided I always include the appropriate licencing tag and fair use rationale, that it is okay for me to keep doing this. Kind regards--Calabraxthis 08:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The FUR looks good, as does the final size. One question though, does the indicia indicate that DC alone owns the work, or does Lucius Shepard jointly or solely own it? If so, that should be reflected in the copyright/trademark information. - J Greb (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have checked more closely. The copyright is jointly held by DC Comics and Lucius Shepherd so I have amended the image description to reflect this. Kind regards--Calabraxthis 19:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering, but compared to a lot of other comics characters who have articles, why oh why is Nate Grey now up for not being "notable" enough? StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My guess is because the article at this point doesn't demonstrate any outside sources, as per the notability guideline linked to. No specific sources are cited, and the only external links provided are to generic X-Men pages. If specific sources regarding the character per se can be found, however, those concerns should be alleviated. Basically, if you can find the subject discussed in any of the comics magazines, and you can, then that should remove any question of his notability. John Carter (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

They have shut Shadowbot down as User:Shadow1 is inactive. I've switched the archiving to MiszaBot, and it will archive every seven days. It should also hopefully start a new archive page each time the current page reaches 250k. How we know that I have as yet not worked out. Hiding T 10:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A bot is trying to delete Image:XMEN 05252005 0024.jpg, because its fair use rationale isn't good. I don't know what stuff is supposed to be written to protect that. Can someone please protect that image? Thank you! -Freak104 (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Done-66.109.248.114 (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC).

I have become increasingly frustrated with the overall organization of comic-related articles. There is massive ambiguity when it comes to the difference between a super hero or comic book character and the comic book itself. For instance, there is a rather large article on Captain America, but no article on the different iterations of the comic book series of the same name. The comic book series is generally described under publication history, but really it is like taking two different things and merging them into one article. I think it would make more sense to have an article for Captain America the character and one for the series and it's several iterations/volumes. This way you can describe the story arcs, list artists and writers, and include more information about the series itself, rather than the character. Sometimes I am interested in knowing more about a series, but must parse a whole character related article for the information if it is there at all. In some cases what I propose has already been done, Cable & Deadpool has an article for instance. I would like to discuss any objections to this proposal, and if none are valid I would like to begin work on this at my leisure.Randomengine (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that charactes and their titles should have separate articles, but I'm not sure that everyone else does. Good reason to discuss it, then! BOZ (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the way it is meant to be done. For example, we have an article on both Superman and Action Comics. Just work it up and eventually we'll see what gets put where. Hiding T 16:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be wary of going into too much detail on storyarcs though, we're not a plot repository and we shouldn't violate copyright laws either. I think there's a relevant wikia at [3] which may be of interest to you. Hiding T 16:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not about to contribute to a for-profit company like wikia, thanks for the link though. I agree that the series articles should not delve too deeply into spoilers or long, detailed descriptions of events in each story arc. There are times where there are even single issues that don't tie into anything well. I am just thinking of notable story arcs, including their titles and a general summary and writer,artist information.Randomengine (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It would certainly make sense to have separate articles particularly if the character-named title contained back-up stories about other characters who may have separate articles. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure, in many cases, that separating material is going to be useful. Certainly it becomes a lot harder to figure out how to write about, say, The New Warriors as a topic separate from their publication history. For the most part, I think a stronger focus on what an article on a superhero should look like will do us just fine. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The New Warriors team is not the New Warriors comic series. The New Warriors team can be in any comic series, just as the New Warriors comic series can have anyone in it. The team article should talk about their fictional history, while the comic series article should talk about the publication history of the book entitled New Warriors. It seems rather cut and dry to me, but would require some effort to split the article. One good point I just thought of that might cause some confusion or problem and needs some discussion is the comic series "The Incredible Hulk". As of issue #112 or #113 it has become "The Incredible Hercules". Should that be two articles? Should "The Incredible Hercules" be considered a new series starting at #113 or so just because it's content and/or title has changed?Randomengine (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No article should primarily discuss fictional events. That, I think, is where we are fundamentally disagreeing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not defending them as I am not sure if they deviate from official policy, but have you seen all the articles on individual episodes of tv series on wikipedia? Lost for instance is a featured article and links to dozens of individual episode pages. These are fictional events obviously, and yet they are everywhere on wikipedia. Lost is not the only culprit. So, if we do not emulate how TV series are done on wikipedia and omit fictional events, then the current articles about superheroes would be neutered. Batman would only list his basic origin, powers, bibliography, and other media sections and that is pretty much it. But if you look the article on Batman is a featured article as well and is littered with fictional events. In any even, the original proposal is not asking to make an article to fill with fictional events, but basically to do one thing: move publication information from articles about fictional characters to stand alone articles about the publications themselves(leave only a strict bibliography for sourcing fictional events). The publication articles can talk about the writers, artists, etc that contributed to the work as well as important moments. Example: Captain America the fictional character article and Captain America the publication article. The publication article will explain the time and events that lead to its publication, contributors, noteworthy events (Like the death of Steve Rogers in #25) and anything else that might be useful.Randomengine (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I view the episode articles as deeply problematic, and am far from alone in this view. Fictional events will obviously be a part of an article on a comic character, but our articles exist to document the publication and cultural history that includes those events, not the events in and of themselves. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

An observation or two:

• In some cases it is possible to write article on the character and the eponymous series. Batman and Superman are good examples of this. These are cases where the character has a history and a cultural importance beyond the comic book series and an article covering both would excessively long. Both DC and Marvel have characters that fall into this category: these two, Wonder Woman, Spider-Man, Hulk, Captain America, etc. They also have hundreds that don't, like Ghost Rider or Blue Devil.
• Based on the general intent of what Wikipedia articles should be, the first thing that should be done is to bring the focus of the articles to the real world aspects. The publication history for the character, the same for the eponymous titles, the cultural impact of the character, what it has been used to comment on, and so on, not to create two separate articles. Splitting would come naturally as the articles hit a certain length, and both resulting articles would retain the focus on the real world.

- J Greb (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because other stuff exists in that there are episode articles doesn't mean we have to do the same wrongheaded thing. It's not as big a problem for a TV show because the TV show is not a work in print. Comics are works in print full of descriptive text and Wikipedia is full of text, thereby creating a copyright issue even beyond that of TV shows. Wryspy (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to request that some people from this WikiProject could please review the Kevin and Kell article, which is currently up for featured article status. There have only been four reviews of it, and so far I believe no-one from this WikiProject has reviewed it. Thanks. ISD (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm a member of the Wikiproject Highlander and just created the two pages for the two recent Highlander comics...Highlander (Dynamite Entertainment) and Highlander: Way of the Sword (Dynamite Entertainment). Just wanted the experts here advice to better them or assistance if possible. Thanks. Hooper (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have started a new page to address the issue of Marvel articles without images. BOZ (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a great idea! Big thanks to BOZ for compiling that list! I have images (or can easily get them) I can upload for some of those articles and I would like to do so, but I don't know anything about writing out the fair use rationale for them. Is there someway someone could help with that? -Freak104 (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a really important part of the process - many, many images have been deleted for lacking that information. I'm hardly done compiling though, but I figured I'd have more than enough for a start.  :) But yes, in the meantime go ahead and upload, but make sure to notify other users that a FUR will need to be added to the image. BOZ (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone add a FUR to 'Image:Batroc leaper.jpg' and 'Image:Colleenwing.jpg' ? BOZ (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, but do you have source info, namely the comics they are from? Hiding T 22:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Freak104 uploaded them, so I have no idea.  :) BOZ (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I already asked Freak104, but thought I'd hedge my bets and ask here too. Freak104 has a break template and indicated on my talk hat they may not be around for a while, so any suggestions would be useful. The Batroc looks like it might be by John Byrne. I'm trying to recall how often Byrne drew Captain America, I don't remember it as being that often. He had a short stint on the Cap book, but I think he only wrote Avengers. It also looks like it's back when comics were printed on the cheap paper, so we're looking at mid 1980's maybe? Of course Freak104 will now show up and prove me hideously wrong. Hiding T 23:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Googled it. Where: Captain America #251 When: November 1980 [4]. Not bad from memory. Any leads on this Colleen Wing image. She's new to me. Hiding T 23:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Tracked it down from the deleted version of the image. Hiding T 23:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL, you rock.  :) Danke! BOZ (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

We need a FUR at Aragorn (comics) and Foreigner (comics) please. BOZ (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, but the images need resizing. Are you now aware of how to add a fair use rationale yourself? ;) Hiding T 16:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll confess that I probably have a lot less of an idea of what I'm doing than you do. :) BOZ (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I am new to this particular WikiProject and was wondering whether any specific notability guidelines have been developed by the Project to govern articles which related to Comics themed topics? I can't seem to see any listed but maybe something has been agreed on previous discussion pages. Kind regards--Calabraxthis 12:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Have a look at the need for verifiability, the need to avoid original research, what Wikipedia is not and please write from a neutral point of view for inclusion policies. There are also guidelines about notability and how it relates to fiction as well as a manual of style on writing about fiction. Personally I don't need anymore policies or guidance than those. If you question the notability of a particular article, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you. Otherwise, I don't think we need further forking of policies or guidance. The current situation with television episode guidance and the disputes it seems to be causing leads me to think that the five pillars should be enough, and that if the notability of a specific article is disputed the best course is to discuss it. We have a tag for that, {{notability}}, you can also raise the issue here, and where the dispute cannot be solved we have a dispute resolution process, as well as deletion processes which can solve the issue. All of the appropriate editing solutions are listed either at our editing policy or within the previously mentioned notability guidance. Hope that helps, Hiding T 12:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. My aim was not really to challenge the notability of articles but rather to see whether there are any "safe harbours" which WikiProject comics agrees should always protect an article on the grounds of notability. For example, is it reasonable to assume that every title released by a major publisher (eg. DC, Marvel etc) is sufficient grounds for notability (although it may be the case that each individual issue within that title or each featured character may not necessarily be notable)? Kind regards--Calabraxthis 12:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't have a specific example in mind, I think this is a redundant exercise. I think it is reasonable to assume that WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and WP:NOR are our core content policies and articles which do not meet those should be improved to that standard. Are you suggesting our core policies are not enough? If so, I suggest you take your discussions to one of those pages. If you wish to discuss notability, that's best discussed at WP:N. Hiding T 14:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again - I apologise for having somewhat irked you with my enquiry. I was not suggesting that the core policies were deficient in any way, but just wanted some practical help interpreting them within the framework of the WikiProject so I did not spend time drafting articles which may later be deleted. Pehaps best if I end this thread here. Kind regards--Calabraxthis 14:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You haven't irked me in anyway, and I apologise if I gave that impression. I just feel it is redundant to make blanket assumptions and generalisations, the structure of Wikipedia doesn't really allow for that. Like I say, it is far better to discuss specific examples, for instance, the articles you are considering drafting. Deletion is a spectre that pretty much looms over every edit though. Looking through my deleted contributions reveals something like 200 deleted main space edits. Probably 0.1%. The rough guide for notability on Wikipedia is laid out at WP:N. If your article meets that it's going to survive most things. Anything less than that you need to make an argument for. That's pretty much the best advice I can give you, because that's the way afd works. I wouldn't want to see a blanket assertion that all comic book series are inherently notable since it is that kind of statement which leads to the sort of disputes WP:EPISODE is creating. It's far better to contribute what you want in the knowledge you may well be wasting your time, keeping as tight to WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR as you can. Articles which look like encyclopedic articles are less likely to be perceived as problematic when compared to articles which don't. Hiding T 14:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A kind of "safe harbour" for webcomics appears to have arisen derived from Wikipedia:Notability (web). For example I believe a webcomic is considered notable if it wins a Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards, or is reviewed by a newspaper or other reliable source. DC and Marvel comics are outside my ken, but I would venture that a comic title would still need to have sources specific to that title otherwise it should be merged into a publisher article, or a series article or maybe a list. -Wikianon (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think that DC and Marvel carry the same sort of stature that, say, CBS does - that is, we would not delete an obscure CBS television show from the 1970s even if it only aired an episode or two, simply because its network was important enough to lend the show sufficient importance to print. Similarly, even an obscure Marvel or DC title seems to me keepable by virtue of being published by Marvel or DC. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Phil's reasoning has always been my thinking, although I seem to recall from previous discussions that others felt differently. That's not to say that every character from every Marvel or DC series is necessarily notable. In some cases we have opted for lists instead of full-blown articles (e.g., List of characters in The Sandman). Comics articles are frequently nominated for deletion; some pass, some fail. Since we don't have a comics-specific notability guideline, following the general policies are your best bet. Thanks again for your recent Helix contributions, BTW, Calabraxthis. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to add the newly-created Human Top (Bruce Bravelle) to the list of AFD's, but the Notice Board page is protected. BOZ (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The sections of the notice board are now accessed separately. For deletions, edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice board/Deletion discussions/2008. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Danke. :) BOZ (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There's an ongoing AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comics Bulletin. It looks like the site is under your domain. Would you guys like to take a look, and weigh in on the discussion? -- RoninBK _{T C} 02:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay gang, there's a whole new list of images lacking fair use rationales at User:Hiding/no-rationale. It would be appreciated if people could pull their share, especially as there is a lot of X-Men images tagged and I think X-Men is quite popular? To add a fair use rationale, use this handy template. Remember to edit it if you are adding it to an image which is a panel and not a cover, obviously.

{{Non-free fair use rationale
|Article           = <!-- THE NAME OF THE ARTICLE WHERE THIS IMAGE IS USED -->
|Description       = <!-- FOR EXAMPLE: Cover to '''New X-Men #114''',<br /> July, 2001. -->
|Source            = <!-- EITHER IT'S A SCAN OR IT'S FROM A LINK -->
|Portion           = <!-- EITHER A COVER OR A PANEL OR ARTWORK -->
|Purpose           = Image is used for purposes of illustration in the above-named article,
 a subject of public interest.
|Resolution        = Small size unsuitable to use for high quality reproduction
|Replaceability    = Image is protected by copyright, therefore a free use alternative won't exist.
|other_information = Although the picture is originally copyright, it is covered by fair use because: 
# It is a low resolution copy of a comic book cover, hence, only a small portion of the commercial 
product; 
# The use of the image will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's 
rights or ability to sell or distribute the original comic book;
# Copies of this image could not be used to make illegal copies of the comic book; 
# The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of topics in the article. For a 
visual medium such as comic books, words alone cannot adequately describe the subject;
}}

Please help. Hiding T 21:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK... NOW I know how to do it.  ;) I'll try to find some time for that before another chunk of them get deleted. BOZ (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

::I may not be able to do much after all - our internet's down at home, and I don't expect to have a lot of time while at work today. We'll see, though. BOZ (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC) - or, maybe it's just fine after all. ;) BOZ (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, so the {{Pryde of the X-Men }} template was deleted, but it still appears on all the articles. Anyone know how to get a bot to remove that? BOZ (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Can the bot be se to look for "{{Pryde of the X-Men}}"? - J Greb (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Or... manually through this? - J Greb (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

AWB is fast. Doczilla (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So it is! :) Now I see another problem, the Template:Marvel Universe is acting up, and people are starting to remove it as a result. (see Doctor Strange and Gorgon (comics)).BOZ (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Got rid of the underscore and the CR. The <noinclude> needed to go immediatly after the text. - J Greb (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know which of these is the correct spelling?

• Anomaloco
• Anomalito

Both seem to be about the same thing.

= J Greb (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A relatively new editor has moved the page and removed all text relating to the original Changeling, ignoring all the previous discussion on the Talk page. 207.229.140.148 (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In regards to articles in which multiple characters share a single title (ex: Batgirl, Supergirl, Robin) would it be better to adjust these articles to list format focusing on publication history rather than fictional character biography? I was thinking it might be more appropriate to model these articles after Alternate versions of Superman.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while I would welcome a way to fold the AVs of Batgirl, Robin, and Supergirl back, the "DABs as articles" are a bit more complicated than that. Atom (comics) and Ray (comics) are prime examples: cases where one or more FCBs will only be on the DAB. And these are sections that aren't large enough to split off into separate articles. - J Greb (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest a bold merger of some of these pages. I would also like to stress some articles like Jason Todd (which I've referenced) and Barbara Gordon have been able to become decent stand-alone articles that focus on the real-world notability of these characters. I guess what I'm saying is: if you can't think of anything to say about the character aside from what's in the comics themselves, they should probably merged to an appropriate article or list. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Barrier posted a request by Dana Gabbard at his website, concerning the Little Lulu writer and artist John Stanley. Here it is as follows:

I am trying to put together an entry on comic book writer John Stanley for wikipedia, and I need the aid of some fans who have details about his career. My first attempt to seek aid, a request in a fanzine for Stanley fans, garnered no response. Maybe one of the readers of this site may be willing to help.

Dana can be reached at dgabbard@hotmail.com. Thank you! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:FICT has been revised

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [5] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)

There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). While comics don't have episodes, the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (serial works) would likely cover comics and other works released in a series, so I thought I should mention this here as well. -- Ned Scott 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, when you think about it, comic books very much do have episodes so to speak. Instead of episodes though, we call them issues - some long-running titles do have several hundred issues, so really comic books do work a lot like TV shows. Much like most individual TV episodes (note that I say most; some TV episodes are apparently notable enough to be Featured Articles), most individual comic book issues, storylines, and mini-series are not notable enough for their own articles. So, in a sense, you're right to bring this here because it does apply. Thanks!  :) BOZ (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you guys follow tv articles, but a few editors have redirected 1,000s or 10,000s of articles in the last year. It's coming to comics, and it will remove probably 95% to 99% of our character articles unless the arb com does something that I doubt they will do. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And? What's the problem with that? If these articles fail our policies (only plot summary, in-universe, no secondary sources, ...), it would be a good thing that they get redirected, merged, or even deleted. The comics project not only had the opinion that articles on individual episodes / issues should be avoided unless they were clearly notable and had independent out-of-universe information, but, contrary to the TV episodes people, they have also (with very few lapses) followed this. Fram (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If that's how you like it, that's up to you. It's basically a preference, although it's only guidelines and not policies that the articles are failing, or cannot be prevented from failing with a little bit of work. If you think we've followed it with few lapses, then maybe you'll be surprisesd when 90-95% of the articles that you think are OK are taken out. You're idea of what is acceptable is going to be very different from what happens. WP:FICT has a rewrite going right now where even if an article passes WP:N, it's not deemed acceptable. My guess is that Superman, Spiderman, and the like will obviously be safe. Articles like Man Thing and Howard the Duck will squeek by since they've had movies made. Characters like Jubilee, Gambit, Beast Boy and others will by merged into lists such as List of X-Men and List of Teen Titans. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't think it is going to go that far and I would oppose that. I think we're fairly united in our approach here in the comics project and we can usually come to some consensus that would avoid seeing the approach you suggest taking shape. I think most of us agree that where the issue lies is with articles on really minor characters, individual Morlocks with one appearance and so on. When there's enough to write an encyclopedic article about a character I think we should let that be written. I don't want to hand out fiats or start creating notability guidance, because then it becomes a page that gets argued over. Instead we should just focus on the content. I'd oppose any notability guidance which would be placed above any consensus Wikipedians decided. Hiding T 10:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, fairly lengty response...) We have followed it with very few lapses wrt issues, not characters. As for policies vs. guidelines: WP:NOT and WP:V are two policies where these articles run into problems, and WP:N is only a guideline, but it is quite an essential one. I have no problem at all with seeing most of the characters pages gone, by the way. We very rarely should have one, and I have deliberately not created any (as far as I remember). A page like Handy Smurf is quite ridiculous and offers nothing of value to an encyclopedia. If we focus on articles on artists, publishers, magazines, and series (or individual publications for graphic novels and so on), we will be able to have a fairly thorough, in depth, well sourced, reliable coverage of the whole comics field. Those people who then want plot summaries, character descriptions, ... can go to specific wiki's which are better suited for these things and which don't aim to be an encyclopedia, a tertiary source of verifiable facts from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Not everything can and should be included in Wikipedia. Our most popular pages have to do with sex, news, and pop culture. But we don't change our core policies and requirements to become more of a porn site, news site or fan site. Our aim should not be to maximize the audience but to do the thing we set out to be, an encyclopedia, as good as possible. Fram (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My feelings on this are that comics are different from television, and that if anybody attempts to port the consensus of television directly to comics, well, we'll see how well they do, but if their attempts are foolish they can be opposed then. Certainly I have taken a dim view at A Beautiful Sunset of the attempt to create an article on a one-issue story in the Buffy Season 8 series, on the grounds that the logic of the Buffy WikiProject where every episode has an article does not inherently port to every individual story in the comics having an article. Season 8 or not, Buffy is comics now, and articles on individual issues are rare.

On the other hand, if somebody attempted to merge frequently appearing characters who never had their own series, I would take an equally dim view of it. List of minor characters in Lost is a very different thing than List of minor characters in X-Men, and while, say, Longshot may not have much of a life outside of the X-Men, the fact of the matter is that with 20 years of stories about him he's too big a topic to cram into a list article. And that's something that people, should they try to bring these issues to comics, will have to deal with - comics come out on a very, very different timescale than television, and have a very different image of what a fictional world is.

But that, I think, is a bridge that should be crossed when it is come to. As it stands the serial fiction guidelines are being written with nothing other than television in mind, and I don't know that the discussions will go any smoother if this fact is challenged. Let them come up with a rule for television. If it works well for comics, we'll apply it. If it doesn't, television isn't comics, and no consensus for its use will form. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason I got involved with Wikipedia in the first place is because I could find information about characters who are not as well known as Spider-Man, Superman, and Batman. I'm not even talking about Morlocks with only one appearance; I'm talking about characters like Blink who has hundreds of issues, but would be deleted because of possible changes. I am strongly opposed to merging a bunch of random characters into a list article that barely has a thread tying them together. Wikipedia will be greatly degraded if articles are deleted and/or merged because notability outside of the comic is necessary. There are some HUGE comic book articles that would be deleted because they have never made it into a movie. -Freak104 (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It is unlikely that characters who have hundreds of issues worth of appearances will be merged back to articles which have no thread tying them together. And if it does become an issue, then we'll just have to demonstrate where the consensus lies. At the discussions over the guidance there was discussion over letting WikiProjects who are active in maintaining articles work up their own approaches. I tend to think that if we stick to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV as our guiding lights, then there is no need for any further guidance, since all the guidance is supposed to reiterate those policies. And the policies certainly have stronger consensus than the guidance. As Phil says though, don't worry about it, it's a bridge that should be crossed when it is come to. Hiding T 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Rauj16 and myself seem to be a logger heads over this article.

Here is his version:

• [6]

and this is my version:

• [7]

Here is the conversation we've had so far:

User talk:Rauj16#My edit to Vulcan (Marvel Comics)

User talk:Stephen Day#Your edit to Vulcan (Marvel Comics)

Any help with this would be appreciated.

The edit summary for his last revert states that he is awaiting consensus. I think he wants a conversation on the article's talk page. I've created a new section there for the conversation. Stephen Day (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen the term shared universe used in a comic book character article before. I don't really know all the technical jargon when it comes to certain aspects of media, like low fantasy or high fantasy and all that. I'd never really heard of shared universe before, or maybe I have and just didn't really think anything about it. However, the term's accurate and taught me a little something I didn't know before. It's the addition of another term, two words in fact, there's nothing complicated about it. Some won't click on the link and some will just like every single other article on Wikipeida. I don't see what the problem is.Odin's Beard (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

For those interested, it looks like User:Freak104 has left Wikipedia - it looks like this stemmed from general frustration with notability guidelines and deletionists, with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Negative as the apparent camel's back-breaking straw. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Comicraft and Blambot were both deleted through the proposed deltion process. I have restored them, since I think they at least warrant an afd and in the case of Comicraft I think a redirect would have been preferable to deletion. I'd appreciate any help people can offer in fixing up the articles or watching the pages, or opinions to the contrary. Hiding T 16:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I read both of them. It would be interesting to learn more about Comicraft, but this sounded like an advertisement. Zoli79 (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at Comicraft, and tried to address that with some history, notable works, etc. ntnon (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, we've got a full out speculative article thanks to crystal balling at Trinity (DC Comics).

An editor has moved the article that was there in favor of speculation about the yet-to-be-title weekly to follow Final Crisis. It's been PRODed, but it may go AFD.

Also, the same editor is in the process of tagging for a yet-to-be-created cat Weekly comics. So far holding 52, Countdown, "Trinity", and 2000 AD.

- J Greb (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no problems here - the weekly exists and has verifiable information about it. The Matt Wagner series is clearly notable. And weekly comics is a fine category. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually Phil, the major problem is how this was done —

1. The weekly hasn't been published yet, so it's, of the three (I'll get back to this), the lesser item.
2. The new article, as written, is minimizing, if not trivializing the older material to emphasize a future series.
3. By convention, the article that was moved should have been added to. For examples see Countdown to Infinite Crisis and Countdown to Final Crisis both are titled by convenience (what will likely be searched for) not the legal title of the publication. The concession being that this is addressed in the lead. The Green Lantern/Darkstar/L.E.G.I.O.N. limited series and arc follows the same logic.

What we are left with is a harder to find existing article, and a new article that is an exercise in "recentism" — focusing on the current and future material while minimizing or neglecting the previous. - J Greb (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a toss-up - a minor character, a vanity project by a respected creator, or an upcoming weekly by two respected creators. Ideally we'd just make a disambiguation page at Trinity (comics) and make the three articles separate. But of the three, I do expect that for the next year or two, the weekly is going to be what most people are thinking they'll get if they search on Trinity (comics). Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Not the character Phil, DC Universe: Trinity. A relatively hyped weekly story arc that ran through DC's "space" themed (Green Lantern v3, Darkstars, and L.E.G.I.O.N.) books in 1993 with a self-titled "bookend" mini. Arguably the title of the arc is "Trinity".

I like the idea of a secondary dab — the primary is at Trinity (disambiguation) with the comics refed at Trinity (disambiguation)#Literature. If it goes that way though, 4 DC articles would break down as:

• Trinity (comics) - the character
• Trinity (story arc) - the `93 story
• Batman/Superman/Wonder Woman: Trinity - the full title of Wagner's series
• Trinity (comic book) - the weekly

- J Greb (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That's probably best, yes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

We need a serious analysis of why we have so few GA and FA articles. I think we need to develop a checklist of key problems which may affect comics articles in ways that may not plague other topics. Here are two three four that come to my mind off the top of my head:

1. Conflicting histories. Just try explaining Batman's biography to outsiders given all the changes it's undergone over the decades.

2. Alternate versions. We started developing Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Character alternate version guidelines. The discussion, which had swelled to fill so much of this talk page, slowed down once we carried it over to the talk page for the guidelines.

3. Due to the complexities of fictional character biographies, we don't follow the standard guidelines for writing about fiction. It's not realistic to think we can, but that still interferes with getting outsiders to look at our work and give it the seal of approval.

4. Content keeps changing. Little Women is Little Women and Jo isn't doing much these days for fans to keep updating. As some users noted in a previous related discussion, articles about older characters who aren't doing much these days may offer our best hope.

I'll admit that my own work on item #2 got postponed when I broke my arm. Typing paragraphs is still hard on me. I can edit a lot using programs like VP and AWB, but even typing this right now hurts. Anyway, I wanted to throw this out there for consideration. I'd love to see a much longer GA and FA list. We've certainly gotten people with plenty of enthusiasm. Let's direct it into something bigger. Doczilla (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

By the bullets...

1. That shouldn't hinder an FA or GA. Hell, the example you cite is an FA. Hitting the bench marks has, or should have, more to how the information is presented (grammar, article structure, sourcing, neutrality, etc) than with the content.
2. The AV situation needs to be sorted since a lot of it could be viewed as purely trivia. That's content that is hard to get past a GA or FA.
3. Care to elaborate on that one? I'd think it wouldn't be too hard to keep the plot summaries (which is what a FCB is) down, even with complex, still in use characters.
4. I'd say growing, not changing. Since the characters are still in use, "stuff happens", both in the real world and in the stories. If we are looking at this as it appears we should, ie real world context first, then the bulk of the content for articles should not change. As a "For instance": If DC ultimately losses the rights to Superboy, that becomes a new part of the various articles. It doesn't mean that we have to go back and strip out real world context and information just because DC no longer owns the character. As far as "in story" things... take "One More Day". If we're keeping the summaries minimal, that story just means a restructure to the article, not a removal of what no longer happened. That last may grate on some, but remember, this is a general use encyclopedia, not a bible to the DC or Marvel universes, or any others for that matter. Other Wikia have more or less stepped into those roles. Let's focus on the real world contexts.

- J Greb (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I've suggested deprecating the exemplars somewhat, instead adopting Wikipedia:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles) with obvious modifications for comic and animation articles, or looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Style_guidelines, Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy/Manual of style or Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines for pointers on how to move forwards on guiding our articles towards the GA FA route. I don't think the exemplars do it any more, standards have changed on Wikipedia. I appreciate this point is somewhat tangential, but at the same time it's not. An alternative versions sub-section would be appropriate in a profile section, but shouldn't get too long, and should only be split out when there's material which would allow an encyclopedic article to be split out. Anyway, feel free to work-shop the draft I've bashed up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance. Hiding T 00:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There are three main problems I see: overemphasis on fictional context, unfamiliarity with available reference material, and lack of understanding on how to write a decent article. Every time I work on a comics article I run into these problems, and it does become frustrating. Sinestro Corps War is what a GA should look like according to Wikipedia standards. Hulk (comics) is not, and frankly I'm embarassed by it. There is also just a general lack of initiative on improving articles. Most of the time what I see is the addition of plot details from the latest issues, rather than improving the prose or adding reference material from reliable sources. Compare Jack Sparrow or Jason Voorhies to your average comics character article and you'll see the vast disparity in quality. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I've been doing a little work on Spider-Man: One More Day and have been gathering references to do further work on it. With the coverage it received it could definitely be a GA and possibly an FA. I should point out I haven't read the individual issues (because, c'mon, the plot was insanely stupid), but that might be a good thing when it comes to writing about it. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to deal with this myself, but I thought I'd point out that Asgardian is still deleting large chunks of articles. For example, [8], where you can see the article size has reduced from 20k to 6k. Also [9], where it's gone from 6k to 2.5k and there's no edit summary, no matter about a confusing one. This surely can't be right. He also keeps deleting the tie-in issue lists, I don't know if there's a policy regarding these but I for one find them useful and have asked him to stop before. I explained my difficulties with his methodology to him here, and suggested a better way of working, but he seems to be carrying on regardless and if others like me feel his methodology isn't great, then I'd like their support in trying to do something about it. As I said though I don't have time to deal with this myself - rst20xx (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the last week or so's worth of edits I can only see 4 or 5 worrisome points:

• The Secret Wars edit you point to. And to be honest, the edit seems to be well intentioned: the toy tie-in push is important to the real world context of why the series came about.
• The Contest of Champions edit which was a revert to an annom that used Asgardian's "Tidy up" summary for the original gut.
• The Heralds of Galactus edit, though that's more of "I like this non-standard image better than that one" type.
• The Quicksilver edit which is essentially a fall back to his last edit of the page, all be it more than a week later.
• His insistence on using cryptic short hand for his image uploads. Maybe comics insiders can sus out what they are, if the image is next to the text. Lord help anyone else though. And this is with the uploads screen being clear about what is and isn't acceptable as file names.

- J Greb (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

See here for Asgardian's reply, and my next reply to Asgardian - rst20xx (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Would one of the admins associated with this project care to take a look at Changeling (Marvel Comics) and Morph (Marvel Comics) and weigh in with what is needed? Protection is due to expire in a day or two and, without looking too closely, I suspect there may need to be some history merging. Pairadox (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest merging Morph into an article about Exiles cast members. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There's already several sections discussing the merge at Talk:Changeling (Marvel Comics); I don't think yet another thread about which way the merge should happen needs to be started here. Pairadox (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a suggestion you can use over there. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow... In case you hadn't heard already, I just happened to be browing the Steve Gerber article, and it seems he passed away this weekend. BOZ (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

WAUUUGGGHHHHHHH!!!! Wotta revoltin' development. The guy was unique. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The following articles were put up for PROD yesterday: Skulk‎, Jade Nova‎, Shatterstarfire‎, All-Star Winners Squadron‎, The Whiz (comics)‎, Sgt. Rock (Amalgam Comics)‎, Iron Lantern‎, Challengers of the Fantastic‎, Lobo the Duck‎, Generation Hex (comics)‎, Bat-Thing‎, X-Patrol‎, Spider-Boy‎, Speed Demon (comics)‎, Magneto (Amalgam Comics)‎, Thanoseid‎, Ultra-Metallo‎, Green Skull‎, Super-Soldier‎, Dark Claw‎, Doctor Strangefate‎, Judgment League Avengers‎, Catsai‎, Dare The Terminator‎, Green Guardsman‎. I thought the consensus for Amalgam characters was merge, not delete? (Some of the prods may have been removed, but some are definitely still there; I did not check all.) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

After a discussion with the editor who prodded them, confirming that his intention was to find someplace to merge them, I have deprodded them all. I have no particular knowledge or interest in the subject, but it is pretty obvious that at least some of these articles cannot stand on their own, and those who know how to merge them should do so. My guess is that they are very likely to be very soon put up for AfD--it is generally politic to try to improve them first, if that is possible & desirable.DGG (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of them are still prodded. BOZ (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Never fear, I took care of the last three. 207.229.140.148 (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

CfD for reference.

While I fully understand the closure as G4 (and had been prepared to speedy it for those reasons), as I noted in the disucssion, I'd like this to be re-discussed, and here is probably as good a place as any. (I considered opening a discussion at CfD, a I've seen others do, but this should, hopefully, be fine.)

I think that the GLC isn't so much a "super-team", like the Justice League, or the Avengers, but an intergalactic police force. Just as police may have symbols and tools of their trade, so too do the Green Lanterns. Even the Legion of Super-Heroes doesn't match up to this, as the GLC is more comparable to the Science Police than to the Legion. The same goes for the Global Guardians. A group of heroes/superheroes who join a team.

That aside, one of the main rationales for deeming that Navboxes were better for team memberships than categories was "category clutter" at the bottom of the page, due to Superheroes changing groups. That isn't the issue here, especially since most (almost all) of these characters are only Green Lanterns, and those who join teams, with very few exceptions (Green Man and at one point, Hal Jordan) remain Green Lanterns even while members of some other team.

I've been trying to think of anything comparable from other publishers, and all I can think of at the moment is another DC creation (an obvious GLC spin-off) the Darkstars.

The Sentinels from Marvel maybe? They seem more like DC's robotic Manhunters. Few named, usually spies/undercover, with it mostly about the robots.

At the moment, the best example I can think of is G. I. Joe.

Anyway, I'd like others' thoughts on this. - jc37 09:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Observations:

1. Otto had brought up a good point: most major comic book teams, at some point, have or had quasi-law enforcement or military status - JLA, JSA, Avengers, All-Star Squadron, Youngblood, Stormwatch, Checkmate, Suicide Squad, etc. A fair number have also treated membership as a paid profession - Avengers, Youngblood, Stormwatch, Checkmate, etc.
2. The Legion does have parallels to the GLC, though it is a lot stronger in some of the reboot stories. One of the strongest elements in all three versions is that the Legion is a law enforcement agency.
3. As a category, it does collect characters that fall outside the "force" - Alan Scott and Jade. Both fit for purposes of an list article where inclusion can be explained, but not in a cat.
4. Most of the GLs between "Emerald Twilight" and "Rebirth" had migrated to the Darkstars. And yes, if the GLC is a viable cat, so is that one. And "Alpha Lanterns" looks like it likely will be as well.

I'm not adverse to including the GLC and Darkstar characters as "Fictional police officers" (like the GI Jo characters should be under "Fictional soldiers"). But a separate cat... not the best solution. - J Greb (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In order:

• Just being "deputised", as it were, isn't what I'm looking at, especially as most heroes are, at one time or other, as a plot device, or even as a result of "super-heroics" (consider Superman, for example). In most cases these are superhoeroes who happen to also be deputised. It's not a sense of who the character is, it's just what's also happened as a result. The GLC members, on the other hand...
• I disagree slightly due to the above, but then I also think the LSH (Note I'm talking about the 30th century. L.E.G.I.O.N. is a whole other thing...) might also be an exception due to being fairly distinct. (Most of the members have only been members of the LSH, with the LsubH, being an alternative. And of course, Rond Vidar, who happens to be a Green Lantern : )
• Jade (well, actually...), Alan Scott, The Emerald Empress, the Floronic Man, Thom Kalmaku, and anyone else who has been "touched by the green" are not members of the GLC (though most of those have been supporting characters from one time or other).
• Sure.
• Well if they were all placed in Fictional police officers, I'd immediately suggest subcategorisation due to the size of the sub-group(s) : )

Any other thoughts? - jc37 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to be skeptical of in-universe categorizations, but on the other hand tend to think that a number of team-based categorizations are useful ways of organizing topics. What seems to me relevant is less the nature of the Green Lantern Corps as a fictional entity (it's a fictional entity, and that makes it largely a poor choice for categorization to me) than its status as a particular cultural institution. A category consisting not only of characters but Green Lantern titles, major creators, etc. would make a lot of sense. A category of "members of this fictional organization" does not. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I could see the categorization, if there weren't an extant list which served the same purpose. Having said that, I do think Phil's idea above of including titles, creators and whatnot would probably be a better one, although there would almost certainly be a disagreement fairly quickly about who qualified as a "major" creator. John Carter (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Two problems:

1. Consensus through CfD has been that cats aren't for collecting characters, regardless of what else is in the cat. Mainly this has been hit on with supporting characters and foes, but it has also hit teams (the Legion cat hit this one).
2. Consensus through CfD has also been against writers and artists being catted as a variation of "Performer by performance".

It's going to be very hard to buck those, especially since this project had a strong hand in the first. - J Greb (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I rather strongly disagree with saying "Consensus through CfD has been that cats aren't for collecting characters, regardless of what else is in the cat."

We have quite a few "Fictional Xs".

And I'm suggesting that the GLC is one more, and isn't a "Super-team" as generally defined. It's more comparable to a police or military force, rather than a super-hero team. - jc37 07:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me re-phrase that — the CfDs that have concerned publication titles or character/team names have thrown out supporting characters, foes, and team members. The "Fictional 'profession'" cats have been a sore point for some editors due to cartoon characters like Mickey, but those have never gotten past the grumbling stage. - J Greb (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I would strongly support listifying all character (and location, and equipment, for that matter) categories. (And would love to see some guidelines created to that effect). But that's not the situation we have now. I'm just following the apparent current convention, and based on that, I think that it's incorrect to lump the GLC, and other uniformed "forces", with the Super-teams. - jc37 21:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than get into a pointless edit war, I've decided to ask around because maybe I am wrong. Who drew this image: Jack Kirby, John Byrne, or someone else? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd wager on Byrne... it looks like a scan and cut from one of the bound OHOTMU. - J Greb (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and it's the one currently on Doctor Doom's page. BOZ (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No way that's Kirby - the perspective is too realistic, and the pose too non-dramatic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly looks more like this than this. Could conceivably be Terry Austin (there's a portfolio Doom at the MarvelDatabase), though. The MarvelDatabase seems very poorly credited. ntnon (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

hrm... I'd say the spread on the Byrne official site is enough to justify yanking the image in question — can't use the OHOTMU pics. - J Greb (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with Byrne. The legs look very Byrne. Hiding T 14:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is Byrne, then. But why can't we use pics from the Marvel Handbook? Fair use is fair use. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use is indeed fair use which is why we can't use images from the Marvel Handbook. We are directly infringing on the purpose. If you have a look at policy on image use, the second point is that Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media. The Marvel Handbook is an encyclopedia/guide/reference work, something we are as well. Therefore we using it exactly in a manner which replaces the market role of the original image, namely to illustrate an encyclopedic article on the character. This point of policy is based upon the fourth point of the fair use doctrine enshrined in US legislation in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107, specifically that the factors to be considered includes the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. I hope that clarifies why fair use law means we cannot use these images. Hiding T 20:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

←Well, then by all means delete it and find a representative pic of Doom. David Fuchs ^(talk) 02:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In what issues were the first appearances of the JLA teleporter pre-Crisis and post-Crisis? Who invented it or what technology was it based on, again, pre-Crisis and post-Crisis? I figured I'd have a better chance of getting an answer asking here rather than on the Reference Desk, since this is really specialized knowledge. Thanks. —Lowellian (reply) 17:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No answers? C'mon, someone must know... (I've now crossposted the questions to Talk:Justice League as well.) —Lowellian (reply) 19:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the DC Database [10], they don't have an article for it, so I don't know where you'd find that info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So Betacommandbot has apparently tagged some 17,000 images over the last couple of days. I'm tired of seeing perfectly valid images disappear just because some bot has decided that what was good a year ago isn't today. Enough so, that I'm willing to break my long standing prohibition against dealing with images and try to update some of them myself. So what new documentation do I need to provide? An example with a diff would be good. Pairadox (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

One issue that triggers the bot is that it can invoke WP:NFCC#10c, when it sees that the rationale is missing a declared article link which maches exactly the "File links" found at the bottom. A spelling error or omission of parenthesis, or if the image has moved location, article changed name etc. the bot has cause to tag "invalid rationale". Here's a functional diff [11] Thanks for breaking prohibition. MURGH ^disc. 22:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• We have a list of comic related images needing rationales at User:Hiding/no-rationale. I think User:GentlemanGhost and anon User:204.153.84.10 would appreciate any help. That the list is so small is in no small way testament to them. Hiding T 13:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I will agree that any help is appreciated - It's fairly time consuming, and I don't always have the time to make to get to it. Plus, a lot of these images won't last long if they don't get a FUR in time. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Since there is a comparative lack of FAs and GAs in the project (and some of the current FAs and GAs are creaky and aren't of the best quality), I'd like to help push along the effort to increase the number of quality articles in the project. I've written or co-written six Featured Articles in the last year, and helped four articles pass FAR. There are some tactics involved in writing FAs that are useful in any field, be it comics or music, poltiics or science, and so forth.

The key to creating more FA and GA comics articles is sources. The main kinds of sources of use for this project are: books about the history of comics, coverage by mainstream media (newspapers like The New York Times or news websites like CNN.com or BBC.co.uk), peer-review academic papers, reviews and article by reputable comics press (The Comics Journal, Alter Ego), documentaries and special features on comics-related video releases (I hear the documentary feature on the animated Superman: Doomsday DVD is pretty good), and behind-the-scenes extras in comics (typically in trade paperback collections).

There's a couple essential books that should be tracked down if you want to write a comics article (I'll add more sources as they occur to me):

• Comic Book Nation by Bradford Wright - This is a sociological study of the relationship between comic books and American culture. Started as the author's thesis. This is an excellent source because it utilizes footnotes indiciting the author's sources, something sorely lacking in most comics-related articles. Covers all the big points: the birth of comic books, Superman, World War II, EC, the Comics Code, the "Marvel Age", Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns, the rise of the direct market.
• Various comic book histories by Les Daniels - Daniels has written histories of both Marvel and DC Comics, and he has written comprehensive histories for Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. I see the last three books in practically every major bookstore I visit, and they should be the definitive sources and primary point-of-reference for any article having to do with Superman, Batman, or Wonder Woman and their supporting characters.
• Superheroes: A Modern Mythology by Richard Reynolds - Exactly what it says. If you're writing an article on a major superhero or mabye just working on Superhero, this is a useful source for critical analysis.

Just as important as familiarizing yourselves with print sources is familiarizing yourselves with web sources. Your first stop should not be comics blogs or message boards. Your first stop should be mainstream media sources. Of course comics don't get a lot of coverage there, but whatever you can find will be the most valuable. Websites you want to search for information at are nytimes.com, time.com, cnn.com, msnbc.com, bbc.co.uk, guardian.co.uk, usatoday.com, and EW.com. There are also a few sites like findarticles.com where you can search for articles (although you might have to pay for them). Once those are exhausted, move on to the major comics news sources: newsarama.com, comicbookresources.com, tcj.com, and ign.com. Sales/order figures can be found at the other sources, along with publishersweekly.com. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You can use google to search comics related news sites as well. Using Wolverine as an example: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&hs=gGu&q=site%3Asilverbulletcomics.com+wolverine&btnG=Search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&hs=FwE&q=site%3Acomicbookresources.com+wolverine&btnG=Search . You can also get rid of forum hits like this http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&hs=JIu&q=site%3Acomicbookresources.com+wolverine+-forums&btnG=Search . This can be a good way to find reliable articles on less famous comics characters. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've got on my book shelf above the computer the following works: Brian Walker's the comics which is bloody good for comic strips, as well as Les Daniels' Sixty Years of the World's Favourite Comic Book Heroes, Martin Barker's Comics: Ideology, power and the critics, Garriock's Masters of Comic Art, Charles Hatfield's Alternative Comics, the Varnum/Gibbons edited The Language of Comics, Pictures and Words by Ronnie Bell and Mark Sinclair, Dangerous Drawings a book of interviews, Strips, Toons and Bluesies by Dowd and Hignite, Graphic Novels and Great British Comics by Paul Gravett, The Penguin Book of Comics, The Essential Guide to World Comics, the Masters of American Comics book which accompanied the recent exhibition and Roger Sabin's Adult Comics and Comics, Comix and Graphic Novels. I also have a complete run of Comics Journals back to 235 and patchy coverage back to 67, as well as a number of Alan Moore (less so) and (mostly) Grant Morrison interviews. I also have access to a UK newspaper library which goes back to the mid nineties. So if anyone ever needs anything that they might cover, feel free to ping me on my talk page. Hiding T 14:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy of the Slings and Arrows guide? That would be useful for some of the "lesser" series. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You'd also want anything published in ImageTexT, which is here. There's also, offline, the International Journal of Comic Art and The Comics Journal, both of which are quite good. (ImageTexT is unique among the three in that it is a peer-reviewed academic journal - IJOCA only has editorial review, and The Comics Journal is neither peer-reviewed nor academic as such.) Geoff Klock has a decent book called How to Read Superhero Comics and Why. The Umberto Eco article on Superman is great, and only has a sentence about it in Superman. There's a good history of Milestone Comics by Jeffrey Brown that isn't cited in that article at all. Pete Coogan has a book that I'm shamefully blanking on the title of. And Danny Fingeroth's ouvre would be a great resource. Off of superheroes, Charles Hatfield's Alternative Comics is a milestone text. Trina Robbins has some great histories of women in comics, though I'm not sure how many are in print. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Also, in the past we have thrown together sources which are currently compiled at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References in the past. There might be more scattered around the place, but the contents keep changing. :) Might be worth updating with this stuff. Hiding T 18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Second that. It's hard to find sources for minor subjects without running into useless stuff. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

On the Scanlation page I was surprised that scanlations are associated with fan translations of manga. I started an argument on its talk page, because I believe theoretically it could refer to all kinds of fan translations, but the discussion ended with no conclusion. Since that page belongs to the anime/manga WP, I thought I would bring up the issue over here. Zoli79 (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's up for deletion! BOZ (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I recently removed the WikiProject Films from the Batgirl article, although now, I'm not sure I should have. I can understand having it a part of the Batman article, considering Batman has numerous film adapations, however, for other characters such as Batgirl, or Poison Ivy or Mr. Freeze, who have only one feature film adaptation and who are supporting characers in said films- I'm not sure if they should be considered part of WikiProject Films. Any thought? I may post this question at WikiProject Films as well.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You were right to remove her from WikiProject Films. They can't lay claim to every character that ever wandered through any film ever made. Heck, she was on TV more than she (different Batgirl anyway) was ever in any movie. Doczilla _RAWR! 08:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up thought: It's not like they lay claim to every single historical figure who ever appeared on film. Doczilla _RAWR! 08:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's a good point. Consider how often George Washington or Davy Crockett appeared in Tomahawk (comics), and other such historical figures who have appeared in comics. I'm also thinking about Bob Hope or Martin and Lewis, who also appeared in comics. (And if you're looking for fictional film characters, how about James Bond, or any movie adaptation.) - jc37 15:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There may be a degree of "What's the article about?" that should be asked. The articles Jc points to each have multiple topics/projects that apply to those specific subject. None of which are comics.

That should work the same way for film and television - If the article is about a film or show based on a comic, or the title character of such a film, then seeing a Film or TV project tag makes sense. (There are also examples like Blue Beetle where the article covers a radio show, so Radio WikiProject tagged it.) Secondary characters, especially when the "In other media" section has been split off, doesn't make sense. Tag the OIM since it's more relevant and be done with it.

And that doesn't even get into some of the really weird cross-taggings out there — Tigra by Cats and Chicago, Sunfire by the Shinto tf, Wolfsbane by Dogs, Blue Beetle (Jaime Reyes) by Texas, Aquaman by Cryptozoology, and so on. (I've also seen Parapsychology and King Arthur tags).- J Greb (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For what little it's worth, though, I remember seeing somewhere a picture of an Atlantean from before Aquaman's time which the first character was seemingly modeled on, including the "fins" on the calves. If I can ever find that image again, or a statement indicating that the character was perhaps derived from that model, that would certainly be useful. John Carter (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A few images I've uploaded have been queried for fair use. The copyright owner, Rebellion, has given explicit permission for all such images to be used. This is the second or third time these images have been queried. Frankly, I don't care enough to get into the whole mess again, but maybe a standard for fair use could be agreed and applied and kept to for longer than a few months? Vizjim (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Scroll up a little to the "Out of control bot" heading. :) BOZ (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't apparently want images where we have been given explicit permission anymore, sadly. I think this was a policy change from either the board or Jimbo, because it affected commercial re-users of our material who may not have the permission. So all images have to comply with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria period. I hope that explains a little better what is going on and why. I too have added images and gotten permission from Rebellion, I have even notified the foundation, but as far as Wikipedia is now concerned, that's no longer necessary or relevant. Hiding T 14:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And I thought that my country (Hungary) has the most impossible bureaucracy. :D Zoli79 (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need to do favors for commercial re-users?--Drvanthorp (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ask the community. Best place would be at Wikipedia:Image use policy: Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted on sight. (my emphasis). I don't understand the point myself, but that's apparently the consensus, since it is the policy. Hiding T 17:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a prod tag on this article, as it does not seem notable enough for inclusion. I wanted to mention it here, though, in case anyone has an interest in the article. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The misspelling is the icing on the cake. Should be deleted due to WP:CRYSTAL and spam/advert concerns. David Fuchs ^(talk) 02:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to concur. Could probably be speedied, even, due to being Original Research. BOZ (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It qualified for speedy on several grounds, such as the fact that it existed only to disparage its subject matter. And now that sucker is gone. Doczilla _RAWR! 04:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Although it should be noted, a discussion of upcoming Marvel events is not inherently a problem in our articles, the main problem here is that it is an article with a 10 month lifespan before it no longer makes sense as an article topic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Best place for this sort of stuff would be 2008 in comics. They are hard work and I gave up updating 2006 in comics somewhere in July that year, but they can be useful and maintained reasonably well. In fact, maybe all members of the project could keep the year articles on their watchlist so that we can keep them encyclopedic and watch for obvious spamming? Hiding T 17:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A number of character pages have been merged into List of Spider-Man enemies and another is up for mergeing. Comments are welcome and encouraged at Talk:List of Spider-Man enemies -- 69.182.199.231 (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Heya.  :) Just figured that I would mention that I have added more articles to be assessed to the Marvel comics work group page, as well as a few more image requests to my Images page. :) BOZ (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I can file a Wikipedia:Bot requests to have all the articles at least tagged. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure - you mean the images or the assessments, or both?  :) BOZ (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm already trying to get a bot licensed to do this. Hiding T 14:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the bot account is now set up. I'll try and get it to sweep through and tag Marvel-related articles this week. Hiding T 01:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What's it going to do? BOZ (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's sweeping through Marvel Comics related categories tagging them as being within the Marvel comics work group. Have a look at the contributions at Comics-awb (talk · contribs). Hiding T 12:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I did see that already.  :) There might be a few stragglers out there without "Marvel Comics" cats, but I'll keep an eye on them. Will the bot retroactively tag an article if such a cat is added subsequently? BOZ (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It would have to be run to do so. I'll have to make up a list of categories through which it is safe to run it, and then that will make it easier. This first run I am doing each category somewhat separately, because of the way the amalgam and adaptation categories are categorised. Hiding T 13:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have a new editor, Loppy Thug who wants to help upload images. Anyone able to help him, for example with the Baron Mordo image he just uploaded? BOZ (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a Marvel Handbook image to me, and if it is, it should be deleted since we're infringing purpose and can't claim fair use. That's why for me any ambiguous image like that needs the physical comic from which it is scanned to show it isn't a handbook image. Hope that helps, Hiding T 23:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah - better to just let it get deleted then, I suppose. BOZ (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Input would be appreciated at Talk:Alternate versions of Wolverine. Myself and User:RossF18 are in dispute over how best to improve the article. Hiding T 20:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think any of these sorts of articles should exist. any sort of Out-of-continuity variation of a character should be discussed in the article on the relevant work (Why should the character of Batman in The Dark Knight Returns be discussed in a "Alternate versions of Batman" article when it is better served in its proper context at Batman: The Dark Knight Returns?). WesleyDodds (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

To a degree I agree with Wesley — the lists shouldn't be used in lieu of rounding out the other articles. Though the relevant articles include the article for the character, if the AV list has been split off for good reason.

That being said, the AV lists shouldn't be plot dumps or fan spec pieces. And the Wolvi one looks like its going that way. And my personal pref would be to see them structured by real world chronology since the publication order isn't subjective. Alphabetically is a good second choice if there is a cut and dried basis for dabing. But perceived importance is a bad way to go since we have to rank them. - J Greb (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason these articles exist is that they either get split off of the main article or they are the result of mergers. What's the best way to improve them then? What sort of plot detail should they include? Hiding T 11:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

My gut response is "almost none". The plot elements should be restricted to the articles on the story arcs. The AV list should just hit the Cliff's notes as to how each AV diverges or takes off from the primary version. It should also have a {{main}} or {{seealso}} in the section to route to the article on the article, if one exists.

With regard to the Wolvie article... there looks to be a fair chunk of most of the sections that should be removed, including what reads as fan spec . There is one split off that may need to be done — the Ultimate Wolvie. With the articles, in general, as they are right now, it is reasonable to create Wolverine (Ultimate) and condense the AV list section to a lead-style short section, - J Greb (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm increasingly of the opinion that "Alternate versions of . . ." articles should be actively discouraged by the project. This is because:

• Variations on the canonical version of the character are done in the context of stories or adaptations, and thus those version are best mentioned there. This assumes the character appears in a substantial role in the story/adaptation; if they are not important to the plot fo the story and are not discussed in secondary sources, they do not need to be discussed in detail in the article (or, if they appear for a few pages like Kingdom Come Aquaman, probably not at all).
• There is an assumption that the alternate versions of these characters are in themselves notable, when in virtually all instances it is the story/adaptation they appear in that is notable.
• These articles overemphasize the fictional context of the character (more precisely, they are inherently about how one version of the character differs from the "canonical" version according to in-story details), and lend themselves to excessive plot summaries and fan cruft.

Thoughts? WesleyDodds (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with you on a fundamental level, I believe such topics are being split from main articles which are too long as part of an effort to retain information rather than reduce articles. I have no strong feelings about this one way or another, just figured I'd mention that as being a major factor in why these are created in the first place. :) BOZ (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but by and large the information split off is essentially story detail, which should be kept to a minimum at the first place. I also maintain that discussion of the "alternate versions" is more adequately done at the story/adapation/media article, rather than one large character-based article. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The original category for comic book characters was Social Science and Society, which was then moved to Arts, now it appears "characters" have been moved yet again to Language and Literature under the Lit. sub category. Do we need to change all FA and GA comic related articles to been listed under L&L? Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In a word, no. I think you're talking about the project directory, and that's really just an index of the projects, not an "official" statement about what each project qualifies as. John Carter (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, its a little confusing, since there are two different categories for "characters." one is a sub-cat of the "arts" and one is of "Lit." Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There is an RfC regarding Demolition Man's status as a member of the Avengers at Talk:List of Avengers members#Demolition Man's status. John Carter (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I'll admit that when I first created this article, I didn't put a lot of work into it. However, I do feel that he is a significant character with notability, both for his historical appearances, and for his more recent ones (he's appearing in current issues of Marvel Comics Presents, for one). It got nominated for deletion today, so I've done my best to spruce it up - will try to do more, but not sure what more I can do. If there's anything you can add to make the article worth keeping, your efforts would be appreciated. :) BOZ (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that this user recently removed a whole host of Manga articles. The reason he states in his edit summaries that he feels the Comic:Project is redundant alongside the Manga/Anime:Project. I've just spent the past twenty minutes undoing this well meaning mistake and I'd appreciate any help. Stephen Day (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the Comics project is a parent of the Anime & Manga Wikiproject, isn't that the same as putting something in both a parent and a child category, resulting in overcategorization? --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 23:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there is such a thing as overcatagorization when it comes to Wiki:Projects. The more projects an article can be placed in means that there are more editors that can be potentially exposed to it. This can only benefit an article. Stephen Day (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The main flow of traffic that Wikiproject banners cause/are intended to cause is from the talk page to the projects, with the purpose being to give a link to a group of specific editors who will be knowledgeable and interested in the subject of the article so that people with questions about editing the article can find help.

By putting multiple project banners on a single talk page, not only do you make the talkpage ugly, long, and confusing to navigate, but you water down the utility of every banner on it to the intended audience, editors looking for help with the pages. --erachima formerly tjstrf 23:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no... Some articles will be of interest of multiple projects. A ready example of this are the creators bio articles, all fall under Comics and Biography, with some falling under specific places or specialty projects. Does it add to the header, yes, but there are templates that can be added when there's lot of valid tags to condense them.

With Stephen's comment below it looks like the Anime and Manga project came to a consensus that double tag was redundant. I can

see why, but then I can also see both tag being justifiable. - J Greb (talk) 01:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There are uses for double tags between projects with substantially different focuses, I grant you that. But in the specific case of manga and comics project tagging, the only times a double tag would seem applicable to me would be mangaka who also have published material with western comic companies. And the only author who jumps to my mind as having done that is Tsutomu Nihei, who's contributed to Wolverine and Halo comics in addition to manga. --erachima formerly tjstrf 02:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. User:TheFarix just informed me that there was a decision to not have articles be a part of both Projects. I wasn't aware of this and I apologize. Stephen Day (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just undid all of my edits in this regard, except one. I left the Comics tag on the discussion page of Manga outside Japan. After reading the article its clear that the focus of this article goes beyond the narrow scope of the Manga and Anime Project. I feel that that article needs both tags in its discussion page. Stephen Day (talk) 02:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The decision that the tags are redundant should have at least been mentioned here first before it was done because, after all, a separate project is removing this project's tags in huge numbers. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be redundant, since manga are comics after all. But in my opinion this brings up an important issue: why isn't the anime/manga project closely related to both the comics and cartoon projects? European comics for instance are workgroups within the comics workgroup, if you check out its banner you'll see a link to the comics project, while if you check out the banner of the anime/manga project, you will not see any links to comics nor cartoons. In my view this just reproduces the large barriers between western and eastern comics, seen in too many places outside WP. Zoli79 (talk) 09:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not an unreasonable conclusion - I have tended to use the Comic Project header on OEL manga as the Manga Project rejected them as not being manga enough to count. I do agree that some kind of consultation would have been best and also not having closer links with the anime/manga project is weird. One wonders if a solution might be a manga workgroup which could be under a kind of "joint custody" (ditto with anime and TV and/or film). (Emperor (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

I guess that would be a solution. The question is, what would they say. I don't think manga fans would like any kind of solution where their project is hierarchically under general comics WP. Zoli79 (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems odd it even has to be cast as an "us" and "them" kind of thing. Manga are comics after all. The main issues seems to be that while the Anime/Manga Project makes sense given the cross over appeal it doesn't really leave an easy compromise open and if someone suggested an American film/comic (or Francophone comic/cartoon) project I think people would suggest the best bet would be two workgroups under films and comics which would have heavy crossover. After all if starting from scratch a manga workgroup would have made the most sense. That said the Anime/Manga Project is working and successful so if it ain't broke... Best thing is if we can all discuss this and see how it goes. If they were to create anime and managa workgroups I assume we could add the manga one into our navigation which would help give a more shared approach. (Emperor (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

Splitting the anime/manga group would be very hard, since its members seem to like it this way. And I guess its fans deal with the matter in a rather character oriented way, just as in the case of superhero comics, than a medium oriented way. Can a workgroup belong to two projects, and function normally? Zoli79 (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The attempt to get Hulk (comics) to GA has gone sour and seems to have been derailed. I'm trying to get things back on track by discussing the article on the talk page while the editor disputes carry on on admin noticeboard but it is tricky but should calm down soon (ish).

What I'm hoping is we can then go through the article and arrive at some kind of consensus on what needs to be done to get things on track for GA again (and obviously part of that will be pulling things in line with other similar entries). It'd obviously be handy if we could get as much input as possible as it was doing well (thanks to things like ThuranX's big rewrite) and this is exactly the kind of high-profile entry that should be at least GA class. (Emperor (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

Get some excellent out-of-universe sources, and you'll be halfway there. That Hulk edition of the Marvel Encyclopedia might be useful because from what I've heard it has a lot of interviews. I agree with the GA delisting; I commented not too long ago here that he article is very lackluster and does not meet Good Article requirements. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering: Is there? LWZ (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There are projects for various publishers and regions of comics, including the non-superhero titles, but no specific group devoted exclusively to no-superhero characters. I think part of the problem there might be the comparative lack of interest. If there are any particular genres which you think might deserve such attention, you might want to post a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and maybe leave a message here with a link to that page to see if there's enough interest to start one. John Carter (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think starting a separate non-superheroes project would weaken both projects, but would love to see some non-superhero workgroups established within this project. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of non-superhero projects: Comic strips, Comics creators, Webcomics, British comics, European comics, World comics

WikiProject Comics/Workgroups

Zoli79 (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

From the hyphen between non and super and the space between super and heroes, my interpret of what the anon meant was to ask if there is a project regarding heroes (whether costumed or otherwise, I have no guess) who aren't super-powered. Doczilla (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Could be a typo and they meant Heroes, the telly program? They have a project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Heroes. However, looking at the contribs, I'd say the user is after an indy or alternative comics project or workgroup. I've never seen a definition of alternative comics I like, but if people think it's worthwhile... Hiding T 14:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions Zoli79. I've looked into that Comics creators project, but it seems pretty dead. Hiding and Doczilla, are you really having trouble figuring out what "non-super hero" means, our are you just being jerks because I'm new here? LWZ (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we are being jerks, I think we were just trying to be helpful. Since you are new, you may not be aware of our assume good faith guidance. It's worth a read and saves the time and trouble of working out if someone is being a jerk. You just assume they aren't, unless they really really make it obvious. :) The comics creators work group isn't dead, it is merely new and looking for blood. Feel free to be that blood. I know Tenebrae and myself do a bit of work on creators, and I am sure there are a few others out there. The work groups are a new thing for us and we're all finding our feet on how they work. BOZ has made excellent progress at the Marvel work group, so if you need a heads up on what to do with a work group, you might want to leave a message for BOZ at User talk:BOZ. Hiding T 16:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question about the source of your expressed difficulty in figuring out the meaning of "non-super heroes." Were you really having trouble figuring out what "non-super heroes" means? Or were you just acting like a jerk? Also, your "I think we were just trying to be helpful," smells like obvious bullshit because you weren't even talking to me directly but instead talking about me in the third person. (Did someone named "Doczilla" really refer to me as "the anon" because I'm signing on with my initials?) This all makes me feel pretty unwelcome in your All-Star Winners Squadron‎ Green Lantern Club House of Dr. Doom. If that was your goal, congratulations. LWZ (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Relax. Nobody was trying to be a jerk; on the contrary, people were trying to be helpful. People were confused about what you were asking because, as stated, there was a space between "super" and "heroes" in your question, and they were just trying to answer it in as many ways as possible, because they wanted to help you. People were trying to go beyond a short response and give as complete an answer as possible. Attacking people for trying to help you just makes people not want to help you, and it's also against Wikipedia policy; it's like asking a friend to borrow two dollars and then getting mad because they offered to lend you three dollars instead. —Lowellian (reply) 17:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well then in the spirit of just trying to be helpful, I'll point out that "A superhero [is] (also known as a super hero)". And thanks for your participation, but how would you possibly know what two other people were trying to do? I think Hiding and Doczilla probably have a better idea of what their motives are and can provide a more accurate response as to whether they were honestly confused and thought "non-super heroes" might mean non-super episodes of the TV show Heroes or whatever. And then they can explain why they thought the best way to be helpful to me was to talk about me rather than to me. And it's actually very little like a friend giving me extra money, and a lot more like as if I were asking complete strangers for directions to the gas station, and then they talk to each other about whether I might mean the train station where everyone has bad gas, or maybe a radio station made completely of helium. And then I say "Are you really that confused, or are you just trying to be jerks?" and then they so "No, we're just being extra super helpful to you." LWZ (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

While I acknowledge that you might have a point in the above, I believe it is reasonable to not insult those who you are asking for help from. To specifically answer your question as I see it, no, there is no such group, as Corto Maltese, Dakota North, Tintin, Two-Gun Kid, and several other characters could all fall within the term "no-super" hero, as you haven't particularly defined "Hero" in this context. For that matter, the characters from the old Night Nurse (comics) four-issue series might qualify as well. Right now, all characters are covered either by their specific publisher (in the case of DC or Marvel), place of origin, or media (like webcomics). There is currently one specific project for a specific hero, Superman, and some projects related to characters who have appeared in comics, like Star Trek, Star Wars, G.I. Joe, and the like. I think the current consensus is that trying to create groups based on "types" of characters or genres hasn't yet been done. There is the possibility, albeit a remote one, of creating, for instance, a western comics, subproject, detective subproject, romance comics subproject, etc., although I doubt if there would ever be much activity. You would be free to propose any such projects and perhaps find out otherwise, but the current organizational model has not been based on "types of charcters" but rather publisher or area of origin. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For all this commotion, LWZ still hasn't indicated what this is about. A Hello Kitty WikiProject would be non-superheroes. (Yeah, I said that in third person. We talk to everybody when we talk on these pages, not just the person who started the thread.) Wryspy (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I made it pretty clear what my question was about: Whether there is a non-super heroes comics WikiProject. This one, called simply "WikiProject Comics" seems to be the place to go to when someone has a question about super hero topics like the JLA teleporter, or who drew which picture of Dr. Doom, Challengers of the Fantastic‎, Bat-Thing‎, X-Patrol‎, Spider-Boy‎, Steve Gerber, Green Lanterns, Changeling (Marvel Comics) vs. Morph (Marvel Comics), User: Asgardian deleting parts of The Secret Wars and Contest of Champions articles, Trinity (DC Comics), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Negative. So, it seems pretty clear that this is the place for super hero comics discussion, and I think my question was pretty clearly about where the non-super hero comics discussion is supposed to go. Clear enough that Zoli79 could direct me to where the other comics projects are, clear enough that Phil Sandifer could say he would "love to see some non-superhero workgroups established," and clear enough that John Carter could point me to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and even directly refer to me as "you" rather than "the anon." LWZ (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm also new here, but I can understand, if people not interested in superheroes get frustrated or just simply discouraged, because most of the discussion around here is about superheroes. Or just take a look at the task list. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against superhero comics, it's just that usually fans of that type are far more enthusiastic. Maybe there should be a wikiproject on superheroes in general, and other projects as superman, dc, marvel could be part of that? Zoli79 (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily a bad idea, but it would take most of the interested editors away. Like it or not, there are a lot more people indicated in Batman articles than, say, Prince Valiant or Outlaw Kid articles. If we were to separate out the costumed heroes, which I think is probably a more accurate term, although I still can't be sure how LWZ defines superheroes or heroes so I can't know if s/he would include Batman as one or not, we would probably lose what attention to the other articles we can get from those editors who are primarily interested in the costumed heroes, and the articles would almost certainly suffer on that basis. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I was also unclear about what you were asking, and rattling off a dozen projects of what you consider super-hero project topics didn't help. Do you mean a project that would focus on non-super characters, or a project that focuses on non-super series? Listing what you meant (romance, western, etc.) would have helped clear things up. I think Doczilla and Hiding politely asked for clarification, even if Phil knew what you were asking about right away. Since you said you're new, I'd recommend not taking people's comments negatively unless it's pretty obvious, and calling people jerks is definitely going to make things more difficult when trying to deal with others. I've learned my lesson there. joshschr (Talk | contribs) 22:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

When all it says at the very top is "Is there a non-super heroes WikiProject? I'm wondering: Is there?" there's no reason for anybody to make any assumption about what LWZ means. The word comics does not appear in the header or that question. Is this heated discussion over the meaning of one little question really a good use of anyone's time, though? Wryspy (talk refraining from continued stoking of the fire now...) 01:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And the answer to the first question, as I've said a few times now, is "No." One could failry assume that a message on the talk pages of a comics project mentioning super-powered characters, who basically occur primarily in comics, meant to deal with comics characters. It wasn't posted at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels page, so it's a fair assumption non-super comics heroes is meant. Taking into account "other media heroes", including the likes of Robin Hood, that might be a decent idea, but there are already a lot of projects dealing with individual "heroes": James Bond, King Arthur, Sherlock Holmes, several individual TV shoes, and the list goes on. And there would still be the definition of "heroes" to work out. Presumably it means more than "protagonist", but there would need to be some sort of definition there. John Carter (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, to answer the question. Yes. It is here. Hope that helps. Hiding T 13:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Steve Block, I'm unsure that does answer the question adequately. So this is the self-imposed umbrella for all comics, superhero or not? That seems a bit presumptuous but perhaps it simply reads that way and what is meant is this is the default project for comics (which seems logical).Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 20:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, would not be opposed to the creation of a non-super comic hero project. Because the most popular comic book characters tent to wear capes and tights, the guys in jackets and ties have tended to get overlooked. An example: Dan Dunn is the first character ever originally created for publication in a newstand comic book, a not insignificant bit of history. He was a sort of international Dick Tracy who battled an Asian criminal mastermind, and had adventures not dissimilar to some early comic book superheroes. I considered him historically significant enough to add a mention to the List of superhero debuts, but he was quickly deleted. I'd like to see an organized effort to document characters like Dan Dunn, Dr. Spector, Slam Bradley, and others of the type.--Drvanthorp (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I second that. Also, talking about "non-super" hero & "non-superhero" books, I'd be interested to see better coverage of the Western characters, including (off the top of my head) Kid Colt, Rawhide Kid, & Two-Gun Kid. (Anybody remember George Perez' gorgeous work on 'em in Avengers?) Western hasn't anything on 'em, & could use something besides the heavy emphasis on movies, for a start. Trekphiler (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I, for what it's worth, would strongly oppose such a split. I think it better to make a commitment to improving this project - something that could be done if the people who seem to want to form another project joined and became active in this one. I think the project is better served as a project that looks programatically at all aspects of comics. At best it would make sense to firmly establish a superheroes project as a sub-project of this. But there should still be a main project for comics in general, most of which, we should note, are not superhero comics. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There is some talk about the newly revived Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional series handling some of the characters who have crossed over into multiple media. Certainly, if a character or series were originally based in some other medium, and only later became a "comic" series, then it might be reasonable for that group to handle some of those characters. But, in general, and particularly for characters or series which have or have had significant "cross-over" activity, I think it would make a great deal of sense for the content on those characters to remain with this project, given that the members of this project are most acquainted with the medium. John Carter (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have trouble thinking of any comics characters who are not primarily and most significantly comics characters. Other WikiProjects may have a stake in certain aspects of the articles, but even Batman and Superman seem most primarily comics articles with some important other sections. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. However, there have been at least a few series, generally older ones, that are seemingly based on other sources. Big Town and other radio shows, Tarzan, The Shadow, Doc Savage, and the like. While many of these characters have had significant comics histories, that would probably only constitute a comparatively small part of their total history. John Carter (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. For the most part, though, I have trouble thinking of any characters where it is not relatively obvious what WikiProject would be the main one. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much agreed. Some, like several of the western heroes from defunct publishers, might not be too clearly within the scope of any projects, but most of the rest would be fairly obvious. John Carter (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure a character that lasted for 23 years is "non-notable." Others may wish to express their opinions at the AfD. Pairadox (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And now his death-buddy the Ringer is up. BOZ (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And now that Ego the Living Planet is up, this must be the inquisition for minor Marvel badguys. :) BOZ (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

...need or want a stub article for a comic book event that is a year and a half off? — Green Lantern: The Blackest Night

1 quote from a comic, and 1 from the writer, that's it. - J Greb (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Very little, if anything, has been said about it in the press. PROD it or put it up at AfD. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I did PROD it, after posting here. (The wonders of second thoughts.) We'll see if it needs to go AfD. - J Greb (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And gone to AfD... - J Greb (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

One option which might be possible, if you all want it, is to add to the project banner a new class for "future" articles, like the Film project already has in their template. I don't know how many articles it would be used on, though. John Carter (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's already there, and to be honest by the differing natures of the media and the contributors it's less useful than the Film one.

I believe (and someone from Film smack me if I'm wrong) that Film's SOP is that there needs to be a good amount of information and notable coverage of projects before stubs/starts of movies in development are put up and kept. Also, they try, more or less successfully, to keep speculation out and rumors to a minimum.

Most of the future class articles here are based on less and more open to fan spec. - J Greb (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

From also editing film articles even a listing on IMDB is insufficient. Usually (unless something newsworthy crops up) people get nervous unless it is close to finishing film or even in post-production. I've edited entries for films that just faded away and had to be deleted - at least when the film is in the can they can usually rummage together the money to get the film finished and out. I am not sure of their specific policy but that seems the rule-of-thumb that works the best.

For our purposes they usually ramp up publicity (previews and interviews) a couple of months ahead of the launch and this is a good time to start an entry as we can be fairly sure the project is viable. Given the misdirection and relatively large delays that can occur in comics, as well as their shorter lead time than films, this seems like a reasonable rule-of-thumb for future comics (although there is room for flexibility). (Emperor (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

While this is kinda not related, Halo (film) had lots and lots of coverage, but ended up never happening. I suggest that for events and such, we redirect the article to a subsection on the relevant page and then spin it off when we're not crystalling what may be. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a good suggestion, and IIRC the de facto result of the AfD of the Black Lantern Corps. It's still CBing to an extent, but it's more in the vein of the writer's or publisher's comments where they want the character/team/book that is the topic of the main article to go. That's better than over-detailing a topic that may or may not happen. - J Greb (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Asgardian, keeps on removing source information regarding membership and the second Guardian of the Galaxy, Galatic Guardians, and any mention of the upcoming current era team's comic book. While the detail of the new book/team should be with held, I can not see the harm in mention it on the page, as this will reduce confusion for any one unware of the original 31st century. He speaks of some standard of how membership list are formated (pointing to the Avengers and X-Men's lists) which this list follows just it is within the main article. Please comment at the the article's Talk page. Spshu (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also please note: The (currently) 2 reverts in the article history are to the edit of 19:50, February 15, 2008. This includes the removal of the updated infobox... - J Greb (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ego is up for AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ego the Living Planet - a clear speedy keep, but just an FYI, if interested in contributing. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC).

As a WikiProject we have an article base which is broad and has a fairly high proportionate level of "incoming" (new) Wikipedians. In a sense, these articles, and their talk pages, are substantially the comics WikiProject's portal to the world. I consider this a great opportunity. And one in which I think we're not doing so great at. I say "we", because we should be helping each other to avoid biting each other.

So here's my simple request.

The following 5 links are to Wikipedia pages that I would presume that every member of this project knows and has read. I think they, like any other page, could use some editing. I've found that I'm somewhat almost forced to learn more deeply about the topic of a page when I edit it, then just reading it. So this is your mission, should you decide to accept it...: Edit each of these 5 pages in some meaningful way:

• WP:AGF
• WP:BITE
• WP:CIVIL
• WP:OR
• WP:OWN

This shouldn't take long, and I think we can all use a gentle reminder (I know I can, at times). If you like, think of this as the current Comics "collaboration of the month". Thanks for your consideration. - jc37 04:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(Note: Following my own advice, I've made some edits to the above articles.) - jc37 04:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've run into a few issues on Crossing Midnight over the use of tables which has reached 2 reverts on both sides (and their reverts are sweeping putting back other changes too [12]). WP:TABLE is pretty clear that it should be used for data that lends itself tables (like numbers, etc.) and from discussion in other areas (like the cast lists of films) a more prose approach is generally preferred. I've tried to address this on the CM talk page as plot/storylines shouldn't be in tables either.

This isn't just an issue with this entry I made similar changes on The Boys (note how the tables aren't flexible enough to deal with all the information, so some of it was being discarded to make it fit) and I notice (from the same editors edits) there are tables for trade collections on DMZ (DC Comics), Scalped, Wasteland (comic), Jack of Fables, Y: The Last Man, The Exterminators (comics), etc. but not on others like Invincible (comics) - apparently they aren't imposing them (just working with what is already there) but are clearly sticking to it once it is in.

So I don't feel up to editing the various entries only to have them put back and getting to this point again. Instead it seems wise (isn't it always? ;) ) to seek project consensus so we can move things forward.

My take is that this is that it is against the guidelines given in WP:TABLE and, as The Boys, shows isn't flexible enough to deal with the information available. This also goes for putting plot into table form too.

And yes I am back but trying to ease myself back in gradually. (Emperor (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

It looks like two different issues:

• Arc plot summaries; and
• Collected edition publication data.

The Crossing Midnight and The Boys are forcing the prose into table format. Bluntly, those tables could be replaced with a "Plot summary" head and subheads for the arcs/issues.

As for the rest, and see Justice League, Justice Society of America, and Teen Titans (comics) for others, tables for more than 2 or 3 TPB are a valid way of putting up the short, factual data. - J Greb (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I love publication data, bibliographies put into tables. Yes, they are not as flexible, but there's always a possibility for a "note" column, where special notes can be written (e.g. covers added, change of format, ommited pages, etc.). :)

In the case of plot summaries, for me it seems nonsense. You can highlight the title and number with typography, there's no need for a table. Zoli79 (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with its use in collections is that you lose flexibility for little or now gain - in some of those examples, like the Justice League one, if you are just going to list titles and issues collected that isn't a big deal but once you try to add other things it gets inflexible. WP:TABLE is fairly clear on this: "Many times, a list is best left as a list. ... Tables should not be used simply for layout, either. If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table." and "If a list is quite long, or is relatively simple, use one of the standard Wikipedia list formats. Long lists can be hard to maintain if they are inside a table, and simple lists do not need the row-and-column format that a table provides."

Using lists allows for this flexibility, like for example, Squadron Supreme or Alan Moore's DC Universe. The example that concerns me is Hellblazer where most of the entry is a table of trades (although not including alternate ISBNs because of the lack of flexibility), followed by lists of writers, artists, etc. I have often found myself checking the artist list, then having to check up to find if they have an issue collected, etc. A real headache. Using one list would allow for more flexibility and you could do it in half the space (or split it off and really break it down). (Emperor (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

I'm thinking it depends on what is being presented.

The bibliographies, by the nature of the information not necessarily being uniform, work better as lists. The Squadron Supreme is a good example since it includes arcs and collected editions.

The TPB collection lists though are made up of consistent information: Title, Date, ISBN, and and reprinted issues. And even the "extras" (such as "writer") are consistent within the tables if not across articles. The formatting there also allows for quick spotting of missing information.

The Hellblazer list has a problem with the attempt to list the title of each story collected. That level of indexing isn't need and removing the column would fix some of the issues.

As for multiple ISBNs... to be honest, that's more of an editor not working with the table formatting than the table being inflexible. If an arc has been published as a hardcover, softcover, and specialty edition, all 3 can be listed in a single cell with notations. - J Greb (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, lists might be just as fine in these cases. Since they are easier to make and edit by others I also would prefer them. (Even though I'm still a table fanatic.:) ) Just to show a bibliography, where the table form (in my opinion) is justified: List_of_Valérian_and_Laureline_books. Zoli79 (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

To me this seems like a personal choice issue. Tables for TPB's are a lot better than a long line of unformatted text. The idea that a table is inflexible is laughable. You can fit as much information into a cell as you wish and use as many rows or columns to include all relevant information. The very nature of a table makes it easier for the contained information to be viewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.106.47 (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Emperor rated some articles, that are in my watchlist. He came up with some really surprising solutions. I have to ask what is the purpose of this whole Comics WP? Is this project about American comics, and someone forgot to let us know? Characters from (superhero) comic books get mid to high high importance, and articles about a whole nation's, country's comics culture gets low importance. OK, I understand Hungarian comics really did not reach readers outside the Eastern bloc, but it still concerns a nation of about 14 million people worldwide. Even more outrageous is the rating of Serbian comics. Low again. Serbian/Yugoslavian comics in the 30's reached a level higher than most East and West European countries and maintains a flourishing comics culture until this day. Without that background it couldn't provide for example Vertigo comics with such artists as Danijel Zezelj or R.M. Guerra.
P.S. I see Polish comics is also rated low. No comment... Zoli79 (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• They shouldn't be rated as low, if you ask me. Hiding T 12:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I went through a lot of entries updating categories and adding headers or updating them (including rating and adding the European work-group). As I am no expert I consider the importance ratings as provisional, as in fact all such ratings are, and I don't quite see how this can be described as "outrageous." If someone more knowledgeable about the specific field doesn't agree with the provisional ratings then updating them will only take seconds. As no one had bothered rating most of them adding a header (where needed) and throwing in a provisional rating is better than nothing (and a step up from letting a bot do it automatically). As what I did is only the start of an ongoing and dynamic process, I think the answer to this would be to get involved with the rating of entries. (Emperor (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

I've might been rude with the term "outrageous". Sorry for that. I am grateful for you having rating those pages (I've requested an assessment for one of the articles over a month ago.), but the thing is that I think superficial rating is worse than not rating at all. It gives other readers a bad idea about the article's importance and quality. And I think an editor would rather rate an unrated article, than change another article's rating, since he/she assumes that the previous rater had his/her reasons.

Sorry again for my previous outbursting! I spent few weeks on one of those articles, and seeing it rated as low importance and start quality really did not start my day jolly good. :) --Zoli79 (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As you've might guessed, I'm quite new here. Is there a general guideline for importance rating in this project? I think a majority of the articles could be classified into some groups, for which we could find out a small range of rating. For example characters from comic books with no long running individual ongoing series (e.g. Iceman) could be rated Low-Mid, countries' comics culture could be high-top, general genres, formats could be high-top, etc. This could speed up ratings maybe. --Zoli79 (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for the hard work - it is the overlooked areas of comics that we need much more of.

There is nothing carved in stone so if you think something should be rated higher then do so - all you need to be able to do is justify the rating (it stops run away high ratings ;) ). It might take a few goes and/or some debate (in tricky cases) to settle on a assessment acceptable to most people. Then the article can go up and down in quality so the whole thing is dynamic (and, if you read the caveats for importance, subjective).

For information on rating see this.

If there is anything specific feel free to leave me a note on my talk page and I'll look at it again(Emperor (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

Just putting this out there, since the last FAC for the article failed 'cause no one supported or opposed it! BY the way, shouldn't there be a section on the notice-board or header about comics FACs? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have this book, or its companion volume "500 Comicbook Heroes"? User:Blast Ulna on the AFD for Melter commented that it may constitute a reliable source for a large number of comic book characters. BOZ (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As indicated above, there is apparently significant discussion about what qualifies as notability for comics figures. A few books which I think might be useful for these purposes are Jeff Rovin's various encyclopedias. Does anyone else agree about that? John Carter (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't see why they wouldn't be. ntnon (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This may be a repeat, but...

Could we be careful when moving articles?

I've had a hew cases recently where I've gotten a 'bot message about deletable images that were the result of page moves. The image bot's are only looking at the immediate links, they are not looking past redirects.

Please, if you move an article, check and update the links on the image pages.

Thanks, - J Greb (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only that image, but that page move also broke a lot of links. They now point to the diambiguation page instead of the new article name. My opinion is to revert the move or encourage the mover to finish the job. -Wikianon (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC) - I just left a polite note after yours on the mover's talk page. I tried to revert and move it back, but that needs an administrator. -Wikianon (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I did a temporary repair by changing the redirect Alex Ross to #REDIRECT [[Alex Ross (comic illustrator)]] so that the links that previously pointed to Alex Ross should now redirect to where they should. There were over 250 links to that article, so I hope the Bot can now follow a single redirect for the Images in that list. Otherwise the Bot needs fixing. The links ideally should still be checked and fixed by the page mover, as I understood the mover is responsible for this. -Wikianon (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I can move this back to Alex Ross (at least until this issue is resolved) - there is not necessarily any need for the comics artist to be disambiguated. The main criteria should be if one is going to be specifically searched for more than any other and the others are pretty minor (as the massive amount of incoming links shows). So Alex Ross could stay and just be hatnoted to the disambiguation page. This has come up a time or two - see the discussion over Road to Perdition, even though the comic came first the film gets front page billing as it will be the main thing searched for under that name. If someone really really wants to disambiguate this then they'd need to put in a good case and be prepared for the slog of fixing the links as you just can't move an entry like that without some kind of consensus and commitment to do further work. (Emperor (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

Hi Emperor, yes, please move it back, as the original mover has not responded so is probably not interested. I wasn't sure about bothering admins about this once I changed it to a redirect, but it would be cleaner the way it was. -Wikianon (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK I've put it back - that is not to say it should never have been moved but there didn't seem to be a need for it and there was no discussion or attempts to fix the broken links. This seems like the best fix for now. And feel free to bother an admin by dropping them a link to discussion like this. (Emperor (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

Ought there to be - or 'is there' - a concerted effort to pre-empt the deletion bots by providing standardised non-free-use image rationales to existing images? Seems to me that most comics-related images would have similarly-phrased rationales, and yet I've noticed a lot of images getting deleted. (Indeed, I'm not entirely sure that I'm rationalising their replacements in a manner that will appease the automatons.) Just a thought. ntnon (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There was discussion on this a number of times last year (when there was a big round of deletions - which seems to be happening again) - there is a template and we knocked up some general examples that could be adapted to fit the specifics (as there is no one-size-fits-all solution). I'll go and dig around for some links to this discussion. (Emperor (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)(

OK the main link is this (that is also the one with an example template) with other discussion here (which also links to earlier discussion.

I hope you don't mind but as it looks like this is going to be a big issue again I have made it into a new section. What I'll try to do is list anything I see getting tagged (and so should other people) and we'll try to tag as many as possible. When you do so then add them in here. I'll create subsectins for them, below (as things got a little messy last time). (Emperor (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

Images needing FUR

If you see an image tagged as conflicting with WP:FURG then add them in here. (Emperor (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

Images with FURs added

If you have added a FUR to an image but want someone to double-check it (and avoid a round of "disputed FUR") then post it here. (Emperor (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

I think we need someone with admin tools to fix this one. Recently, Rick Jones (comics) was moved to a new name A-Bomb (comics) to reflect a recent change he has gone through in the comics. Consensus determined that it should be returned to the way it was. However, rather than moving the page back, a copy/paste was performed. Thus, the edit history remains at A-Bomb (comics), and of course we would prefer to have the edit history in the right place. BOZ (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of, didn't need a admin, just registered use. Double checked and edit history went with Jones, didn't stay with A-Bomb. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC).

No, the article history still needs to be fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The talk page has been fixed now, but the main article has not. BOZ (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that whenever a long-running character goes through an obviously temporary phase, some fanboy rushes to Wikipedia to try to be the first person to make a major article edit about it?--Drvanthorp (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So that they can be the one to break the story.  :) Regardless, the edit history issue has been fixed now - thanks! BOZ (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A couple pages are being moved by Brian Boru is awesome (talk · contribs · logs) without consensus from this WikiProject, or anywhere else. Someone with more comic book knowledge than I should skim through some of this user's edits to make sure some of these were correct, as I saw that Fire (DC Comics) was moved to an incorrect place, and have reverted that. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are all the pages that the user has moved since their account was created: [13]. It'd be good if one can check if the correct moves had their {{DEFAULTSORT:}} inserted, as Tora Olafsdotter was missing hers until I took care of it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Some look definitely legit, while others he has moved on his own because of characters who have gone by more than one code name. Don't know that he has discussed it with other users much, if at all. BOZ (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few of these make sense to fix naming issues (like XXX (Comics) or XXX (Marvel comics)) but there were a lot of moves of characters to the name of the individual which seems unwise as we often see different individuals taking on different characters or different characters being "played" by various individuals over time so the default should be the superhero name and in complex situations different sections produced to cover the individuals (and if they have larger roles as other characters then a new section might be necessary under their name). There is a vast amount of precedent for this and I see all of these moves have been reversed.

Things not yet addressed are articles like Young Allies - now unless there are other Young Allies (in which case that redirect should be a disambiguation page) then there is no need to over-disambiguate - you only need as much as is required. So it might be worth checking for other examples and seeing if any action is needed to fix the issue or whether it actually makes sense. (Emperor (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

I'm not aware of any Young Allies outside of Marvel, but maybe someone else is? :) BOZ (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Young Allies (DC Comics) — And fixed the redirect to a dab. - J Greb (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - seems fine. Worth noting that most of the comics projects disambiguation pages (like that one and things like Sandman (comics), etc.) are technically classed as a set index - I'm still trying to get decisions on all the aspects of this what it does mean is you aren't constrained by the formatting restrictions that exist for disambiguation pages and you can add more information in if needed. It reminds me I might try and turn up getting what you can do with a set index sorted out. If you do go for something that is against the strict disambiguation rules then remove the template from the bottom of the page - there isn't yet a replacement but I have suggested one. (Emperor (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

Good to know... and looking at that group (Young Allies) I'm awful tempted to merge the DC and Marvel articles into the plain page. Of the 3 versions (including Timely) only the one published in the 1940s really has any longevity to it. This may be one of those instances where covering across publishers is warranted even if the versions aren't all explicitly linked. - J Greb (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So the remaining moves are okay and defaultsorted? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure - I went through a lot to check and they'd largely been reversed - there might be ones that still need attention but I haven't spotted them. (Emperor (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

The page moves were re-moved again. Whoah, confusing. :) BOZ (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

He is moving the pages again, see recent contributions, as well these hasty reverts. Regardless, should they all be reverted per this discussion? Now the defaultsorts are completely screwed up, again. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Fire has more than one codename so does Ice. More than one codename use their own name right?King Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Please read WP:DISAMBIG if you have not already done so. If there is a primary name (like Superman) then it should not be moved. That's what hatnotes are for. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Generally, yes, but... there are precedents for the contrary. Most of those fall into the "commonly known as" category — characters like Superman, Captain America, and Captain Marvel. And even if it is arguable that Fire and Ice don't fit in with that grouping of characters, there are two tings to consider:

1. Both article have stood on one code name more or less since inception. They would have been prime candidates to be started as "<character name"" or converted once consensus was reached with the naming convention.
2. They've hit the point where the moves are a contentions edit. Hash it out on the talk pages instead of just forcing through the moves.

(response to conflict editor)

Sesshomaru, I could swear that there was a thread/guide line that is Comics project specific and is a result of articles like Hal Jordan — 1 character that has had multiple code names. Instead of arguing it out every time a major character changed costumes, it was hashed out to change the such characters over to the "alter ego" unless there is an overriding reason, hence Captain Marvel (DC Comics) still being under that title.

- J Greb (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Found the guide... Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics)#Character name disambiguation - J Greb (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Which guideline is considered in these instances? This is why I say controversial moves have to be discussed first, especially if the person who moves the pages does not check if the article needs a defaultsort or not. Am I right or am I wrong here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, both ways.

BBia has every right to be bold and move the articles if he believes it is in line with the guidelines and there are no discussion on the talk page showing that the current article name was arrived at, or upheld, by consensus. Looking at the four article cited at BBia's talk:

• Fire (comics) — no discussion about the article name, before or after;
• Ice (comics) — no discussion about the article name, before or after, and the talk page is still broken;
• Speedy — no discussion about the article name, before or after; and
• Wiccan (comics) — Discussion sort of started after the move, but it died and there were no more moves.

With no discussion on those pages, there is no reason to believe that the move will be seen as contentious.

After some pops up and says "Wait a minute...", then the moves became a flash-point and it should have been hashed out on the talk page. Aside from Wiccan, that wasn't done, by anyone involved.

And for the record, I can see why BBia would move the pages - two DC characters with multiple code names, 1 Marvel character of the same, and a DC grouping page that could be seen a popular a search target as other entries on the dab page. That doesn't mean I agree with them, but it's worth airing out on the talks to get a definitive "why" these are exceptions.

And yes, an editor, any editor, moving a page should check for double redirects, {{DEFAULTSORT}}, and broken image back links. - J Greb (talk)

Sesshomaru, you are indeed correct. As the project page states in its header: "This page documents an English Wikipedia naming convention. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." The key word being "please ensure that your revision reflects consensus". It would be good for BBiA to express his desire to move a page, allow a reasonable amount of time to allow for comments, and then move. It needn't be exceedingly long.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 00:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Can we conclude with someone advising BBia that his page moves must be discussed from here on? On an almost unrelated note, can someone tell him to stop editing other ppl's comments and warnings? See this. 01:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I depends upon what you mean when you say his pages moves must be discussed from now on. If you mean without exception, then I have a BIG problem with that. Like J Greb said a number of the moves in question were ones that no resonable editor would think of as being contentious. There was no evidence of any previous conversation to suggest otherwise on the talk pages. J Grab is also quite correct when he states that WP:Be Bold comes into play here. I'm not in favour of any descission that weakens that policy. Stephen Day (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Guess you're right. Would you suggest keeping the user watchlisted? And what of striking someone else's messages? Is that more or less allowed per the guideline? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

About keeping him watchlisted, I'll leave that up to you as I can see the arguement both for and against doing so. Stephen Day (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, and of my other concern? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If he's doing what you say, then he shouldn't be. I'm confused about what else you want me to say. I'm not an administrator and can't do anything else, nor did I make any statement indicating that I'm interested in stepping into that particular arguement. As you yourself said it was an unrelated note. Stephen Day (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

After issues in my above comment are settled, I have an inquiry: Icemaiden is also known as "Ice"? Just want to make sure because I'm unsure if the hatlink at Ice (comics) is helpful per WP:NAMB. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as pointed out in the article. And the trio (Fire, Ice, and Icemaiden) are a good example of how problematic name character articles can be:

• Fire, as a character, was introduced in Super Friends as "Green Fury". When put into the main DC continuity, the name rapidly went to "Green Flame" then just "Fire" with Giffen's JL. The previous names though have been kept as background information.
• Icemaiden was the character introduced in Super Friends and appeared all of once, IIRC, in the main DC continuity. The character wasn't touched again until after Ice's death. She was then brought in to take up her replacement's name.
• Ice, as a character, was introduced by Giffen and was back storied as the second Icemaiden. Again, IIRC, there's never been a story published with her in action under that name.

Each one has multiple names, one that can be argued as a "commonly know as" name, an original name, and an alter ego. It becomes a mess of which one to use. - J Greb (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if I'm understanding correctly but, if we go by that logic, shouldn't Ice (comics) redirect to Icemaiden? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be in favour of that move. I just added a second disambiguation sentence to Icemaiden that should hopefully relieve some of the confusion there. Stephen Day (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

check out my logs. I have moved a lot of other articles as well as Albert Rothstein.King Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the inclusion of the last part of this quote needed or not?[14] Fram (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the quote is used in the page Graphic novel, I would say "no". Now, if it were in a page about Mr. T's book, then it would be more important, but it isn't that important to indicate praise of a particular volume in a page devoted to the graphic novel in general. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's of little significance, though I'm not against it's inclusion within the <ref></ref> source. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would query its inclusion at all. We can't include everything everyone has said about the difference between graphic novels and trade paperbacks and I am unsure of the point in just dropping in a bit of press release/advertising that tells us nothing that hasn't already been said better by Big Names.

Note Featsoffact (talk · contribs) and a 172.*.*.* IP have been editing Chris Bunting and Mr. T (comics)‎, using heavy reverts - and they just reverted your last edit on graphic novel too [15]. (Emperor (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

Thanks, all of you. Fram (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the whole thing out [16] - see my comments above for the reasons. If anyone has a good reason for putting it back in fair enough but we can't just throw in every opinion from anyone who has opened their mouth on the subject - examples used should help illustrate a point or add an angle on things.

I am increasingly concerned about some of the edits in the various entries mentioned and if it goes on I think it'd be wise to look into this further. (Emperor (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

And 172.*.*.* reverted again. So we basically have Featsoffact (talk · contribs) and 172.200.220.223 (talk · contribs), 172.143.240.100 (talk · contribs) and 172.206.122.100 (talk · contribs) (AOL IPs and from experience they tend to "drift" over time, which would make them consistent with the same account) all editing the same entries (and often the same bits of larger entries) in a similar manner. Worth my kicking that over to get the IP checked? (Emperor (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

Intriguingly another 172.*.*.*, 172.143.110.130 (talk · contribs), has done exactly the same edit and accused me of following them (despite it being their first edit of that page or others mentioned above) [17]. (Emperor (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

Righto I think I have done all I can and will be stepping back on those pages, as it is only making things worse (especially as it is unclear who to direct comments to as the IP keeps drifting). All I can do now is ask for the IPs to be checked against the main account: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Featsoffact. I think I have done that right but as you don't have to do them very often I'd appreciate someone double checking to make sure it is OK. Cheers. (Emperor (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

OK it has been confirmed that Featsoffact is all those IPs - could someone double check the edits as I'm pretty sure they have therefore violated WP:3RR. (Emperor (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

Could a few other people have a look at the Dark Horse Conan comics situation as it is making my head hurt [18] - I could be wrong but there seem to be at least two identical pages amongst 4 and I'm not convinced we can't get it down to a single page. (Emperor (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

Just so you know, Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards is at WP:FAC. Since the last candidacy failed because of a lack of reviewers, I humbly beg for comments. :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I recently uploaded Image: Wf142.jpg for use in the Superpowers: Ability article. However I found a better-quality version and uploaded it. I'd like now to delete the first one from the archives, but I can't find out how. Help please? -Wilfredo Martinez (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

After reading a great many articles on comic characters, I think I have identified a common factor that makes these articles more difficult to read and understand than needs to be the case: that character's "story" is told following the in-universe chronology. This would seem, at first glance, like no problem; after all, isn't that the way we write biographies of real people? There's a difference, however, in that the process which creates the real person's biography is reality, and it stays consistent, though our knowledge or understanding of it may change. The "biography" of a fictional character, however, is created by drastically different processes: the comic stories of the 1950s are not the comic stories of the 1970s are not the comic stories of the 1990s are not the comic stories of today, and trying to construct a single, chronological story out of the pieces created in all those different time periods too often creates a confusing patchwork.

What I would suggest is that, especially in cases where there are long gaps in the publication history, each portion/version of the story is told separately. When dealing with events that are later retconned, we may mention that changes were later made, but concentrate on telling the story according to what was "true" in that publication period. For example, we would cover Bucky's existence as the kid sidekick of Captain America in the 1940s first, because that was published in the 1940s. We would not discuss the "revelation" that Bucky was actually a covert assassin during that time period until much later -- even though current continuity says that that is who Bucky actually was in that time period, it did not become continuity until over half a century after the original comics.

Not only would this make it much easier to untangle the multiple threads of comic continuity, with their retcons and occasional inconsistencies, it would also be more in line with the overall goals of Wikipedia: namely, writing about real things. Superman is not a real person. There is no actual Superman in our world. However, what is real in our world is the fictional character of Superman; we serve the goals of the project better by describing the existence of the fictional character of Superman, rather than describing it as if it was a real existence. -- 209.6.177.176 (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, ideally there shouldn't be a separate "character biography" section at all unless there are enough secondary sources (that is, sources that aren't just the comics themselves and aren't in-universe) to warrant one. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your word "ideally" is highly significant there. There's a lot of stuff that is in Wikipedia that, ideally, would not be. I think an attempt to address the problem of fictional character biographies being incoherent has a chance of working, whereas attempting to address the deeper problem that fictional character biographies are, in most cases, not appropriate, will fail. What can I say? Most contributors don't actually care about the longest-term effects of what they do -- about whether they are actually contributing to a useful guide to real-world matters. We should consider ourselves lucky when contributors are at least willing to avoid doing things that will harm the encyclopedia. -- 209.6.177.176 (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That isn't a valid rationale. Just because people write about what happens in the comics themselves an awful lot doesn't meant that they should. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's all the result of the bad influence of the comic companies' own encyclopedic character guides; people read Marvel Universe and DC's Who's Who, and this, to them, becomes the model for how superhero characters should be written about. Characters guides could be written as histories of publication which, if skillfully written, could also provide the gist of the character's fictional life (with some detail of how reality shaped fiction), and would actually be more interesting and informative than typical character biographies, but this is not the example that has been given to most comic book enthusiasts. I guess that articles of that type don't fit the marketing plans of Marvel and DC.--Drvanthorp (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Drvanthorp, what you are suggesting might be doable under a WikiProject_Pulp or Pulp_Magazine or Pulp_Fiction. That seems to be the niche those characters would be adventifiably belong to, and then you might be able to bring in some of the bigger guns such as Doctor Sampson etal? Just a modest suggestion.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 06:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is essential that we follow publication chronology. An example of why this is important can be found with Professor X. An in-universe chronology would deal with the events of X-Men: Deadly Genesis pretty early in the section, and thus imply that those events affected most of the information following. In truth, though, Deadly Genesis is a retcon - none of the X-Men comics published prior to it were written with a Professor X who felt guilt about what had happened in Deadly Genesis, and none of the comics' contemporary readers interpreted Professor X as having any sort of guilt about it. To switch to an in-universe timeline fundamentally obscures the actual historical reception of these characters. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems enormously important; I hope it might cross-pollinate other pages. As a historian who uses comics to teach first-year college writing, I see students who are superhero fans getting caught in this publisher's trap all the time, entangled in the current, official mythology/biography. The analytical task of disentangling the successive character/story changes can become an interesting one for them, but it does seem like this ought to be a major goal of any wikipedia entry: to document the actual history of the development of the character, rather than simply repeat the current synthesized version. For example, when exactly did the "commie smasher" Captain America get rewritten and explained away as a fake? The wiki Captain America entry has, I think, gotten a bit closer to explaining this, but I'm still a bit unclear. Since the bibliography seems so specific (citing specific issues), it seems that some of this specificity could easily (by those w/ the knowledge) be transferred to the entry itself. Troutfang (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see huge in-universe perspective problems in many (very possibly most) comics-related articles I look at. I'm not sure how best to go about promoting use of proper real-world perspective, particularly in articles concerning topics with which I am not very familiar. The John Stewart article comes to mind; it's easy for me to say that its character biography section should be replaced by a character history (beginning with the circumstances surrounding his creation [whose idea it was, identifying National's editorial personnel and creators involved, discussing how the character reflected the overall cultural climate at the time as far as civil rights, black pride, etc.] and a description of how the character is depicted in that first story, then continuing in chronological order of publication, describing what each significant new story in which he appears reveals about the character, identifying who the creators and editors involved in each story were, describing how each new interpretation differs from previous portrayals and (assuming there is writing out there somewhere to cite concerning these matters) how these reinterpretations reflect the overall changes in the American cultural landscape, identifying new creators and editors as they become involved with the character and describing the distinctive qualities of each person's take on him, discussing new directions in which the character was taken that were later abandoned due to negative audience feedback (may not be an issue for Stewart, but certainly is for some characters), identifying each retcon as it occurs and explaining the real-world behind-the-scenes factors that were involved and, as exactly as possible, what effect it had on the character's in-universe backstory, proceeding forward in time until we are caught up to the present day) but I don't know even a tiny fraction of the information I feel that history should include. (I favor a separate section following the character history which presents his current in-universe backstory [as best it can be understood] in a concise bullet-point-style timeline/chronology, placing the events discussed in detail in the above character history into in-story order as it's currently understood.) Many articles need enormous amounts of work; I'm not sure how to focus everyone's efforts into an encyclopedia-appropriate structure so there's not so much effort wasted on in-universe material. I guess the question may really boil down to this: Should we ruthlessly delete in-universe content wherever we find it even if it makes us look like jerks to the people who wrote it, or is there some less hostile way to guide the articles toward the realm of the real and the factual?

Your friend, Augustus Chip (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

For some articles as they are now, wholesale slaughter and replacement of some sections may be in order, and this is very difficult to do without making previous contributors mad. The best policy would be to preserve as much of the existing information as possible, while adding real-world information to frame the fictional synopsis. I regularly find articles that have very long, detailed synopsies detailing years of published stories; these are going to require a lot of gutting, and this is going to make the previous contributors mad, because they did a lot of work, and probably think that they were doing a good job by providing so much detail. So making these people mad is probably going to be unavoidable, and there will probably be revert wars over a lot of articles; many of these past contributors will not understand the value of the real-world information, or the goals of those provide it. But kind of revision needs to be done; it needs to be done on the wholesale level. There is a lot of work to be done.--Drvanthorp (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that publication history and fictional history sections should be combined for most characters. It would serve to remind the readers that it is a fictional character being discussed, and thus void the in-universe complaints. However, it has to be done in a case-by-case basis; some characters have either extensive bibliographies (Superman, for example) while others have complicated chronologies (like Cable of the X-men); in those cases separate sections are justified. -Wilfredo Martinez (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's funny you mention Cable, he is one of the main examples I was thinking of as far as an interest in seeing his article examine, step by step, revelation by revelation, retcon by retcon, how his backstory was built into what it is today. I envision a detailed (out-of-universe) character history, followed by a brief recapitultion of the major events in in-universe chronological order. (Not sure whether that would be chronological order as in the order they happened to Cable, or the order they occured in the fictional timeline... probably both... *grin*)

Your friend, Augustus Chip (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm very happy to see this discussion raised again, and raised very intelligently based on the comments above. Publication history should always govern. But there can be separate sections within an article that discuss specific elements of that character, such as "backstory," "powers," etc., even "romantic relationships," if it makes sense to explain those more in depth and in isolation. But even within each of those sections, however, those elements should be discussed in terms of real world construction of those fictional elements, lest undue weight be given to storylines months old in reality over storylines decades old. The alternative leaves our articles slobbering over whatever a character's current editor says is true about that character and completely confused (or lacking) as to real-world context (see the regrettable Fictional history of Spider-Man; I can't say I remember reading that Peter Parker's parents were S.H.I.E.L.D. agents in Amazing Fantasy #15). "In-universe" is nothing but the current perception by comics writers and fans of "canon." Postdlf (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there an administrator here? I keep on correcting the fact that D-Man was never official a member of the Avengers. An unregister editor keeps on changing. As much as would have like D-Man to be a member, he was not. I have posted to the talk page, this unregister editor still did not response and kept reversing my correction. I finally posted to the IP talk page that he need to read the Talk page and stop making false edits. This person just made some pro D-Man comment with nothing to back it up and once again changed it. Can we block this IP editor or at least lock it from unregistered editors? Spshu (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Dunno about that, but you are right in that he was never officially an Avengers member. He hung around them enough (mostly when Cap was involved), but mostly as an associate or reserve/honorary member than someone who could be counted on as an active member on the lineup. BOZ (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up the language a little, hope you don't mind. I've got the page watchlisted now. If there are further changes to the content by the IP, then there will certainly be the grounds for a block. But, if the IP accepts the current version, there probably wouldn't be any reason to block him. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind any language clean up. Thanks John, for putting a watch on the page. Spshu (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

74.69.251.232 has changed it again. I will change it back. So how about that block? Spshu (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

By the rules, he can't really be blocked until after he's been notified that his actions might qualify for a block. He has been so notifified now. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we need duplicate members? You've got Hawkeye listed 3 times and the last one one is under ronin. WE should fix it back prior to all the multiple captain amercias or hawkeyes. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Depends on how the list is structured.

If the intent is to cover the teams holistically, just a list of every character that's been a member, then Hawkeye should only be there once. And in that case there also should not be a delineation of team iterations.

If the intent is to present each iteration/version of the team, including when the team is officially disbanded and reformed, then Hawkeye, and a lot of characters are going to be listed multiple times.

A lot of the team's lists are a hodge-podge of the two types, split by iteration, but the "only one listing per character" being strictly enforced. And a varying degree of real world context. That is, some of the lists are in publication order, others are in the order the characters joined in, whether or not that puts issues out of publication order.

My feeling is that:

1. The lists should be split by iteration, with each team listed in full.
2. The lists not be policed to remove characters that are stricken from the teams by retcon. That's what the notes fields are for.
3. The lists should be in publication order of first appearance as member of the team, whether they joined in that story or not. Again, this is what the notes field is for.
4. The code names in a particular iteration be limited to those the character used during that iteration.

- J Greb (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

He (74.69.251.232) is edit it again dispite his latest comment on the talk page there. There are three different Avengers organization: the Chartered version that appeared in The Avengers, the ad hoc version that starts up in New Avengers making no claim to the previous charter(s) and the Initiative started team in Mighty Avengers. Additional with in the incorporated (chartered) original version a second team (West Coast) was formed with the potential for more. Effective, it just a matter of the three organizations sharing a name and the latter two just having their membership list in the same article and the expansion West Coast team of the original incoporated Avengers. So Hawkeye/Ronin gets three entries for joining East Coast team and founding/chairing West Coast Team in the Avenger, Inc. sections and another in the New Avengers section for joining as Ronin. I suppose those joining the West Coast team that had previously joined could just have a note stating that. On the other hand, after a period of probation (as best I could infer from the stories), the West Coast team operated seperately (but under the same corp.) from the East Coast team until Avengers 305 then from Avengers 326 (UN Charter) until disband. Additional, New Avengers and Mighty Avengers could be shifted to their articles or into seperate article (the "Mighty" team list might as well go on the Initiative list. Spshu (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all your points J Greb except for the first. Some members didn't join during big lineup shifts. Probably best to do a straight chronological listing, with members listed alphabeticatlly when they joined in the same issue. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Small point of clarification: "iteration" for me means when a team is disbanded and later reforms, not just a line up change. For example: the first iteration of the JLA lasted from The Brave and the Bold through to Aquaman dissolving the team in front of the UN. Lots of characters there, and a fair number of examples of characters having their "first appearance as a member" out of sync with when they apparently first joined (Carter Hall and Ander Fel come to mind). But the next iteration, "JLDetroit" would be treated as a separate list, with some characters - Aquaman, Martian Manhunter, and Ralph - getting a second listing. - J Greb (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum (edit conflict) After looking at the Demolition Man back and forth and the RfC at Talk:List of Avengers members I cannot stress strongly enough the need to keep as much of a real world perspective as possible. The list should be the characters the stories presented as the team. The debate there seems to be falling into debating off screen, never mentioned bits; assumptions about character motives; fine points about fictional documents; and the like. It reads like a fan dust-up rather than an attempt to write an entry for an encyclopedia. - J Greb (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with the above. The way the page is structured, unfortunately, lays rather a lot of emphasis on the "official" status, or lack of same, of the various individuals. I think you said elsewhere that you thought that such pages should be structured more clearly chronologically, with maybe, in this case, footnotes to indicate the "official" status of the member. If that's accurate, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing such a comment placed on that page. John Carter (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more out-out-universe if we just do a straight chronological list. At most split it by volume (you would most definitely have to include the "Heroes Reborn" lineup, since they were the stars of Avengers volume 2, regardless of the team's place in canon). WesleyDodds (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Going that route, I'd like to see a "Left team" column added. Some of the teams need that given turnover of characters. And, yeah, I know it creates issues with character like Pym who have had sporadic memberships during volume runs.

I'd also want the "straight chronological [order]" defined, otherwise the argument of "joined" and "appeared as a member" crops up. By way of example:

• Hawkman in the first JLA (for arguments sake from the first B&B story through the last issue of JLofA vol 1) as the team has been presented over time
  • Katar Hol was added to the team book with JLofA #31
  • Carter Hall was retconed to replace Katar explicitly in JLA: Incarnations #1, though IIRC it was suggested in-story in an issue of Hawkworld vol. 2.
  • Fel Andar, a character introed in 1992, was retconned to replace Katar in appearances in Justice League America and Invasion (1988 and 1989).

Which way does the chronological order work? To me, a strictly OOU stance would be that Katar should be listed where JLofA #31 falls, and if it is treated as a separate team, Justice League America #19. And then Cater and Fel are at the end of the list, Fel first (Hawkworld vol 2 - 1992) then Carter (JLA: Incarnations #1 - 2001). All three entries would have notes to the retcons applied by DC. - J Greb (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Chronological order would be used based on the issue cover dates. Notes can be inserted for retcons. In the case of Hawkman, we'd probably have to say "Fel Andar was a retcon character to replace Katar Hol in the the team. He first appeared as a member of the team in [name issue where character is explicitly called Fel Andar and is placed as a member of the team]." Also indicate that Carter Hall was retconned in to replace Katar Hol, but we probably don't have to list Carter Hall as a separate member, since he is intended to canonically take the place of another (largely in flashbacks). In short, just list Hawkman and explain the whole mess in a footnote. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Avengers are fictious to begin with, J Greb, and I am citing "on panel" events as what I have read the Avengers during the existance of the by-laws in Annual 11 mostly match said by-laws. Spshu (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether I should semi-protect the page from anons. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Another unregister IP editor has been made the same edit to the list of Avengers' Members regarding D-Man. I have undone the edits, so I agree with semi-protect (as I did on the article's talk page). Spshu (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurt Busiek has evidently stated in a later interview that D-Man is an officially listed member. Would that be sufficient for his name to be included as an "official" member or not? Unfortunately, Busiek is not himself the writer of the story in question, nor does he explicitly state in the quotations that he is basing that statement on any sort of internal Marvel documents. The IP seems to be indicating that Busiek and, possibly, Tom Brevoort might in the near future make a statement in private e-mail correspondence. Please see here. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The email although is going to one of the sides in the discussion and is text and can be edited before being passed on and thus is unverifiable. Second, an email from address can be spoofed, ie. list as being from some one when it is not. Spshu (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That's one of the reasons why I indicated it might not be verifiable, and that we would want to be able to verify the input. However, I'm not sure if a statement posted by Brevoort on Marvel's message boards would face the same questions of authorship, if that could be arranged. Any other opinions out there? John Carter (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Demolition Man Article

Slamburger & 74.69.248.48 are editing Demolition Man's article with out waiting for the discussion at the List of Avengers members is done. I would think that it would be good to put some sort of protection on that article too. Spshu (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI but I started the comics section at Lovecraftian horror#Comics, there is also this category: Category:Cthulhu Mythos comics. (Emperor (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

Since there is only 9 workgroups altogether in this project, I thought it might provide some larger activity if they would be listed on the main page for this wikiproject. Now they are pretty much hidden away. Maybe the Workgroups page could be embedded just the same as the Outstanding content page is. If the embedding is not recommended, than maybe we could just manually list those 9 workgroups, leaving out the other info found on Workgroups --Zoli79 (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

They are listed - there is a common sidebar template with workgroups in it: {{WPCMC}}. It is on the right. (Emperor (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

You still have to click on the "show" button, which of course is not a big job. But besides that, I don't know how it is with others, but I usually skip reading these small lettered sidebars if I read a page, since in most cases I'll find the same information in dept on page/article itself. I think the workgroups would deserve the attention of being listed down in the main page, since it regards the basic hierarchy of the project itself. According to http://stats.grok.se/en/200802/ in February WikiProject Comics was visited 1976 times, and the workgroups subpage only 40 times. But maybe I'm wrong and that tiny sidebar is far enough. --Zoli79 (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've created two lists at User:Fram/Comics list, one with the most viewed comics related articles between 1 and 23 february 2008, and one with the number of views the other top importance articles reveived during the full month, based on the data from [19]. I made these lists by hand, so there may be errors in them.

A few conclusions: this list is seriously influenced by current events (new movies and so on), and articles about movies, games, TV series based on comics are an important part of the list (I've even added a FA and a few GA's to our project, woohoo!). Otherwise, there is often a clear link between importance and popularity, although e.g. Turok may need to be rated a bit higher than it currently is. And there are a few "top importance" articles which we may have to reconsider (e.g. the WCCA). Fram (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that's pretty cool! Nice work. BOZ (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The article Doctor Doom is currently a Good Article nominee. Any editors are encouraged to offer improvements to help the article to meet GA criteria. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Fleishersuperman.jpg, along with several other similar images, is currently being considered for deletion in the Commons here. All editors, particuarly those knowledgable about the subject, are encouraged to comment. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

None of those voting "keep" understand the law. Please see my comment at the bottom of that discussion. Also, this issue was previously discussed at Talk:Superman. Postdlf (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have personally contacted two editors who are practicing attorneys in the US to weigh in on the matter. I hope they shall respond presently. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am one myself. Postdlf (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt that. Neither of the others is a member of this project, though, so I doubt they'll see anything here. But at least this way we should have a few more at least somewhat informed opinions on the matter. John Carter (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone from this WikiProject come up with reliable sources for this section? I have no idea how to get these verified. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of really is to either have access to just about every comic book the Hulk has ever been in or to at least go to a site that has a detailed synopsis on just about every comic book the Hulk's ever been on. I think that www.hulklibrary.com is such a site. Now the only downside is just how time consuming looking over all those hundreds upon hundreds of issue synopses.Odin's Beard (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. Any other ideas? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A new editor is adding a bunch of POV and OR to the Mar-Vell article - please help me keep an eye on that.BOZ (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As well as Captain Marvel (Marvel Comics). Same stuff, and real telling bit is the call for letters of support to be sent to Marvel, giving Wacker's address. - J Greb (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It'd be worth dropping them a note to head them off at the pass before this goes round again. (Emperor (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

I have created a subcategory for Category:Stock characters by characteristics called Category:Fictional elderly martial arts master. I'm sure there are some people on here that know of some articles that can fit into this category.

I forget his name, but wonder womans elderly blind master comes to mind. Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not Category:Fictional elderly martial arts masters? I think these [categories] usually end in plural. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I forgot the "s". Is there anyway to change it without creating a totally new page? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, request a speedy rename here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. The category that needs articles is Category:Fictional elderly martial arts masters. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Great. I'm assuming Genkai is one? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Add her to the list. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of this page and enjoy the teacher/school format; however, I've had underlying concnerns for a while that I couldn't quite identify until recently. My concern is that the school/teacher format is rooted primarly in original research, good and thorough orginal research, but original research nonetheless (I don't believe there are any qualifiable sources that would list the school/teacher in this fashion). I'm trying to brainstorm ways to resolve this and the best that I could think of at this point is a deletion and listify to List DC Comics martial artists, which may resolve some of the source issues, but I am looking for any other suggestions. Suggestions/comments are appreciate Talk:DC Comics martial artists. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC).

Would there happen to be a better title than that? Perhaps List of martial artists in DC Comics? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a better title, what is your opinion of the overall concept? -66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC).

I'm afraid I don't understand. You mean how to obtain sources? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Any addition input as fara as does this appear to be a plausable solution to the article sourcing/formatting difficulty, or would the article be better served as is (with a possible rewrite)? I'm aprehensive as it seems a lot of work has gone into the article, if you were aware of any available sources that would fit into the current context of the article that would be great; however, again I'm speculative and would sooner listify. _66.109.248.114 (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC).

Better yet, is there an article it can be merged to? I don't see any hope for it on its own. If someone is going to {{rewrite}} then that would be the next best option. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

there are currently about 200 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. Based on a database snapshot of March 12, I have listed them here.

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have further questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have probably tagged a good proportion of them. From the ones I've tagged these tend to fall into two main camps:

• Potentially notable comics that need further work to demonstrate this - examples include independent self-published work by big names or just older titles, as we are clearly skewed to the more recent entries for which we tend to have proportionally more information.
• Comics which are clearly very small scale operations with very low circulations.

Obviously there is a big fat grey area with the small publishers but the information is out there for those that are notable. I've been keeping an eye out for information on these publishers and had quite a bit of success with Archaia Studios Press but this may be down to how active people's PR department (wife/cousin?) as I find less on bigger names like Oni Press. I notice some of the smaller companies have been deleted like Orang Utan Comics [20] and others are hanging on by the skin of their teeth (like Ape Entertainment - I have found some interviews with creators and it should be OK but it does show the general bottom line.

The ironic thing is that there are a lot of smaller titles we do need - Matz's The Killer has just been optioned for a film by some big names and not only is there not an entry for The Killer but there wasn't one for Matz either (I started it). We can get a lot of people enthusiastic for the minutiae of big name characters but the smaller titles tend to depend on an individual to sort it out. What this means is someone who makes their own comic with their friend gets on here and starts an entry that will be deleted while those titles that do need creating or their notability nailing down do tend to go by the wayside.

What I'll do is go through that list and those that look like vanity entries we can put up for deletion and those that really just need more work. I'll put up a couple of lists here and see what people think. (Emperor (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

OK started two sections based on May-June 2007 - feel free to add to more, throw in comments or shuffle things around. As we get through these I'll update with more recent ones. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

Can do better

• The Ganzfeld - surely one we can show notability for considering the big names (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

• Cast (comic) - I don't know much about comics form the Philippines but that looks close to being proven notable. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

• Genus (comic book) - should be fixable. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

• Carole Curtis - same as the above - might be something the Furry Project can sort out. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

• Filibuster Cartoons - a webcomic also published in a paper should be notable but it does seem a little thin. This seems to be in the grey area. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

• Richard Horie - no reason for this not to be notable. I'll sort that out when I'm done here. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

• Wizard Fan Awards - must be notable, proving it could be tricky. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

• Marcelo Frusin - again, no reason this shouldn't be and I'll sort it out. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

• Simpsons Super Spectacular - probably provable as long as it had a long enough run. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

Questionable

• Maniacal Smile one I tagged (in fact that tags were removed once) and even the sources are poor - the Comic Book Resources is not only a forum post but it is a forum post about an interview elsewhere [21]. PROD it. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

• Colonel Doberman - probably should just be merged or switched to a redirect. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

• Future Comics - merge to Bob Layton? (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

• Sinkha - delete but with no prejudice on restarting - there seems to be more information on the talk page but nothing to help with notability. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

• Pull list - I have wondered about making a "comics terminology" entry and this would be a prime candidate to be merged in. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

• Wrong Number (comics) - a tricky one as it doesn't seem to fit anywhere else. Either delete it or merge it onto the end of The Matrix Comics. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

• Charlie "Big Time" Bigelow - tricky one. Probably (given other discussion about the notability of characters) this should be merged to some kind of "list of characters" article. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

• Pawan Comics - nothing there really - could be notable but not today. PROD with no prejudice on recreation if someone can be bothered actually writing more than a sentence. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

• Marry Me (comic) - one I've been round the block a time or two with, having to add the notability tags back in and had a long discussion on the talk page which resulted in... not very much. I've given this a lot of time and it hasn't proven notability. AfD it and see what happens. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

If an article about a comic (well, actually a graphic novel), has a fair use cover image, what should be used: The cover of the language version that the comic was originally drawn/written in (in this case not English) or the English version? Any policies on this? Ingolfson (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There's not a guideline per se, though it is better to use a cover as published when the article focuses on the series or graphic novel. Looking at the articles using {{Graphicnovelbox}}, it looks like the preference is the English language cover, if and English edition has been published. - J Greb (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

A few minutes ago I was thinking about the same thing! I guess the original is better in the comic box in the upper right corner, but in the English translation section some images could be used of those covers. --Zoli79 (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose a general rule of thumb would be the most useful/iconic image for the entry - I know we have gone over this numerous times with superhero infoboxes when people try and add the very latest costume designs and I think most people would like stability in the image used. In this case I'd suspect it'd be the original publication but it might be that a re-release or translation is the one that took this to prominence (something I'd suspect would be more typical for books). So basically I'd recommend going with the original and if people want to change it then drop a note in on the talkpage and/or here (as they can be less well travelled) and we can kick it around. I'd probably recommend adding the English cover as a part of a section on translations or publications that mention the translations - that way everyone wins. (Emperor (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

Is The Enabler a hoax article? If so, the image on this page has made it on to numerous other comics pages. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, it was. ;) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am presently the editor chiefly concerned with the Anarky article, and have recently nominated it as a Featured Artitle candidate. During the process, a number of editors have raised concerns regarding the websites I've used as sources. Specifically, comic book related websites, such as 2000 AD Review, Comics Bulletin, Newsarama, and Comicon, among others. Most of the editors have admitted that they know little of comic books, or of the industry, and so are unfamiliar with these websites and any reputation of reliability they might have. I've attempted to provide owner/publisher/staff information for each website whenever possible, but these have still not entirely satisfied these editors. How has WikiProject Comics addressed this issue in the past? Are there precedents which are followed? Have I fulfilled my obligations to display the reliability of these websites? Are the editor's concerns unfounded, or are these websites genuinely dubious?--Cast (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what we mean by reliable source and for what purposes. We have kicked this around before but it is always worth an airing.

What I use those sites for (as I see you do) is for things like interviews, previews and reviews. : :* Previews are fairly obvious and all the big comic sites have good industry contacts

• Reviews are fine as a number of those (Newsarama, Comic Book Resources, Comics Bulletin) are notable so their opinions count for something (and if you check out them you'll find they come with recommendations - CBR has made a couple of lists of good quality Web resources for comic books and has a shelf full of awards (the big three comics sites have all got Eagle Awards which is the biggest British comic award and one of the few to give prizes for online resources) - all of which shows the sites are recognised as being good resources for the topic and highly regard from within the comic community. Equally the contributors often write reviews and interviews for print magazines (I know some of the people who have done things for 2000 AD Review and they also have real world credentials).
• Interviews should be straightforward too as long as we know that the interview is actually real. There is no question of those listed fabricating interviews as they are too big to get away with it and even a hint of anything shady would cut their legs out from under them. It should be a cause fro concern if an obscure site or blog posts an interview but if they are on those sites then you can be confident that is what they said.

So for those purposes you can consider them reliable in that what they produce is accurate and in a lot of cases their opinions/reviews are worthy of mention.

Where they fall down is on the journalism side. As I mention the big comics sites have close links with the industry and the level of in-depth investigations seems limited. This is most notably shown on the Newsarama#Criticism, although the Comics Journal investigation [22] pretty much counts for all of them.

The ironic thing about that is that columns like Rich Johnston's, which comes off the best in that report, should be treated with caution as they are often based on rumour. So while Comic Book Resources would be a reasonable source for, say, an interview you should be very careful about including things based on Lying in the Gutters (which is a pity as he does often turn out to be right - but he does have to give a traffic light reliability scale for his stories), which goes doubly so if it concerns WP:BLP, especially when online spats get undue prominence (there has been a bit of trouble over the Steve Niles article - see the talk page where the sue of LitG and Comicon came up, User talk:64.169.99.74, being Steve Niles himself).

Hope that helps explain things- at least my take on the matter. (Emperor (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

Oh and on a sidenote Judge Dredd Megazine have just finished a 3 part interview with Alan Grant by David Bishop but I only got the last one, which is past the Anarky period. It might be worth your while tracking it down. Although again people could raise concerns over its neutrality (an interview by an ex-editor, in the publications magazine - then again he pulls no punches and Bishop doesn't in his book on 2000 AD either) but in the en with every interview you are having to work with one person's opinions about something (as long as the source is reliable enough that you know the interview is a fair representation of what has been said - as it is in these cases) and it is up to us to try and find other views on the subject (although that can be tricky if the other side isn't talking). So this is always going to be trick ;) (Emperor (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

I reverted some of his edits, but the user Gijimu has been editing a lot of articles and adding false information about a team called X-Strike. --DrBat (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The article on Anarky is up for featured article status. It would be appreciated if editors could drop in and comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anarky. Hiding T 18:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

John Strangeness has been trying to upload an image of Brendan McCarthy but it keeps getting deleted. He says Brendan has given him permission but I'm unsure that is good enough to meet the requirements for a photo of a person. Is there anyway to sort this out short of getting Brendan McCarthy to upload their photo (or finding someone who has taken a similar photo)? (Emperor (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

IIUC, for living writers/artists, with very few exceptions, only a free use image can be used. The test seems to be that the person taking the photo has to be the one to upload it and attach the "I release all copyrights on this image" type license. (note: Given the current debate with the Flescher studio Superman cells, I'm not sure how much water such a release holds if the photo includes a costume based on a copyrighted character...)

Best case would be if there is a verifiably free image Strangeness can re-post or if he is actually in a position to take such a picture. McCarthy doing the upload may fly, but I'm not 100% positive about how that interacts with "conflict of interest" guidelines.

You may also want to post at the Bio project to get their input. - J Greb (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression the best case scenario is the person themselves who uploads the image (it is one I encourage any of them who edits Wikipedia to do). There are also laws in some countries about making images of people freely available without their permission, which adds another level of hassle to proceedings. (Emperor (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

After some poking around, it looks like you're right, self-uploaded pictures don't conflict with BLP. It may even be that they work better since there are cases where the subject of an article has asked for unfaltering 'box images to be replaced with an image they provide. - J Greb (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to deprecate our exemplars, since they are out of step with current guidance on Wikipedia, conflicting especially with WP:WAF. I have started drafting an update at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance, which I would appreciate comments on, thoughts and input on. I think this should become the new standard for writing on comics for Wikipedia. It may also be possible to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines into the new page, as well. Hiding T 11:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone used Wowio as a reference for 23 Enigma and I wasn't sure if this was OK. They seem legit and are being used by a number of comics companies to distribute things electronically (if you search Wikipedia for Wowio you'll find it popping up in other comic entries) but the comic mentioned there seems to be on Wowio because it is out of copyright in the US. Of course, this means they restrict who can sign up and coming from outside the US that means I'm not allowed in and the other editor I was discussing this with was reluctant because it asks for credit card details.

So as this has turned up on half a dozen articles I thought it worth asking about it. Anyone know more? (Emperor (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

Wowio hosts legitimate copies of primary source material. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In the past, I've understood that the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe was discouraged as a source. I wanted to take an opportunity to re-examine this. As pages are becoming better at separating the publicatin history from the fictional character biography, the Handbooks could be utilized a source material to derive/contrast information for those in-fictional description, which also could include powers (although I would discourage using in-fictional strength/powers classifications, i.e. strength class 100). To me it seems we are wasting viable resources, that we could use do describe the strictly fictional events, occurances or aspects of these universes. I wonder also if characters included in these books possible points to some level of in-universe importance or notabilty. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC).

• We need to move away from fictional character biographies per WP:WAF at some point, so I don;t really see any need to treat the OHOTMU or Who's Who differently to any other source. We can't copy the stats since we breach copyright, the same for the images. All we are left with is noting how they describe the fictional character or element. Hiding T 11:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The description may be helpful in keeping the expanding bio brief; but what is opinion as the characters that are included in these books as pointing to their notabilty? -66.109.248.114 (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC).
    • I have absolutely no idea what notability means anymore. I would suggest we avoid talking about notability and simply make the articles the best we can, and if and when deletion becomes an issue start hammering the WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NOT and WP:EP policies as policy, and make the point that policy trumps guidance. If the articles comply with the four major policies, the editing policy states we should retain the information. Not everyone agrees, but if you hammer them hard enough you might persuade enough people you're building an encyclopedia and that's the point, so at worst WP:IAR. Although if you have to resort to that, you've probably lost the argument. Hiding T 21:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

While I can appreciate Hidings stance on this, I'd be leery of using WW or OHOTMU to support anything along the lines of "important", "significant", "valued", or whatever. A lot of the characters placed into those reference works hadn't been seen in years, or decades, and similarly faded not to be seen for years or decades, if ever, after. At best these are good for filling in holes in FCBs, and even that should be done rarely. - J Greb (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Those books probably shouldn't be given any more weight than an individual comic book issue. Without real-world context, the OHOTMU and Who's Who entries are just abridged stories written in faux-encyclopedic style. It's not always clear what elements have been invented just for those books to fill in gaps, in which case they have no narrative significance, and the elements that summarize previously published stories of course just follow the latest retcon rather than acknowledging the patchwork nature of fictional constructs. So they really don't provide much, if anything, in the way of useful, real-world encyclopedic information. Postdlf (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to "not used in years," this was a concern of mine a well, but I thought notabilty did not necessarily need to be notable currently, just established notabilty at some time period. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC).